• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Grinning anti-ICE agitator arrested after allegedly punching Florida trooper as DeSantis warns: ‘This is not Minneapolis’

Hans Blaster

Area Meathead
Mar 11, 2017
24,164
17,804
56
USA
✟458,777.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You only have to read someone their Miranda rights if you are going to question them and get a statement.
Plus if it was needed they could be re-Mirandized in the car or in an interrogation room.
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,377
8,084
62
Montgomery
✟287,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Plus if it was needed they could be re-Mirandized in the car or in an interrogation room.
When I was in patrol they wanted to avoid people being read their rights more than once because after they gave a statement they could go back and say they asked for a lawyer when the 1st officer read them their rights which would make their statements inadmissible.
It's better to get it on paper and get them to sign it
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You only have to read someone their Miranda rights if you are going to question them and get a statement.
I thought it was a case where if they wanted to be able to use anything that the person said against them in a court case that they would have need to have had their rights read to them
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,377
8,084
62
Montgomery
✟287,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I thought it was a case where if they wanted to be able to use anything that the person said against them in a court case that they would have need to have had their rights read to them
Anything they say (without being questioned) is admissible in court.
If the police are going to question them, then they have to read them their rights.
If they're not going to be questioned the police don't have to read them their rights.
Anything they say on their own volition is admissible in court
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So even though the people in those organizing groups are specifically using the phrase "compromise the reading of the Miranda rights"...
There protesters are not using that phrase.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Here is the evidence. They are picking up random people of color with guns drawn and demanding to see proof of citizenship. This is even happening to off-duty police officers from several jurisdictions, as reported by several chiefs of police:


These are not the actions of those whose priority is finding the worst of the worst. You don't the worst of the worst by detaining off-duty police officers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MarkSB
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There protesters are not using that phrase.
I'm not talking about the individual protestors on the streets using that phrase, I was referring to the talk I see in their little "planning committee" social media groups.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
7,499
5,658
New England
✟287,511.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's only required if they are in custody and being questioned.
If the police are not going to question them they don't have to read them their rights.
And if they are not in custody Miranda does not apply
That was kind of what I was trying to say with my OP. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
7,499
5,658
New England
✟287,511.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Plus if it was needed they could be re-Mirandized in the car or in an interrogation room.
In my experience, they didn’t want to double because the argument would me made that everything before the second Miranda was invalid and by repeating it, the officer acknowledged there was potential for the first one to not apply for whatever reason.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not talking about the individual protestors on the streets using that phrase, I was referring to the talk I see in their little "planning committee" social media groups.
Well, I don't care about what a little "planning committee" says on social media or in their little secret planning meetings. The only thing that matters is what is happening out there in the community and on the streets of our community. What we have is an unorganized grass-roots response by huge numbers of residents outraged at the atrocities we are witnessing by this destructive invasion of a poorly trained and unaccountable federal force of men with guns with no regard for the law or for human decency. Minnesota does not even have very many undocumented immigrants compared to other states closer to the Mexican border, but the number one reason that Minnesota has been chosen as a target of these attacks by federal officers is that Minnesota has made a successful welfare state that is beneficial for all, and therefore it must be destroyed. Trump even said it out loud. It is retribution. Trump is exacting retribution on Minnesota for not voting for him or supporting his vision for America.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What we have is an unorganized grass-roots response by huge numbers of residents outraged at the atrocities we are witnessing by this destructive invasion of a poorly trained and unaccountable federal force of men with guns with no regard for the law or for human decency.
I know when progressives try to put emphasis on the "it's not organized", they think they're rebutting the theories/conspiracies by conservatives that these efforts are perhaps being strategically orchestrated by "the eveeel George Soros types"

...but claiming "it's not organized" isn't the flex people think it is.

Perhaps a little organizing would do their cause some good (if they're actually serious about it, and not just using the events a means of bolstering their own radical bona fides)

People throwing bottles, blocking streets, breaking windows on polices cruisers in one part of town, while a few others pose for pictures with, what in some cases appears to be, airsoft rifles claiming "I'm going to protect my neighborhood from ICE", would indicate that they're in some desperate need of organizing and need to establish a leadership structure in order to steer the ship.

"I'm going to yell really loud and break stuff, and hopefully that'll make them go away" isn't much of a strategy.

