To battle “immigration oppression” the professional protestors endorse numerous policies
The city of Portland has, after more than a month of strife and days of growing odoriferous effrontery, finally stepped in and cleared out the protest encampment outside the local Immigration Customs Enforcement offices. For weeks a squatter’s community sprung up outside the government facility, so local officials begin the now familiar practice of required clean up after those claiming to improve a community.
If the image of dubious characters collocating in a public square to complain about a perceived oppression sounds familiar, it is for a valid reason. Dubbed “Occupy ICE”, this was the expected astroturf organized outrage we have seen before, including the arrival of the Democratic Socialists of America. The primary difference here is the mass of grievance facilitators were staging a protest within friendly confines. Portland being a largely left-leaning community meant there was not the usual dramatics to the event, as many in the community backed their cause.
This included the mayor and police officials. The tent community was able to swell and remain for over a month largely due to the sympathetic leadership in town. The Mayor had stated he felt ICE to be “on the wrong track”, and thus directed the police commissioners to remain hands off on the uproar. Said a spokesman for the Mayor: “His thinking is, ‘This is a federal agency on federal property with its own law enforcement agency, and we don’t need to get involved’.”
This gave the protest a wide berth, and quite frankly — looking over some of their decisions — those involved could have used a bit of discipline. After a month of confrontation the movement accomplished little more than becoming pests to the community and fouling the area they populated. They also upset standards in the surrounding neighborhood.
A food cart business across from their encampment became targeted when some workers from the ICE building would go over for meals. The business was harassed to the extent they became fearful and shut down the operation. The husband and wife team use the profits from the business to fund their non-profit group, that supplies food and clothing for the homeless in the area. (Well done, do-gooders!)
But what of the messaging? After all, the strife and conflict were all for a good cause, correct? By opposing the Trump administration immigration policies they would bring about change by highlighting the atrocities of the enforcement. Let’s take a look at some of the issues that are stridently adhered to and inspire this level of conflict:
- The Trump policy is based on racism
- An open society has unfettered borders, specifically no walls
- Human rights and liberty are required
- ICE agents denying entry are oppressors
- The danger to children is criminal
Now most thinking people might be willing to at least entertain a dialogue about these issues. The problem rises up when those making demands on this list display behavior that is not just questionable, but actually defies the very “problems” cited. It takes a very special brand of obliviousness to provide a list of perceived problems within the agency, and then promptly violate each and every one of those during your protest. Allow me to illustrate.
There was little surprise this group would have disruptive confrontations with authorities. In conflicts with federal officers there were numerous reports that several of the non-white officers absorbed racially charged insults and other hate-crime-level invectives.
In the final days of the protest, when it was announced the authorities were finally coming in to disband the settlement, the remaining protestors took curious action. They barricaded themselves in the makeshift compound to attempt to keep out the police. That’s correct — the pro-immigration protesters constructed a border wall.
No Agents Protecting The Border
The fundamental message of the protest — that ICE should be disbanded because it is wrong to police the border — really becomes neutered when organizers sent out THEIR OWN PATROLS to protect their border. Yes, seriously. Reporter Andy Ngo, from Quillette noted the visceral contradiction.
They've created borders. I can't even. https://t.co/I66oGGC6Oh
— SarahLee (@sarailola) July 25, 2018
They claim to be battling against the restriction of basic human liberty, but reporters detailed that one of the strict rules from inside the tent city was no cameras allowed. Freedom of expression is seemingly a fluid human right with these activists.
Protection of Children
One of the loudest outcries of the anti-ICE movement concerns the plight of children. Yet the protesters were fine bringing their children into the unkempt, possibly harsh conditions of the outrage shanty town. Their presence actually caused an unforeseen problem for the movement — the leader of the protest, Micah Rhodes, became arrested over a parole violation. Turns out he has three convictions of sexual abuse, and part of his parole was the condition he stay away from minors under the age of 18. But seriously, these people are deeply concerned about the well being of kids!
Well then — that is 5 for 5 of major policy demands they are making, and at the same time violating.
Why anyone dares listen to these idiots is a mystery. Why the media reports on them without much critical thought is easier to understand.