Battle of Los Angeles: Anti-ICE Leftists Go Berserk Against Federal Agents, Storm DHS Facility

GoldenBoy89 · Jun 7, 2025

Always in His Presence said:

Super rich coming from the president with more felonies to his name than most of the people arrested today.

RDKirk · Jun 7, 2025

DaisyDay said:
In the places where civil disobedience made tremendous change, such as British India and the Jim Crow South, they didn't expect the courts to rule in their favor but for the laws to be changed from pressure from the public.

Well, I was there in the Jim Crow south, and yes, the expectation was for the courts to rule in our favor--even if that turned out to be the Supreme Court.

We never, ever expected the white Jim Crow public in the south to change the laws themselves. And generally, they didn't. Even when the courts invalidated those laws, they kept the invalidated Jim Crow laws on the books instead of repealing them because, and I quote from one Oklahoma legislator: "To avoid sending an unwanted message to our voters."

loveofourlord · Jun 7, 2025

trump reminds me of that simpsons quote.

"is it possible that people might support my imigration policies and deportations if they were not so ilegal, heavy handed and blatant disregard for preventing civil unrest, where every arrest now looks like a warzone? No no, it must be the americans standing against this tyrany that are wrong."

Always in His Presence · Jun 8, 2025

Always in His Presence · Jun 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
Well, I was there in the Jim Crow south, and yes, the expectation was for the courts to rule in our favor--even if that turned out to be the Supreme Court.

Wow! That would make you in your mid to late 80’s.

RDKirk · Jun 8, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Wow! That would make you in your mid to late 80’s.

LOL, my sweet summer child.

The last time I had to sit in segregated movie seating was July 20, 1969. That same year, despite our marches for the city to obey the Civil Rights Act and desegregate the municipal swimming pool, instead the city sold the site to a developer who closed the pool entirely, filled in the hole, and built a strip mall on it.

It took twenty years to demolish even the legalities of Jim Crow.

Edit: It was 1967 before I attended an integrated school. I was a teenager before I even so much as met a white child. I'd never been on the same playground as a white child.segregation was that absolute even in my lifetime.

RDKirk · Jun 8, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
The legality of what is being protested (whether the ICE detention push or lunch counter segregation) will not be settled by the cases brought against those charged during protests.

Again, you don't understand how civil disobedience works.

For instance, take the Rosa Parks incident, which is the classic example. Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to relinquish her seat in the black section of the bus to a white man when the white section became filled.

It happened rather frequently that the white sections filled and blacks were required to stand to allow white passengers to sit in the black section. This wasn't even the first time a black woman had been arrested for refusing to stand; it's been noted that Claudette Colvin was arrested in a similar situation nine months before Rosa Parks.

The difference: Colvin was arrested, charged, and convicted for criminal assault...not for breaking the segregation law. So, that was a different law being played out in the courtroom in her case, and the reason the NAACP did not act in that case.

But because this incident happened frequently, the NAACP had actually planned for it. Rosa Parks and others had been specifically trained in how to respond when it happened to them. They were trained in how to respond so that the only charge against them could be the segregation law itself, to make sure the segregation law and only the segregation law would come before the court.

The law you want to invalidate is the law you break...very specifically.

BCP1928 · Jun 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
Again, you don't understand how civil disobedience works.

For instance, take the Rosa Parks incident, which is the classic example. Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to relinquish her seat in the black section of the bus to a white man when the white section became filled.

It happened rather frequently that the white sections filled and blacks were required to stand to allow white passengers to sit in the black section. This wasn't even the first time a black woman had been arrested for refusing to stand; it's been noted that Claudette Colvin was arrested in a similar situation nine months before Rosa Parks.

The difference: Colvin was arrested, charged, and convicted for criminal assault...not for breaking the segregation law. So, that was a different law being played out in the courtroom in her case, and the reason the NAACP did not act in that case.

But because this incident happened frequently, the NAACP had actually planned for it. Rosa Parks and others had been specifically trained in how to respond when it happened to them. They were trained in how to respond so that the only charge against them could be the segregation law itself, to make sure the segregation law and only the segregation law would come before the court.

The law you want to invalidate is the law you break...very specifically.

Great post! But you're a military man, and now that the Guard is going to take over the job of protecting ICE from local LEOs, what would it take for them to fire on unarmed civilians? Would they actually do it?

You are right about civil disobedience. The best response would be to form a large crowd at these raids each time and engage in peaceful protest--orderly, relatively quite, just watching (and filming). It takes a lot of discipline to do that, it's so easy to get angry and start throwing things and setting fires. But Ghandi knew and King knew and you know that it's that discipline which really scares the Right more than any riot.

Always in His Presence · Jun 8, 2025

BPPLEE · Jun 8, 2025

JosephZ said:
Exactly. When the government acts against the interests of the people or abuses its power, the people are justified in resisting.

They didn't act that way when Obama was the deporter in chief.
Trump still can't match his numbers

JosephZ · Jun 8, 2025

BPPLEE said:
They didn't act that way when Obama was the deporter in chief.
Trump still can't match his numbers

President Obama took a more discrete and humane approach.

Obama ended the large-scale arrests of immigrants at their workplaces, prioritizing instead the prosecutions of employers who hired unauthorized workers. But some immigrants were still arrested when agents showed up to workplaces to execute search warrant against employers.

In April 2009, about three months into Obama’s first term, ICE announced a new focus on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hired workers illegally in the country. Arresting and removing workers alone was insufficient, an ICE memo said, and focusing on employers would target the root causes of illegal immigration. The agency also said it would continue to arrest and deport unauthorized workers encountered during operations.