Minnesota does not even have very many undocumented immigrants compared to other states closer to the Mexican border, but the number one reason that Minnesota has been chosen as a target of these attacks by federal officers is that Minnesota has made a successful welfare state that is beneficial for all
A) The feds are getting better cooperation from states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico

B) When looking at the metro area populations and considering it from a per capita basis, Minneapolis-St. Paul having 130,000 undocumented in a city with a total population of 3 million (about 4.3%) , that puts them on par with Chicago in terms of the rate, and not far behind Dallas (around 5.5% of their metro population)

C) Their "successful welfare state" is a catalyst, but not because of the reasons you think.

It's not a case where it's "Minnesota is a shining house on the hill that shows that the progressive economic way is the right way, and the more safety nets the better...so we gotta come down on them hard so other states don't follow suit"

If it was just about bullying a state with expansive social safety nets that's associated with progressivism in the public eye, they would've just started and ended their operation with California.

It's because MN has serious fraud issues happening in those programs (with estimates in the billions), and it happens to be heavily isolated to one community from which many are here on special status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
153,980
20,244
USA
✟2,147,980.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
ADVISOR HAT

1769106203747.png



A small clean up was done early in the thread.

Keep it civil folks, otherwise we will need to warn or ban.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps a little organizing would do their cause some good (if they're actually serious about it, and not just using the events a means of bolstering their own radical bona fides)

People throwing bottles, blocking streets, breaking windows on polices cruisers in one part of town, while a few others pose for pictures with, what in some cases appears to be, airsoft rifles claiming "I'm going to protect my neighborhood from ICE", would indicate that they're in some desperate need of organizing and need to establish a leadership structure in order to steer the ship.
To the extent that there is any organization associated with this community response it is message lists and social media groups that propose specific places and times for a pre-planned protest so that people can show up at the same time. (This is separate from the ad hoc community responses to specific ICE operations that prompt an immediate response.) The organizers of a planned protest have very little control over the conduct of the protest, except to strongly suggest that certain rules be followed. The ones I am personally aware of always took great pains to remind participants to be considerate of local business and to stay out of the way of traffic. They also advised us not to engage with any counter-demonstrators or argue with people. The purpose is to grow support from the community, not to threaten them. My personal experience has been that there have been no counter-demonstrators. There have been no police confrontations. On the contrary, the most common response we have gotten for our protests have been signs of approval from passing cars. When we were done, we left the place just as we found it. No trash. No damage. That's it. So those protests have taken your suggestion to heart and have provided what organization they could to avoid the worst aspects of protests gone wrong, though gentle suggestions.

There is no mechanism by which any group can force protestors to remain peaceful. Those in the movement with any significant public following have used what little influence the have to echo those same appeals for peace. For the most part those appeals have been followed. The incidents you allude to where these admonitions have not been followed have been greatly played up by right-wing media and the numbers of peaceful protestors have been downplayed, all to give the impression that it is just lawless chaos out there. Perhaps what you really want to see is organizers just try to call the whole thing off. That would not prevent those intent on violence from doing violence. That is the job for the police who actually do have the power to force compliance on violent protesters.


A) The feds are getting better cooperation from states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico
All the more reason to stay in those states that are cooperating smoothly and get many many more bodies. Also, it would be much easier on ICE who, ironically enough, are not very prepared for Minnesota ice (the frozen water kind). The low tonight is going to be -23 degrees F. I'm sure the ICE officers would be much more comfortable in Texas. They would have a warmer reception and warmer air.

B) When looking at the metro area populations and considering it from a per capita basis, Minneapolis-St. Paul having 130,000 undocumented in a city with a total population of 3 million (about 4.3%) , that puts them on par with Chicago in terms of the rate, and not far behind Dallas (around 5.5% of their metro population)
ICE is venturing many miles outside the Twin Cities metro area. Willmar, for instance, is 50 miles from Minneapolis, and Rochester is 73 miles. The 130,000 undocumented are no more concentrated in Minneapolis than the 1.7 million in Texas are concentrated in Houston.

C) Their "successful welfare state" is a catalyst, but not because of the reasons you think.

