By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Drawing on his experience as a Capitol Police officer injured on January 6, 2021, Harry Dunn has launched a campaign for an open U.S. House seat in Maryland, vowing to dismantle Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Dunn directly links the aggression he witnessed from immigration agents to that of the January 6th mob, citing federal immigration actions as “terrorizing people more than serving.” His campaign emphasizes a need for a “first responder” in Congress, arguing that current leadership is enabling harmful practices, particularly within the immigration system, which he contends is targeting non-criminals rather than those who pose a threat. Dunn is prepared to return to Washington with legislative power to challenge what he describes as ongoing falsehoods and misrepresentations of critical events.
Read the original article here
It’s fascinating to see how individuals who experienced pivotal moments in our nation’s recent history are now stepping into the political arena. Take the case of someone who was on the front lines defending the Capitol on January 6th, and is now campaigning for a seat in Congress. What’s particularly striking is their willingness to draw parallels between the very individuals who breached the Capitol and those within the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. This isn’t a subtle comparison; it’s a direct challenge to the status quo and a bold statement about perceived hypocrisy.
The assertion that those involved in the January 6th events and certain ICE personnel are, in essence, the same people, is a provocative one. It suggests a deep-seated belief that the underlying motivations and behaviors, characterized by aggression and a disregard for established norms, are indistinguishable. For someone who stood against the Capitol rioters, to then apply the same critical lens to a federal agency like ICE indicates a commitment to holding power accountable, regardless of the institution. It’s about scrutinizing actions and their implications, not just affiliations.
This comparison becomes even more potent when considering the idea that some individuals with ties to extremist groups might have found their way into positions within ICE. The implication is that pardons or other clemency measures might have facilitated a transition for some of these individuals, creating a concerning overlap between those who sought to disrupt democratic processes and those tasked with enforcing immigration laws. The notion that figures like Enrique Tarrio, formerly of the Proud Boys, might be linked to ICE recruits, especially after meeting with him following his release, paints a concerning picture for those who value the integrity of law enforcement agencies.
The public discourse surrounding this candidate is rich with varied reactions, but a recurring theme is the appreciation for someone who seems to operate outside of simple partisan lines. The argument is that by calling out perceived injustices within ICE, this individual, having already defended the Capitol, demonstrates a commitment to principle over political expediency. This stance resonates with those who feel that many politicians are unwilling to address uncomfortable truths, choosing instead to play it safe or adhere to party dogma.
Furthermore, the idea that the individuals involved in the January 6th riot might constitute a significant portion of ICE personnel is a powerful statement about perceived systemic issues. It frames the agency not just as an entity with flawed policies, but as potentially infiltrated by individuals who share the same “violent goons” mentality, acting with impunity against those who voice dissent. This perspective suggests a fundamental equivalence between the two groups, portraying them as equally capable of acting against individuals who oppose the prevailing leadership, and free from genuine accountability.
The emergence of former law enforcement officers, like Harry Dunn, into the political fray is seen by many as a positive development. For those who witnessed the events of January 6th firsthand, a candidate who not only defended the Capitol but also advocates for accountability within institutions like ICE offers a compelling narrative. This perspective suggests that such individuals are precisely what is needed in politics – fighters who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up for their beliefs, pushing back against what some see as an increasingly lawless political landscape.
The sentiment that this candidate is “salt of the American soil” and that “more heroes like him are needed” reflects a desire for authenticity and courage in leadership. In a political climate often characterized by perceived posturing and a lack of genuine conviction, a figure who has demonstrably put themselves on the line, first physically and now politically, can be seen as a beacon of integrity. This is a person, in the eyes of their supporters, who is not just talking the talk but actively walking the walk, embodying a commitment to action and principle.
The observation that the same individuals who once championed “law and order” are now sometimes found on the other side of the law, or within agencies conducting raids with questionable accountability, highlights a perceived shift in political identity. The argument here is that the “law and order” slogan has become a convenient tool, applied selectively. For a former officer who is critical of certain governmental actions, this perspective suggests that Democrats, perhaps surprisingly to some, are increasingly becoming the party that prioritizes restoring a sense of order and accountability.
The comparison of ICE to rioters also taps into a broader critique of authority and the potential for abuse. The idea that federal officials might wear masks, even when not directly involved in crowd control, can fuel suspicion and contribute to a narrative of unchecked power. When coupled with the perceived overlap between those who stormed the Capitol and those in enforcement roles, it creates a potent image of an autocratic government, where citizens are expected to comply without question, even from those who themselves have engaged in or supported disruptive actions.
Ultimately, the narrative around this candidate who defended the Capitol and now compares ICE to rioters is one of seeking accountability and challenging perceived hypocrisy. It’s about a figure who, having experienced a seismic event, refuses to shy away from making bold comparisons and demanding scrutiny of powerful institutions. Their political aspirations, rooted in this experience, represent a desire to bring a particular brand of fighter and a deep-seated sense of justice to the halls of Congress.