The entire framing of this article fact that we don't even know the name of whoever he was trying to protect tells you a lot.
Clearly we're not meant to be upset that fed-cops can behave this way generally, we're meant to be upset that they dared treat another agent of the state, a more equal animal, the way they'd treat a common peasant who got similarly uppity. Caring about these generalities is outside our lane.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 7h ago
> we're meant to be upset that they dared treat another agent of the state,
I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.
timr · 2h ago
> I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.
Some basic facts are true here:
a) Brad Lander had no official capacity in that situation.
b) As a random person, he had no right to demand to see any documents, whatsoever, from the people doing the arrest.
c) Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.
You don't just get to throw yourself in the middle of a law-enforcement action without consequence because you're a politician (or upset, or "moral", or...)
---
Edit: folks, read the article and watch the video [1]. A lot of you are just repeating things that plainly aren't true. Lander was in a federal courthouse. Uniformed police officers were present, and participated in his arrest. He had just attended the trial of the person being detained. There's simply no reasonable way that Lander believed that this was a "kidnapping", as many of you are saying. He knew exactly what was going on, and he knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact that cameras were there certainly wasn't a coincidence.
This "let them do it, and try to rectify wrongs later" model is why we end up with innocent gay hairdressers in CECOT.
There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".
Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.
The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
anon291 · 1h ago
> any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".
Yes, you do have a right to raise this as an issue... but not anywhere anyway. In all this discussion about the rule of law, we forget that the rule of the law also dictates how citizen redresses are to be handled... in a court of law, using established procedures.
> The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
False equivocation... The 2nd amendment crowd has an amendment to our constitution allowing them to do what they do: own weapons. There is no amendment that lets you willy-nilly march into a court and demand papers. If you want that, I would suggest writing your legislator to propose such an amendment.
PaulDavisThe1st · 42m ago
1. I suggest you check the meaning of equivocation. I think you meant equivalence.
2. I did not equate the two, other than as a means of resisting tyranny. You have no legal right (other than in NH) to seek to overthrow the government, 2nd amendment or otherwise.
bokoharambe · 58m ago
It's hilarious to see people talking about rule of law when the President of the United States himself is not bound by it. The President! You can see it very clearly why interwar liberalism failed. As Schmitt points out, they were too caught up in constitutional handwringing to comprehend that they had entered a state of exception, and that normal laws and procedures were not to be followed.
timr · 1h ago
> Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.
Well, you can theorize a "moral duty" to do whatever you want, but that won't stop you from getting actually arrested, under real laws. But you do you.
The thing about being a martyr for your beliefs is that it comes with a downside. This article is trying to stir up controversy that someone doing something illegal (i.e. obstruction) was arrested for a valid reason.
PaulDavisThe1st · 1h ago
Getting arrested for complaining about illegal law enforcement action that is taking place is the sort of downside that history will write as heroic.
pyuser583 · 41m ago
> Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.
Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.
kevingadd · 1h ago
If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone, citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Just stand back and watch? That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?
ensignavenger · 1h ago
They were wearing uniforms, I watched the video. Badges were not clearly visible in the video, but they certainly had uniforms.
disattention · 36m ago
Anyone can literally just buy/make a uniform. Especially concerning if badges aren't visible. This argument doesn't hold much water imo.
ensignavenger · 22m ago
Perhaps, but the comment I was replying to was claiming "not wearing uniforms" which isn't what was going on. I have no idea if badges were displayed at any point, but this was a federal courthouse, one would hope that they would be asking for identification. It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time.
I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.
timr · 1h ago
> If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it?
Sure you do. Call the police. Record it, capture the details for evidence.
> Just stand back and watch?
Again, you're welcome to call the police. But no, you don't just get to rush in and start interfering because your sophisticated understanding of the circumstances as a complete nobody make you feel like Captain America.
> That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?
It's obviously not a "kidnapping". Nobody seriously believes that -- most obviously, Brad Lander, who wouldn't be screaming for a warrant from "kidnappers".
kevinh · 1h ago
A few days ago someone shot people while pretending to be a police officer. Someone impersonating ICE for kidnapping isn't out of the realm of possibility.
timr · 1h ago
Right. So your logic is: because someone, somewhere, once did something illegal while dressed as a police officer, we should interfere with every arrest, everywhere, because they might be fake police?