It's not a case where it's "Minnesota is a shining house on the hill that shows that the progressive economic way is the right way, and the more safety nets the better...so we gotta come down on them hard so other states don't follow suit"

If it was just about bullying a state with expansive social safety nets that's associated with progressivism in the public eye, they would've just started and ended their operation with California.
ICE did go the California first. But Trump also wanted to embarrass Tim Walz. There is no accounting for emotional immaturity in the one who cries "Retribution!"
It's because MN has serious fraud issues happening in those programs...
Trump did not want to see Minnesota succeed in prosecuting those fraud cases, which they were doing since 2022. Many have been convicted are more were in progress. Here is a useful summary of the timeline. That reported ended in Jan. 2025. But there is one very recent addition. Federal prosecutors who had been working on the fraud cases were told by the DOJ to investigate the partner of Renee Good so that it can be used, not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. So six federal prosecutors resigned. With them goes years of detailed experience with he Minnesota fraud cases. The cases they were working on may never come to trial. The fact the federal prosecutors actively working on the fraud cases were redirected to muck-racking shows that the administration would rather the fraud cases remain open so they can use it as a campaign argument against the leftists. And before you assign the blame to an immigrant community, remember that the ring-leader - the one who dreamed up the "Feeding our Future" fraud scheme in the firs place was a white woman by the name of Aimee Bock - a citizen and not an immigrant. The administration does not mention her because it runs contrary to the picture they want to paint.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The organizers of a planned protest have very little control over the conduct of the protest, except to strongly suggest that certain rules be followed. The ones I am personally aware of always took great pains to remind participants to be considerate of local business and to stay out of the way of traffic. They also advised us not to engage with any counter-demonstrators or argue with people. The purpose is to grow support from the community, not to threaten them.
There is no mechanism by which any group can force protestors to remain peaceful. Those in the movement with any significant public following have used what little influence the have to echo those same appeals for peace.

I don't know if that's necessarily true.

You look at some of the larger civil rights demonstrations and marches of yesteryear, they were very carefully coordinated, meticulously planned, and extremely peaceful (with virtually no violence or property damage to speak of coming from the protestors)

For instance, the '63 march on Washington or the Million Man March... Incredibly well-organized, very little confrontations, and not the multi-millions in property damage, etc...

...and those were prior to the internet being a "thing", so those were organized the old fashioned way.

One would think the enhanced technology would act make organizing better, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

The only guess I can venture as to why?...is perhaps that the temptation of immediacy with regards to the internet perhaps leads some people to some "ready-fire-aim" approaches. Whereas, the months of planning it took to organize those earlier protests afforded more time for cooler heads to prevail.

That, and the fact that the activists of yesteryear didn't have the same taboos around things like having leaders or hierarchies, whereas the younger progressives today seem to be sympathetic to the concept of a "leaderless movement" where everyone is considered 100% equal and everyone's voices and opinions should carry equal weight. (which in realistic terms, is just a lot of people talking at the same time, with no leadership to filter out the bad ideas)

The reality is, if you get 1000 people together, there will be a few people who are much smarter, more charismatic, and have much better organizational and strategic skills than the rest of the lot, and it would serve them well to make peace that reality and proceed accordingly.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know if that's necessarily true.

You look at some of the larger civil rights demonstrations and marches of yesteryear, they were very carefully coordinated, meticulously planned, and extremely peaceful (with virtually no violence or property damage to speak of coming from the protestors)

For instance, the '63 march on Washington or the Million Man March... Incredibly well-organized, very little confrontations, and not the multi-millions in property damage, etc...

...and those were prior to the internet being a "thing", so those were organized the old fashioned way.
As I said, the planned protests that have been going on in Minnesota ever since June 14th of last year ("No Kings day") have been similarly well-behaved. As ICE arrived those protests naturally became "ICE OUT" protests. (By the way, for Minnesotans, the term "ice out" has another meaning. It is the date in the spring by which the Department of Natural Resources, upon surveying the major lakes, determines for each lake that the winter ice is sufficiently melted and gone for safe navigation from one end of a lake to the other by boat. We are hoping that this year, ICE out will occur before "ice out" on Lake Minnetonka.)


One would think the enhanced technology would act make organizing better, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
The technology is not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is the fact that organizers do not have any way to force compliance. The only power they have is the power of persuasion for voluntary compliance. And that has not changed at all, regardless of the technological advances in communication.

