You've succinctly described why many on the left detest the Democratic party and refer to them as controlled opposition. To further add to what you said let's remember Democrats had a full 2 years under Obama, who promised immigration reform, to do something about the issue and they ultimately kept the status quo. The Neo-Liberal wing of the Democratic party are not all that different from the Classical "Moderate" Republican and thus are just as beholden to corporate interests and having millions of undocumented workers that can be exploited benefits corporations. Giving them a path to citizenship is not in the interest of these corporate donors nor is deporting all of them, which is why Trumps mass deportation quickly abandoned going into certain areas.

Immigration reform was popular even back in the Obama years amongst all Americans and yet nothing happened. Even last year as Trump was talking about Haitians eating peoples pets, when folks on both sides were polled the issue remained popular.

One positive of all this is that more Americans are now actively seeking alternatives to both parties which might result in us finally shifting the Democratic party left, and those leftists having real power, instead of our current situation where both parties act like right leaning parties but the Democrats pay lip service to leftists ideals.

I could quibble on some of the stuff you said here, namely how a lot of what ICE is doing isnt legal at all, but I wont.
 

To give a concrete anecdote on how corporations exploit this labor and how now even under Trump and his calls for mass deportation the government protects it let's look at a hotel and resort company called Westgate. They are a resort and timeshare company worth billions who operate a bunch of vacation resorts in my state of Florida.

Everyone here knows they contract undocumented immigrants for the majority of their labor, from laundry, to cleaning and janitorial and even front desk staff. To get around labor laws here what they do is contract out to these smaller independent companies who then in turn higher undocumented immigrants. So technically Westgate doesnt hire any of these folks.

These smaller companies will often shut down and reform under new names every so often in order to avoid regulations themselves. This is how Westgate Resorts fills its labor needs.

Everyone who lives near a Westgate resort and knows people who work there knows this. I personally know multiple undocumented people that have worked there. They even bring in things like check cashing vans on paydays so immigrants can cash their checks on property since many dont have bank accounts. Its the worst kept secret.

Now guess how many ICE raids there have been at Westgate Resorts. If you guessed Zero, you were correct.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Tobold: "A number of studies have shown that once you correct for socio-economic factors like poverty, immigrants are no more likely to be criminals than natives."

Which sounds nice on paper but fails to acknowledge reality.
Because how many immigrants ARE actually poor compared to natives?
It is rather pointless to say that poor immigrants and natives are equally criminal - when the chance to be poor as a native is rather slim while one of the main motivations for immigrants is poverty.
 

"And even this heavy-handed approach in 2025 led only to about 400k deportations, which is potentially not even enough to keep the number of illegal immigrants in the US from growing. "

The ugly reality: a sufficiently heavy-handed approach stops them coming. But extreme heavy-handedness is unsustainable.
 

"So now we are at a point where a right-wing government enforcing existing law, admittedly heavy-handed, is seen by left-wing protesters as fascist."

This is not what's happening at all. The ICE raids and arrests are made above/outside of the law (on the government's promise that the agents will be protected/pardoned). They enter homes and businesses without warrants. There is no due process and they arrest (at this point, we can say kidnap) anyone they want, whatever if they are citizens or not. I've stopped counting the times have we seen people getting pepper sprayed and held at gun point without cause these last months.

People showing proof of legal status or citizenship are getting dismissed and rounded up anyway. They even wait in the hallways of immigration courts and pick up people who just confirmed/renewed their legal status. Sure, some will get out a few days after when a sane person double checks the papers, but the damage has been done at this point.

From what we can see on the many videos and reports, the "left" is pushing back against the fascism behaviors of ICE and DHS. If the arrests would be made lawfully and due process was given, there would be no escalation.
 

Obama spent a lot of political capital on “Dreamers”, illegal immigrants who had been brought here as children. It’s not fair to say he did nothing. It would be more fair to say that most Americans are against rewarding illegal immigration with a quicker path to citizenship than those who followed the procedures. This is complicated as well by our lenient asylum procedures, which allow immigrants to stay in the country while their asylum claim is processed. Also, we specifically took in Somali refugees, but not as many as we’d hoped. Until Trump, no president thought they could just change things without going through Congress and the court system. If Obama knew he could just have DONE it without approval from anyone, he probably would have. But before Trump, the US presidency and executive branch was seen as co-equal to the other branches. We now know that is a lie, but it’s unfair to blame all the previous presidents for understanding otherwise.
 

Here are multiple polls dating back to 2020 showing just how popular a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is. Its one of the most consistently popular issues among Americans and Democrats are complicit in preventing it from happening. Obviously both sides are not the same but I wont accept that claim that Democrats "just didnt know" things could be done this way. Trump isnt even the first president to wildly disobey court and congressional orders. Nor will he be the last.

Obama kept the status quo on immigration. He provided Dreamers a nebulous gray status sure I'll give you that but he was far more centrist than he campaigned on being and that status is currently in jeopardy 10 years later. Lighting up the White House in rainbow colors is nice but as we can clearly see paying lip service to progressive issues is not the same as getting actual policy qork done.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/#:~:text=Most%20Americans%20favor%20a%20pathway,with%20responses%2C%20and%20its%20methodology.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3926#:~:text=Nearly%20two%2Dthirds%20of%20voters,ICE%2C%20is%20doing%20its%20job.

https://americasvoice.org/press_releases/new-gallup-immigration-polling-americans-remain-strongly-supportive-of-immigration-and-citizenship-want-reform-over-broken-status-quo/#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%2081%25%20of%20Americans,thing%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%202024%20survey.
 