Or are you just restricting this logic to plainclothes officers, who aren't wearing uniforms at all?
acdha · 26m ago
The argument being offered is that if the police follow the law, the problem goes away and there’s no impact on legitimate law enforcement activity.
apparent · 1h ago
Yes, and a few days ago some "peacekeepers" in UT tried to shoot someone whom they perceived to be a threat, and ended up shooting and killing a bystander nearby. Situations are complicated, and assuming you know what's going on, and that you can help, is presumptuous.
acdha · 18m ago
That argument works better against the position: things which create confusion increase the odds of serious problems. Reducing uncertainty by having clear rules makes it safer for everyone: that “good guy with a gun” is far more likely to be involved in a tragic mistake not because they have any desire to be but because it’s a snap judgement with limited information and bystanders. Armed paramilitaries abducting people in a manner indistinguishable from a cartel kidnapping or police impersonation is dramatically increasing the risk to those officers snd everyone nearby for the same reason, and they’re not doing anything they couldn’t do without following the law with identification, serving legal warrants, etc.
anon291 · 1h ago
And a few days ago, some guy crossed a border with a young girl he passed off as his daughter when in reality he was a sex trafficker and going to sell the girl into sex slavery.
Since we're all clutching our pearls, we might as well clutch all of them.
acdha · 14m ago
The difference is that nobody is defending that guy, whereas misconduct by these officers is being defended by some people as a political tactic. There is no conflict in saying both things are bad, and indeed we teach kindergarteners that two wrongs don't make a right.
disattention · 33m ago
There seems to be a clear difference between criminals doing shady things and the government doing shady things. It seems like a false equivalency to compare an incident where a random guy does something terrible to one where law enforcement is rapturing people into the night while wearing masks.
JKCalhoun · 1h ago
I suspect ICE just helped elect Brad Lander.
apparent · 1h ago
Despite his best efforts to use this situation to make a name for himself, and despite the many shortcomings of his opponents, he will likely not be elected.
msgodel · 7h ago
Government employees have more responsibilities than normal US citizens. If he was hiding someone he was derelict in that responsibility and sending the law after him is completely reasonable.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 7h ago
He wasn't hiding anyone. He was out in a hallway, along with the person he had linked arms with. Watch the video.
He was refusing to unlink his arm from the person ICE wanted to detain until ICE presented documentation establishing the legality of what they were doing. It was a perfectly reasonable request.
woodruffw · 7h ago
I don't think that's the point of the article -- I suspect it's more that the average New Yorker reading this NYC news site already knows who Brad Lander is.
(You can also easily imagine why it wouldn't be ideal to publish the name of someone who is actively being harassed by masked thugs.)
potato3732842 · 7h ago
>(You can also easily imagine why it wouldn't be ideal to publish the name of someone who is actively being harassed by masked thugs.)
If I were being mistreated by enforcers I would want my name anywhere and everywhere. Public scrutiny is one's only hope when government seeks to mistreat you.
acdha · 2h ago
Consider the degree to which we’ve already seen vigilantes attempting what they term immigration enforcement, targeted assassination of political enemies, a president pardoning those who commit violence on behalf of his causes, and federal law enforcement repurposed to harass opponents or hustle inconvenient arrestees out of the country where they can be held incommunicado. It seems pretty reasonable to me to that many people without a huge degree of privilege would want to avoid the risk of drawing fire like that.
woodruffw · 7h ago
I think this qualifies as public scrutiny. But also: you're presumably a citizen/national, like me, so you're not coming at this from a "they're going to kidnap my family to punish me for being visible" angle. That's been the recent trend for non-citizens/nationals.
miki123211 · 1h ago
not just government enforcers, any kind of criminal enterprise too.
If I was ever blackmailed with "do X or we will kill Y", the first thing I would do is to tell the entire world. This would massively increase the risks associated with actually killing that person, as then the police would immediately know who to suspect.