That, and the fact that the activists of yesteryear didn't have the same taboos around things like having leaders or hierarchies, whereas the younger progressives today seem to be sympathetic to the concept of a "leaderless movement" where everyone is considered 100% equal and everyone's voices and opinions should carry equal weight. (which in realistic terms, is just a lot of people talking at the same time, with no leadership to filter out the bad ideas)
Before moving to Minnesota, I grew up in Michigan - Detroit to be specific. And at the time of the 1967 riots I was working as a sound engineer with the WJBK news crews in the field and saw first hand the leaderless self-destructive behavior that was almost identical to the unrest in Minneapolis after the murder of George Floyd. (Except that about 1000 buildings in Detroit were destroyed in Detroit were destroyed, as compared to 200 buildings and one police station burned in Minneapolis.) In both cases these were spontaneous and angry eruptions from a population that had felt years of injustice from the powers that be. And in both cases the victims of the riots were primarily the very communities where these rioters lived. Angry responses are often irrational like that. But there is no significant change in people's willingness to embrace a leader for their cause. What is missing is that leader, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. around whom such a movement can form. His presence inspired people even after he died. Other than that, things have not changed that much in how people view organization in general. (Purely as an aside, I cannot think of the word "organized" without thinking of my favorite line in the 2000 film "Chicken Run" where Mr. Tweedy says to his wife, "I told you they was organized!")
The reality is, if you get 1000 people together, there will be a few people who are much smarter, more charismatic, and have much better organizational and strategic skills than the rest of the lot, and it would serve them well to make peace that reality and proceed accordingly.
That assumes there is an opportunity to "get together". It also assumes that people are so desperate for a leader that they will place all their support behind whoever happens to be the least non-charismatic, even if that one is absolutely nothing like a Martin Luther King Jr.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Before moving to Minnesota, I grew up in Michigan - Detroit to be specific. And at the time of the 1967 riots I was working as a sound engineer with the WJBK news crews in the field and saw first hand the leaderless self-destructive behavior that was almost identical to the unrest in Minneapolis after the murder of George Floyd. (Except that about 1000 buildings in Detroit were destroyed in Detroit were destroyed, as compared to 200 buildings and one police station burned in Minneapolis.) In both cases these were spontaneous and angry eruptions from a population that had felt years of injustice from the powers that be. And in both cases the victims of the riots were primarily the very communities where these rioters lived. Angry responses are often irrational like that. But there is no significant change in people's willingness to embrace a leader for their cause. What is missing is that leader, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. around whom such a movement can form. His presence inspired people even after he died. Other than that, things have not changed that much in how people view organization in general. (Purely as an aside, I cannot think of the word "organized" without thinking of my favorite line in the 2000 film "Chicken Run" where Mr. Tweedy says to his wife, "I told you they was organized!")

There would be a noteworthy difference though...

The angry populations that erupted in the situation you're describing were the ones actually experiencing decades of injustice.

In the case of these protests MN and other places, it's almost exclusively middle to upper middle class white people who are "outraged by proxy" and the ones engaging in the disruptive behavior... and not over experiencing decades of injustice, but rather over a few months worth of policies they don't like, and one could argue that many of the things they're claiming to be angry about aren't actual injustices. (IE: someone else getting removed from a country they're not authorized to be in isn't actually an injustice in the pure legal sense)


....perhaps it's just the cynical side in me, but my bovine excrement detectors go off when I see a bunch of white millennials and gen-z'ers seeming to be more outraged about a perceived injustice than the supposed victims themselves.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There would be a noteworthy difference though...

The angry populations that erupted in the situation you're describing were the ones actually experiencing decades of injustice.

In the case of these protests MN and other places, it's almost exclusively middle to upper middle class white people who are "outraged by proxy" and the ones engaging in the disruptive behavior... and not over experiencing decades of injustice, but rather over a few months worth of policies they don't like, and one could argue that many of the things they're claiming to be angry about aren't actual injustices. (IE: someone else getting removed from a country they're not authorized to be in isn't actually an injustice in the pure legal sense)


....perhaps it's just the cynical side in me, but my bovine excrement detectors go off when I see a bunch of white millennials and gen-z'ers seeming to be more outraged about a perceived injustice than the supposed victims themselves.
When considering the totality of the early Civil Rights protesters, the difference in who is doing the protesting disappears. Large numbers of middle class whites joined the protests and marches in the 60's. There were many white abolitionists in the pre Civil War era. There are many instances in history of those who are not oppressed joining together with those who are to lend their voice in support. But there is another reason why these protests in Minnesota are happening beyond any altruism:

That reason is that the administration has totally misunderstood the social structure and relationships in Minnesota (and probably elsewhere, but I can only speak to what I know). These individuals who are being taken from our community are our neighbors that we know. The are the children our children know. They are the caretakers that our elderly in nursing homes know. We do not see these these people being removed as some seamy underbelly of the population that people fear. They are us. One member of our congregation who has been here for 35 years was taken. In social interactions, the possession of papers showing citizenship does not enter in. So when people who have fully assimilated into our society are taken away indiscriminately, we react protectively of our society that is being ripped apart. These actions are doing us no favors. By contrast, the presence of 3000 aggressive masked and armed agents with absolute immunity from local accountability seems much more like an invasion than the targets of their actions, who are also part of us.