There is no symmetry between the behavior of the Jan6 death ( where the woman was attacking an official building) and the recent ICE death, where the two people were not doing anything illegal.

Similarly, saying that the ICE is 'just applying the law' is simply false. Their actions is against the US constitution. They should not be shielded from legal consequence.

Honnestly, I am surprise by your analysis. Overall, even if I sometimes disagree with you, your analysis were always interesting and fruitful. Here, you seem to be blinded by the legalish smoke, and missing the depth of the issue. Trump actions are clearly against democracy and rule of law, even when sometimes legal.

About France : yes, rule of law in France is far less protected legally than in the US, the state hold far too much power. It has been kept in check mostly by good faith, but a far right government in France would be very dangerous indeed. (I am French).
 

Nobody is saying that ICE should be protected against the law, or that they didn‘t break the law. But I disagree with you saying that the people killed weren‘t doing anything illegal. They weren‘t doing anything for which it would have been legal to shoot them, but they were actively trying to stop ICE from doing their job. And not even Democrats are suggesting that ICE arresting illegal immigrants is unconstitutional, the discussion is only about whether in some cases legal rights of the arrested people were violated. The protesters are clearly disrespecting the rule of law as much as ICE does, there aren‘t any good guys here. Again, I am in no way suggesting that Alex Pretti kicking in an ICE tail light justifies him getting shot, but it doesn‘t make him a saint either.

You are talking about the depth of the issue, but all you can offer is Trump derangement syndrome. What is the solution to 14 million people living illegally in the US? If neither political side wants to make these people citizens, you either need to ignore the rule of law to let them keep on living there, or you need to enforce the law, which clearly can‘t work without some degree of friction.
 

Ettesun: "[...] the two people were not doing anything illegal."
I doubt that intentionally driving into another person is legal.
Sure, there is the question where, if you don't recognise ICE as an authority, you would subsequently not acknowledge their right to give you orders.
Thus the question how you would behave, if the situation was with other armed persons ordering you out of your vehicle.
That obviously shifts the perspective but might just be pointless as ICE is a federal agency.

"[...] saying that the ICE is 'just applying the law' is simply false. Their actions is against the US constitution. They should not be shielded from legal consequence."
But the executive branch is doing exactly that?
If their actions are against the constitution, then the correct way in a country with separation of powers, is to raise the issue with the judicial branch. Vigilantism will leave you with bullet holes.

The legislative branch decides what the nail is.
The executive branch is the hammer.
The judicial branch decides if your case classifies as a nail.

Whether their actions are shielded from consequences or not, I don't know.
But there cases like immigration officers at an airport who are authorised to turn you down without recourse.

"Trump actions are clearly against democracy and rule of law, even when sometimes legal."
They are at best against your interpretation of democracy and rule of law (in a country not even your own, often falsely represented by armchair lawyers on (social) media).
It is up to the courts to debate and decide what is and isn't against a law or if a law requires changes - just like France.
 

Tobold there is nothing illegal about observer actions. Observing law enforcement is not a new thing in the US. Its been done for decades. Blowing whistles and yelling at then isn't illegal either. And anyone out in public can already be recorded without their consent.

Legal observers are very much the good guys when an enforcement agencies routinely overstep. The administration lied hours after Alex Prettis death and if it were not for the other observers we wouldnt be talking about him right now.

But again none of this is new, its been done for years and there is nothing illegal about being an observer. You obviously cant physical impede enforcement actions but if you want to follow around a cop all day and blow a whistle at them thats well within the law no matter what the Trump administration says.
 

And just to address the kicking the tail light thing. That was obviously not legal. At that moment he could have been arrested as he crossed into doing physical, violent action. He likely only wasnt arrested that day because they thought it wasnt worth it for something that likely would end up being a misdemeanor.

That of course changes absolutely nothing on whether his killing was justified and legal. It was not.

Furthermore even if Alex Pretti would have walked up to an ICE officer and punched him in the face and that still doesnt make his killing legal or justified.

You dont need to be a saint for the government to follow the law and respect your rights. Rights are for all whether they are in others opinions a good person or bad person doesnt matter.

A Nick Fuentes who routinely calls for violence against people like me has just as much rights as someone who volunteers at soup kitchens and lives a saintly life.
 

@Bigeye I fully agree, nothing that either Renee Good or Alex Pretti did justifies them getting shot. I was just replying to the comment saying that neither of them had done anything illegal.

There is a fine line between legal observers shouting at ICE agents and swearing at them, and those protesters physically trying to block them, and preventing them from doing their job. And yes, of course, if somebody illegally blocks law enforcement the correct course of action is to arrest them and put them in front of a judge.

I just disagree with the notion that all the January 6th protesters were evil fascists, while all the Minnesota protester are saints. In my view, both of these groups are somewhat misguided, trying to stand up for their beliefs, but not everything they believe is true, and their actions often verge into the illegal. This isn't Gandhi type of civil disobedience. From French "yellow vests" to various US protests, protesters are often angry, and that anger often spills into violence. How just or unjust their protest is doesn't change their acts being illegal.
 

Sure. I disagree with that notion as well. Things are never that black and white.

This topic makes me wonder though. Is there any purely peaceful protest movement that actually effected sweeping changes in a nation? For as much as we whitewash our Civil Rights and Woman's Suffrage movements here in the US, the reality is that they were far from totally peaceful and even MLK himself called for radical action.

The act of protest in and of itself is disruptive and the intent is often to cause as much disruption as possible.