RIMR · 2h ago
>that we don't even know the name of whoever he was trying to protect
YOU may not know the man's name, but people who read at least the first four paragraphs of this article will know that his name is Edgardo.
threatofrain · 7h ago
This is Trump attacking Democratic strongholds by arresting their leaders.
mindslight · 7h ago
News is written for lowest common denominator, appealing to emotional narratives. [More] news at 11. Stop trying to point to the media's hypocrisy as if it justifies rejecting the overall message. I don't like that elected officials are of a higher class either, but the plain fact is they are. We need to work with this to point out how out of control this administration is.
Sometimes, criticism is poised to cause reform. Currently, it's poised to support the fascist takeover in progress. Having to circle the wagons sucks as it further empowers the authoritarians on our side, but at this point it is what it is - traditional American governance (with all of its warts and flaws) versus autocratic fascism red in tooth and claw.
No comments yet
sjsdaiuasgdia · 8h ago
Call your elected representatives. Attend a protest. Make noise. Above all else, protect your family, friends, and neighbors.
We do not have to sit back and let this happen.
jbm · 8h ago
> Call your elected representatives
I have never seen this work for something this politicized.
matthewdgreen · 48m ago
Elected representatives are going to be intransigent until a point in the very near future, when they realize they're about to be voted out en masse and their voters don't like them as much as they like another guy -- who isn't going to be on the ballot with them. So keep reminding them.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 7h ago
Doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying.
nemomarx · 7h ago
they did just shoot two elected representatives so I think we're a little beyond protests working
haswell · 7h ago
The scale of the protests means the protests are already working. They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events.
I don’t see a connection between their efficacy and what happened in Minnesota, which was an event that is arguably all the more reason to protest.
nemomarx · 7h ago
Good strategy if voting is still allowed in 2028, not super useful if political violence bubbles over into a coup or such.
The scale of the protests is encouraging, but I remember the mass protests under Bush were about as large, and the war continued and he stayed in power. Organization needs to do something with the mass of people who are out in the streets to direct them.
miki123211 · 1h ago
Voting is always allowed. No matter how corrupt the country, no matter if it's ruled by a dictator, even in a "Free Democratic Union of Independent People's Republics", there's always going to be an election sooner or later.
Whether the elections are fair and the opposition is even allowed to field a candidate... now that's a different story.
bobthepanda · 2h ago
The real bellwether will be what happens in House elections in 2026.
Trump was already divisive enough that the Republican majority in the House shrank in 2024.
Tadpole9181 · 1h ago
And yet they hold every single branch of government.
matthewdgreen · 46m ago
And this was their chance to demonstrate that they could govern, maybe even grow their gains with some demographics. They're not doing that at all.
ethbr1 · 1h ago
The chance to fix that is in 2026 at the ballot, and preparation every day until then.
The whole "there won't be elections" hysteria is exactly because the current MAGA movement is scared shitless of being rejected again.
Furthermore, if Trump-y candidates do poorly in 2026, he'll be a lame duck president with little political clout for his final 2 years.
Politicians are many things, but charitable to unpopular people without power is not one of them.
abeppu · 7h ago
Working to accomplish what goal for whom?
I think largely they have not yet been effective at protecting immigrants.
> They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events.
Right, so to some degree they "work" as tools for existing political groups in attracting attention, resources and possibly votes. But does it better enable those groups to actually help immigrants? Or does it just give political organizations a powerful talking point in the midterms?
pjc50 · 3h ago
The latter is probably the strongest route to actually doing something, because there's no accountability within the system until both Senate and House have flipped D.
jkestner · 7h ago
Sustained protests are merely a part of what's necessary.
Sure would help if the media would cover them to the extent that they did for George Floyd/Women's March/etc.
edm0nd · 3h ago
technically he shot 4 elected representatives. 2 died 2 are in hospital still iirc.
edoceo · 2h ago
Nit: 2 officials, 2 spouses.
thaumasiotes · 1h ago
You don't think Jill Biden was the duly elected First Lady?
apparent · 1h ago
She was the First Lady, but she was not elected in any way. Do you remember seeing her name on a ballot? I don't.
