There seems to be some confusion these days about what civil disobedience really means. Recently, this was tragically highlighted by the death of 37-year-old Renee Good.
Civil disobedience, as a form of political protest, has a rich history—think of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent resistance in India or Martin Luther King Jr.’s powerful words penned from his jail cell in Birmingham. There’s something profoundly dignified about these actions that lends credence to the cause.
However, what we’re seeing across the nation today—groups of people, often described as “wine moms,” using tactics reminiscent of Antifa to confront immigration officials—isn’t civil disobedience. It’s more like criminal behavior.
The term “civil” in civil disobedience implies that protesters are willing to be arrested to highlight the significance of their message. It’s typically done in a way that minimizes harm to law enforcement and the public. Yet, in places like Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle, a different scenario unfolds. Here, individuals are not just protesting; they’re stalking and harassing ICE officers, and even revealing their personal information.
What groups like ICE Watch are doing is not about protesting but about obstructing federal officers from carrying out laws that have been democratically established. Their goal seems to be evading arrest rather than making a clear statement.
Honestly, that’s not protest; it’s a crime.
We should also seriously consider whether a group that carries out actions threatening the safety of law enforcement or the general public might actually constitute a criminal conspiracy. I mean, if monitoring drug trafficking is illegal, why is it different when protecting illegal immigrants, many of whom might have violent records?
Interestingly, a recent poll found that only 24% of Americans approve of crossing the line from peaceful protest to more aggressive actions against ICE. Yet, for white women aged 18 to 44, that approval jumps to an eye-opening 61%. I wonder if too many true crime podcasts are influencing these perceptions. How did we reach a point where this kind of behavior is viewed as acceptable?
Part of the answer lies in how lenient law enforcement and the judicial system have been about minor transgressions if they are committed for what some see as a just cause. It often starts small—a silly act like throwing food at a cop—but then escalates. Before long, we see people attacking federal agents.
It’s frustrating to see videos of Good and his associates berating ICE agents with a kind of self-righteousness that, honestly, is off-putting to most people. These encounters often involve crude humor and stark disrespect towards officers and others around them.
Let’s be clear: this behavior is happening because it’s being allowed. If a state trooper in West Virginia saw my friend about to hurl something at him, he would definitely be arrested. So, why are the rules different for ICE officers?
The sensible response from political leaders and media figures, particularly those aligned with the Democratic party, should be to make it clear that assaults on police officers are not permissible, and that hindering federal investigations must not be tolerated.
Instead, Rep. Ilhan Omar inflamed tensions by suggesting that resistance shouldn’t be seen as intimidation. If she implies using cars to disrupt federal agents, that really crosses a line into incitement.
It raises a serious question: Should those who advocate such actions even hold a position in Congress? Sadly, it seems unlikely that there will be any responsible actions taken, even if it might protect individuals like Good, who could have been alive today.
There’s only one solution: we need to enforce the law.
If we continue down this path and allow those playing at revolution to operate unchecked, tragic outcomes like Good’s will not be isolated. It’s imperative that we put an end to this chaos, and fast.