Instead of conducting massive raids at worksites, ICE under Obama focused on audits of employers’ I-9 forms to determine if they complied with immigration law. ICE followed-up some cases with onsite law enforcement.

Media reports in 2010 and 2011 said the ICE audits became known as "silent raids," often leading to employees being fired once their employers were notified by ICE of irregularities on the I-9 forms. (ICE gives employers time to correct any errors on the forms.)

Government data on worksite enforcement operations shows that the number of individuals arrested on immigration law violation charges declined after Obama took office.

Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything

Obama prioritized deporting people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals who had no criminal records.

“If you’re not targeting and focused on people who recently arrived, then the border is effectively open,” Muñoz said, adding: “It is more humane to be removing people who have been here two weeks than it is to be removing people who have been here for 20 years and have families.”

Trump, by contrast, she said, has rejected the policy of focusing on new arrivals and criminals and instead wants to deport as many people as possible.

Obama used executive action to temporarily give protected status to undocumented people who arrived in the US as children, and curbed deportations from the interior states of the country. His focus, particularly toward the end of his administration, was on quick “returns” of new arrivals at the border who were perceived to have had fewer ties in the US – though that, controversially, included the same types of Central American migrants whose arrival has swamped the border this year.

The libertarian Cato Institute crunched the data and demonstrated that deportations from the interior of the country – meaning away from the border, so, people who have likely been in the country longer – were on the downswing during most of the Obama administration.

GoldenBoy89 · Jun 8, 2025

BCP1928 · Jun 8, 2025

What we are witnessing here is a revival of the concept of "outlawry." That pizza guy broke a particular law--he came across the line undocumented-- he is therefore a criminal so depraved that no violence can be thought to be beyond him and no care need be taken of his civil rights. That's why ICE has to approach every potential illegal alien like a SWAT time. Once a person has committed that awful crime he can be assumed not to shrink from violent felonies. He is a CRIMINAL and ICE has to act out that ideology.

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
Again, you don't understand how civil disobedience works.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

RDKirk said:
For instance, take the Rosa Parks incident, which is the classic example. Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to relinquish her seat in the black section of the bus to a white man when the white section became filled.

It happened rather frequently that the white sections filled and blacks were required to stand to allow white passengers to sit in the black section. This wasn't even the first time a black woman had been arrested for refusing to stand; it's been noted that Claudette Colvin was arrested in a similar situation nine months before Rosa Parks.

The difference: Colvin was arrested, charged, and convicted for criminal assault...not for breaking the segregation law. So, that was a different law being played out in the courtroom in her case, and the reason the NAACP did not act in that case.

But because this incident happened frequently, the NAACP had actually planned for it. Rosa Parks and others had been specifically trained in how to respond when it happened to them.

I am aware of all of this.

RDKirk said:
They were trained in how to respond so that the only charge against them could be the segregation law itself, to make sure the segregation law and only the segregation law would come before the court.

I was not specifically aware of that court ruling. There are so many of them.

RDKirk said:
The law you want to invalidate is the law you break...very specifically.

that is very narrow application of civil disobedience. I'm not aware of any attempts to overturn any of the immigration laws by violating them. (Given this court, I have doubts that it could work.) Civil disobedience is also a tactic on the protest and disrupt spectrum, as it seems to be used here.

RDKirk · Jun 8, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
that is very narrow application of civil disobedience. I'm not aware of any attempts to overturn any of the immigration laws by violating them. (Given this court, I have doubts that it could work.) Civil disobedience is also a tactic on the protest and disrupt spectrum, as it seems to be used here.

What is the track record for that tactic?

RDKirk · Jun 8, 2025

BCP1928 said:
It takes a lot of discipline to do that, it's so easy to get angry and start throwing things and setting fires. But Ghandi knew and King knew and you know that it's that discipline which really scares the Right more than any riot.

Paraphrasing something written back in the 1960s:

"They know how to respond to violent resistance. They expect it. They're prepared for it. They've trained for it. They don't know how to respond to peaceful resistance."

Nithavela · Jun 8, 2025

BPPLEE said:
They didn't act that way when Obama was the deporter in chief.
Trump still can't match his numbers

Just another testament to Trump's incompetence.

RDKirk · Jun 8, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Great post! But you're a military man, and now that the Guard is going to take over the job of protecting ICE from local LEOs, what would it take for them to fire on unarmed civilians? Would they actually do it?

I would expect the Guard to be less likely to fire on unarmed civilians than the local police. Remember that for local police, "civilians" are the threat they've trained to combat or, at the very least, completely control. For the Guard, civilians are the people they've trained not to combat, and they have all been explicitly trained against repeating the Kent State incident.

Nithavela · Jun 8, 2025

GoldenBoy89 said:
View attachment 366032

Hot take: If you're breaking the law yourself (by employing an illegal immigrant), law enforcement is probably less likely to look friendly.

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
What is the track record for that tactic?

I don't know. I am not a scholar of protest or civil disobedience in the US. Measuring the effectiveness of protests is difficult.

There is one case I know of where a law was intentionally violated to challenge the law in court: the 1925 violation of the Tennessee anti-evolution law by John Scopes at the behest of the ACLU.

Battle of Los Angeles: Anti-ICE Leftists Go Berserk Against Federal Agents, Storm DHS Facility

We're Still Here

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Hood was a loser.

Similar threads