That's why the voting public were shocked to find out she was helping lead cabinet meetings. The good doctor was not elected.
apparent · 1h ago
Only one person shot two elected representatives, and AFAIK, his pronouns are not "they". There is zero evidence that he is part of some larger plan, and I have seen zero evidence of anyone cheering on his heinous acts (unlike with a recent left-wing murderer, who was lauded as upstanding and handsome).
matthewdgreen · 43m ago
I watched large portions of the right wing immediately denounce the killings as a left-wing assassination. I don't think any of these people truly believed that left-wing assassins conducted a targeted execution of two Democrats in a tightly-divided R/D state legislature: I think it was a very deliberate effort to confuse the news reporting and minimize the damage of their divisive rhetoric, until something else (a war) pushed it out of the spotlight.
Simulacra · 7h ago
They?
No comments yet
garciasn · 7h ago
When someone attempted to assassinate Trump would you have lumped all of those against Trump into "they"?
I don't support what the current administration is doing; not by a long shot. But to say, "they did just shoot two elected representatives," is disingenuous at best.
sculper · 7h ago
The current administration explicitly condones violence against political rivals. "They" seems fair.
HideousKojima · 2h ago
>The current administration explicitly condones violence against political rivals.
Citation needed
spit2wind · 2h ago
Does pardoning convicted January 6th insurrectionists count?
HideousKojima · 2h ago
Does Carter, Clinton, and Obama pardoning and commuting the sentences of the Puerto Rican terrorists that shot up congress count?
orwin · 7h ago
I have lumped every people with roughly the same ideology as the Trump shooter in a 'they'.
I don't remember the exact sentence but it was something like that: "That's the issue with pandering to violent conspiracy theorists, if they feel betrayed they will aim that violence at you".
Do you disagree with this characterization?
potato3732842 · 7h ago
Publicly they'll wring their hands and tell us a bunch of BS about how violence outside of the state is bad and whatnot but behind the scenes they'll go back to their research people and their focus groups and try and get to the bottom of whether it was just one crazy or an outlier who's of an existing trend in opinion they ought to care about. Same as they did when that CEO got shot.
Avshalom · 2h ago
They haven't even done the usual hand wringing this time.
Publicly they've been claiming that he's some left wing extremist despite all available evidence.
bigyabai · 8h ago
My elected representative gets (credible) death threats if they resist executive monarchy.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 7h ago
TBH, I want such reps to be loud about that. We need to stop pretending that the right is not leveraging stochastic terrorism. The problem doesn't go away by ignoring it.
Yes, that's risky. Some people might get hurt. A lot of people are being hurt, and will continue to be hurt, by the current situation. We all have to make our own choices about when principles and long-term outcomes outweigh our instinct for self preservation.
Avshalom · 2h ago
Gas station clerks get credible death threats for not selling people alcohol before noon on Sunday and manage to show a hell of a lot more spine.
duxup · 8h ago
The whole story of telling ICE agents to just go out and find people on their own seems like a setup to empower the executive branch to have their own group of thugs. Without guidance they do what want outside the judicial system and sensible oversight / rules.
This seems to be a pattern in most non democratic countries...
NemoNobody · 1h ago
Trump wants to declare martial law, he is trying to incite a reasonable enough response, the courts won't challenge him, he wants riots to be bad enough that upon his issuing the Exec Order, everyone just accepts/abides by his new king powers and obeys him like one.
mlsu · 7h ago
Another thing that is troubling is that immigration law is sort of a parallel system to normal criminal law. The rights for the accused are lesser and obligations for officers are more lax. The burden of proof is lower. It's easier to get warrants and the rules of evidence are more relaxed.
There is a parallel authoritarian system being built up, starting with the creation of DHS in 2001 and ending god knows where. The massive expansion of ICE should ring alarm bells for everyone. This power grab does not end. It will expand and continue.
Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
duxup · 7h ago
Agreed, ICE seems like a natural org to begin extra legal actions with, fewer limits, you just claim you're doing immigration things and put the accused on a more oppressive track.
chneu · 2h ago
Like it's seriously Nazi shit. This is police with extreme powers. All they have to say is "We thought they were illegal" and nothing will happen.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 7h ago
> Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now?
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
pyuser583 · 36m ago
Lyndon Johnson spent his entire life in government service, building a larger and larger state. The only pocket picking he knew was taxation.
potato3732842 · 7h ago
>Another thing that is troubling is that immigration law is sort of a parallel system to normal criminal law. The rights for the accused are lesser and obligations for officers are more lax. The burden of proof is lower. It's easier to get warrants and the rules of evidence are more relaxed.
I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
>Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
Right now you're making the same complaints about immigration process that hardcore libertarians made decades ago about traffic court and code enforcement and were brushed off for various reasons. They're keeping their mouths shut so as to not interfere with the learning process.
mlsu · 6h ago
It's fantastic that right libertarians have the opportunity to own me, a lib. The silver lining to all of this is all of the epic lib-owning that can be done as a result of the destruction of the rule of law. But, by my reading, traffic court and HOA fees were not cause of all of this. Right libertarians rightfully complained in 2001 when the DHS was formed; they again rightfully complained in the 2010's when Snowden blew the lid open on global surveillance. I would like to see them resist in a meaningful way here and now. Unfortunately it seems they are busy going to cryptocurrency conferences at Mar-a-Lago.
> I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
I think we saw what giving power to the "right guy" in the executive branch lead us. The thing that will stop us going down this road is, at this point, active resistance from local and state governments, private businesses and government contractors, and large multi-national corporations.
You need a lot of ICE, an absolutely staggering number of cops and jails, to deport twenty million people. It should be crystal clear by now that they will attempt to follow through with this promise, by whatever means necessary.
mindslight · 7h ago
> Right now you're making the same complaints about immigration process that hardcore libertarians made decades ago about traffic court and code enforcement and were brushed off for various reasons. They're keeping their mouths shut so as to not interfere with the learning process.
Can you point me to some examples of people a decade ago running afoul of traffic or code enforcement, and being sent to an extrajudicial concentration camp for it?
But seriously, stop trying to be edgy with needlessly contrarian points. Stop gloating because us libertarians were talking about the trend of unaccountable government processes before it was popular. The dam breaking is not something to be celebrated, you're just adding fuel to the fire.
It's time to circle the wagons and defend our country together. True libertarians are not "keeping our mouths shut", but rather speaking out against the rapidly increasing government power. One cause, which we have to be mature and acknowledge, is the destruction of bureaucracy (which we've always disliked, but at least it moderated) in favor of unrestrained autocracy.
jzebedee · 5h ago
Out of the hundreds initially deported to El Salvador, "only 32 of the deportees had been convicted of U.S. crimes and that most were nonviolent offenses, such as retail theft or traffic violations." [1]
I think you misread my sentence out of the context of the overall argument? I edited it to add "a decade ago" to be clearer.
If I'm correctly interpreting what you said - yes, I agree that presently some people end up running afoul of traffic enforcement, which causes them to run afoul of immigration, which causes them to end up in the concentration camp.
But the larger argument is contrasting the longer-existing authoritarian/autocratic dynamics of code/traffic enforcers versus the more recent development of autocratic immigration enforcers.
jzebedee · 5h ago
Thanks, I read it as saying that people weren't being deported to concentration camps over minor crimes or traffic offenses. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about our descent into fascism.
hansjorg · 2h ago
> Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now
It has been entertaining listening to the people at Reason Magazine lately. They have convinced themselves thoroughly that they're not actually racist authoritarians, so now that they're getting what they really want, but it's so diametrically opposed to what they say they believe, they have to contort themselves endlessly.
Do not expect any kind of help from those kinds of people. Their anti-authoritarianism is largely performative or reserved to their in-group. When it's not performative, it's just rich kids complaining they're not allowed do to whatever they want.
acdha · 1h ago
I’ve checked in on Reason from time to time and it’s scary. They’ll have an article accurately recognizing the threat and incompatibility with even remotely libertarian principles, and the comments are like “this boot tastes great!” or “not a problem as long as it happens to brown people”.