If ICE were acting in a less obtrusive manner, and were only taking away truly fearsome criminals, there would be no protests at all. We do recognize the need for immigration enforcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Belk
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,377
8,084
62
Montgomery
✟287,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When considering the totality of the early Civil Rights protesters, the difference in who is doing the protesting disappears. Large numbers of middle class whites joined the protests and marches in the 60's. There were many white abolitionists in the pre Civil War era. There are many instances in history of those who are not oppressed joining together with those who are to lend their voice in support. But there is another reason why these protests in Minnesota are happening beyond any altruism:

That reason is that the administration has totally misunderstood the social structure and relationships in Minnesota (and probably elsewhere, but I can only speak to what I know). These individuals who are being taken from our community are our neighbors that we know. The are the children our children know. They are the caretakers that our elderly in nursing homes know. We do not see these these people being removed as some seamy underbelly of the population that people fear. They are us. One member of our congregation who has been here for 35 years was taken. In social interactions, the possession of papers showing citizenship does not enter in. So when people who have fully assimilated into our society are taken away indiscriminately, we react protectively of our society that is being ripped apart. These actions are doing us no favors. By contrast, the presence of 3000 aggressive masked and armed agents with absolute immunity from local accountability seems much more like an invasion than the targets of their actions, who are also part of us.

If ICE were acting in a less obtrusive manner, and were only taking away truly fearsome criminals, there would be no protests at all. We do recognize the need for immigration enforcement.
I understand what you are saying but coming here illegally is a crime.
It's kind of like with drugs there are people who smoke marijuana who work and are otherwise law abiding citizens. They are not the people I went after when I was a narcotics officer.
Sometimes they did stupid things and I had no choice but to arrest them.
I arrested a Pastor who sold us 10 pounds of marijuana.
So some states legalized marijuana.
I get the feeling that you would be in favor of giving amnesty to the people who are here illegally but have committed no other crimes.
But then that would encourage more people to come illegally and it's not fair to the people who went through all the trouble and came here legally.
There's just no simple solution to this problem
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,820
17,762
Here
✟1,571,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That reason is that the administration has totally misunderstood the social structure and relationships in Minnesota (and probably elsewhere, but I can only speak to what I know). These individuals who are being taken from our community are our neighbors that we know. The are the children our children know. They are the caretakers that our elderly in nursing homes know. We do not see these these people being removed as some seamy underbelly of the population that people fear. They are us. One member of our congregation who has been here for 35 years was taken. In social interactions, the possession of papers showing citizenship does not enter in. So when people who have fully assimilated into our society are taken away indiscriminately, we react protectively of our society that is being ripped apart. These actions are doing us no favors. By contrast, the presence of 3000 aggressive masked and armed agents with absolute immunity from local accountability seems much more like an invasion than the targets of their actions, who are also part of us.

But to some degree, wouldn't that be true of just about any federal law that's unpopular in a specific state or jurisdiction?

It's going to be perceived as an "invasion" of sorts, and any force used in enforcing a federal mandate (that a jurisdiction has been specifically declining to enforce) is going to feel like an overreach to people involved.

Practically speaking, would you see this as similar to the confrontation that happened between the feds and the Nevada ranchers back in 2014 (often referred to as the "Bundy Ranch Standoff")

As a refresher on the details and some similarities-

Running afoul of federal rules, and state and local authorities declining to enforce:
Nevada ranchers in the area had technically been violating federal rules about allowing their herds to graze on land that was designated as being owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and not doing it through the proper channels (which requires filling out paperwork, getting approved, and paying grazing fees). Local county Sheriffs had been declining to take any action because they were members of the community, and quite frankly, sympathized with the ranchers.

