The phrase “Don’t tread on me” used to unite both conservatives and liberals. However, with the Trump administration’s stricter stance on illegal immigration, many liberals seem puzzled. Articles questioning the whereabouts of the supportive “Don’t Tread on Me” Republicans are increasingly frequent, suggesting a shift in this once-shared sentiment.
Some wonder if conservatives have abandoned the Gadsden flag, a symbol from the Revolutionary War featuring a rattlesnake, in favor of what some describe as heavy-handed immigration enforcement. But perhaps the opposite is true; it could be that libertarians find themselves aligning more closely with the left’s anti-American sentiment.
Take Minneapolis, for instance. Activists opposing ICE have taken their protests to the streets, blocking roads and demanding identification from anyone trying to pass. This shows a strange twist in the narrative, where those blocking access claim to be protecting rights while actually enforcing their own borders.
We might remember how similar situations unfolded in Seattle, where protest groups declared control over areas, naming them the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) or the Capitol Hill Occupation Protest (CHOP). Instead of reducing violence, these groups were associated with it. A notable incident involved the shooting of a teenager by a private security guard linked to CHOP, yet accountability was scarce—despite a jury later holding the city responsible in a massive financial ruling for the tragedy.
What’s occurring in cities like Minneapolis and Seattle isn’t merely a response against law enforcement; it’s also an effort to impose new laws and borders without any democratic process. The media often depicts the anti-ICE activists in a sympathetic light, focusing on their intentions rather than the consequences of their actions.
Even Minnesota Public Radio noted that road closures hinder emergency responses, a point made clear by the Interim Minneapolis Fire Chief, emphasizing that every second is critical in emergencies.
Interestingly, the term “rebellion” surfaces in this discourse—often wielded by liberals as a term to criticize others. But it fits the narrative around CHAZ and other protest initiatives rooted in Minneapolis.
Contrastingly, if the events of January 6, 2021, had been organized with the same discipline and media support that these leftist actions had, the outcome could have been drastically different.
Libertarians sometimes align with progressive views on immigration and share skepticism towards law enforcement. Critics often point out legal complexities in the enforcement practices of agencies like ICE, but it becomes hard to argue they’re defending the rule of law when the protests resemble lawlessness themselves—especially as they center around illegal immigration.
Some anti-ICE advocates attempt to associate their resistance with revolutionary ideals, recalling the spirit of independence, yet the revolution aimed for self-governance rather than creating laws benefiting non-citizens.
While there may be some parallels to be drawn between recent civil disturbances and revolutionary history, those in the anti-ICE movement seem unwilling to fully recognize that. Their efforts are directed at circumventing U.S. law for the benefit of outsiders.
Any disputes with ICE should eventually be resolved through the legal system and representatives chosen by the people, not through a mob trying to redefine laws.