Ideological differences:
Much like some of the protestors in MN believe "there shouldn't be such a thing as an illegal immigrant", the ranchers believed "there shouldn't such a thing as federal grass that free range livestock can't freely eat" (despite the federal rules saying otherwise)

Appeal to "this is way we've done it for a long time"
The multi-generation ranchers had been doing that for quite some time, and had the attitude of "this is the way we've been doing it for decades, and nobody had been bothering us all that much before...just because there's a new batch of leadership in hundreds of miles away in DC, why should we have to change the way we've been doing things if people around here don't have a problem with it?" (and some of the same arguments were made that the ranchers were providing a service, the food people eat, and used that as an appeal for relaxing the rules)

Hostile response to eventual enforcement:
After decades of non-compliance, and the feds saying "Okay, we've been trying to get through to you since 1993, people in other areas don't like the fact that they're paying taxes towards programs to preserve and maintain federal lands and the ecology, and then you guys have hundreds of cows tearing the place up and leaving cow poop everywhere and getting into the ground water and ruining habitats, and the new administration has prioritized environmental concerns since that's what their voters wanted, we're sending in the federal agents, making arrests, and impounding your equipment and livestock"

The hostile response was about 300 ranchers and locals standing guard (armed) to make sure nobody could take their stuff, and that nobody would arrest their neighbors.

To everyone outside of that community, they looked like lunatic militant nutjobs, but the people in that community sincerely felt that they occupied the moral high ground (even if that perception flew in the face of federal rules)



That's why I think it's important to sort of "zoom out" on some of these situations and look at it from outside the bubble. People inside the bubble are always going to appeal to the status quo that they've become accustomed to.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
960
653
77
Minneapolis
✟202,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I understand what you are saying but coming here illegally is a crime.
It's kind of like with drugs there are people who smoke marijuana who work and are otherwise law abiding citizens. They are not the people I went after when I was a narcotics officer.
Sometimes they did stupid things and I had no choice but to arrest them.
I arrested a Pastor who sold us 10 pounds of marijuana.
So some states legalized marijuana.
I get the feeling that you would be in favor of giving amnesty to the people who are here illegally but have committed no other crimes.
But then that would encourage more people to come illegally and it's not fair to the people who went through all the trouble and came here legally.
There's just no simple solution to this problem
The situations you mentioned are not comparable to the situation in Minnesota.
  1. Calling their presence here a crime without discriminating between crimes falsely equates all infractions, blurring distinctions that are significant.
  2. The presence of undocumented immigrants in Minnesota is not like drugs because those immigrants are people. Most of the ones being arrested are not harming anyone. Also people form social connections and become assimilated into the culture. Removing them is not the same as removing a drug dealer.
  3. The question of amnesty is one that has been applied in the past, and it has always been a narrowly applied amnesty that does not apply to recent illegal entrants, not does it apply to those with a record of serious crime. Such an amnesty would not be unfair to those who followed the rules.
  4. Even some of those who have followed the rules, applying for asylum at a designated port of entry and allowed in while their claim is processed have been arrested from Minneapolis and sent to the detention center in Texas. That is unfair to those that played by the rules.
If there is a problem it has been one for which we as a society have been partially responsible. We have allowed undocumented immigrants to stay for decades while being very lax on businesses that hire such workers, contrary to the law, while these same businesses benefit from the vulnerability of these workers to exact poor working conditions and low wages. We have reaped the benefits of their presence because it made economic sense to do so. Meanwhile, this lax enforcement over decades has allowed these people to invest their lives in living here. We owe them some compensation for that investment we allowed them to make. Then there are the so-called "dreamers" - immigrants who were brought here - illegally - as young children. They have grown up completely assimilated in our nation. They do not know any other. They were not responsible for being here. They are, for all intents and purposes, identical to any natural born citizen, except that they do not have that declaration that they belong here, which for them is a very arbitrary distinction. Deporting them to a land they know nothing about and where they have to home to go to has got to be recognized as an inhuman act. As for amnesty encouraging more immigration, that would not be the case if border security were increased and the amnesty only applied to long-time well-behaved immigrants. Also, illegal immigration can be vastly reduced by reforming the immigration process to fund more immigration judges (real judges, not JAG lawyers as it being done now). If the immigration process were more efficient then there would be less pressure to enter illegally. Currently legal immigration has been cut back to record low levels. It is hard to convince people to follow the rules when following the rules has no little chance of success.
 
Upvote 0