"I don't want to pay taxes or have firearms laws but I want to appear ideologically consistent."
pixl97 · 59m ago
"I don't want the law to apply to me... now as for you"
NickC25 · 7h ago
That's the gameplan, it's written in detail in the Project 2025 outline...
krapp · 7h ago
But Trump pinky swore he wouldn't do a fascism!
No comments yet
lmm · 2h ago
Most democratic countries don't have decades of regular law enforcement refusing to enforce democratically agreed immigration law, which is what has made this defensible.
acdha · 1h ago
You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad. It’s exactly hard to find examples of cops who investigated real crimes and pulled ICE in when they realized the perp wasn’t here legally.
lmm · 46m ago
> You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad.
Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
acdha · 32m ago
> Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough
You’re arguing that your personal opinion is “the will of the electorate”. The policies directing local police to focus on crime affecting their communities instead of shadowing federal immigration enforcement weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives.
California’s sanctuary laws are the subject of considerable mythology but they had no effect on crime rates according to actual studies because they don’t prohibit cops from working with law enforcement for cases involving people who pose a risk to their communities. They can’t hold people without cause or use a parking ticket to get someone deported but there’s no problem cooperating with federal law enforcement to get rid of a robber, killer, rapist, etc. – the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
> weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives
Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Democracy means going along with popular decisions even if you disagree, not finding tricks to undermine what was nationally agreed because your corner of the country doesn't like it.
> the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
Most of the electorate wants all illegal immigrants deported, not just the ones caught committing violent crimes.
NemoNobody · 1h ago
You are only fine if everyone is fine.
If it can happen to a brown person, it can happen to you - maybe have a little self interest, or perhaps consider how boring America would be without immigrants and black people - that's kinda where all our culture comes from, in our melting pot everything blends together.
potholereseller · 7h ago
The actual title of the acticle is "Brad Lander Detained by Masked Federal Agents Inside Immigration Court".
Contrary to the current title here on HN, Lander was not arrested for asking to see a warrant; TFA states the opposite, "It wasn’t immediately clear what charges, if any, the mayoral candidate will face. A spokesperson for ICE didn’t immediately return a request for comment."
If an event is so important to know about, why fabricate such an important aspect of the event in this way?
Avshalom · 2h ago
If we want to stick to the facts: we don't actually have any proof that these were federal agents because they refuse to identify themselves. All we actually know is that Lander was kidnapped.
BonoboIO · 2h ago
It’s only a question when people will draw guns because they understandably think they are getting kidnapped.
Look at the murder of the 2 democrats a few days ago by a fake cop.
dragonwriter · 2h ago
He was, in fact, arrested for asking to see a warrant, that is clearly documented.
The claims of assault that DHS fabricated and published on social media and via other channels after the fact to justify it, of which there is no evidence, before Lander was released without any charges are interesting in terms of understanding the current regime's propaganda propensity, but have nothing to do with explaining the events clearly captured on video.
apparent · 1h ago
CBS reports he was arrested for assaulting an officer and impeding a federal enforcement action, or some such thing.
nathanaldensr · 7h ago
It serves the narrative, which is more important than facts. That's why people often say we are living in a "post-truth society."
Simulacra · 7h ago
A couple of reasons:
Clickbait,
Incitement,
Selling something, or
Bad Journalism
It happens all the time, but your point is absolutely correct. Media fabrication undermines confidence in the reporting.
potholereseller · 6h ago
The other commenter mentioned "narrative", which is very relevant, because that is an important part of simulation (and your username)
Baudrilliard was careful to point out that simulation isn't a matter of fabrication; to simulate is to obscure the absence of facts, not to create false facts. A simulacrum is a symbol that obscures the fact that it refers to nothing; whereas a symbol, in centuries past, invariably referred to something, real or imagined. The resulting reality (or maybe "mindspace"?) is a construct on top of the real world -- a hyper-reality -- in which every symbol is a simulacrum; the only thing real in hyper-reality is that the symbols hide the absence of facts. This is why, again as the other commenter mentions, we appear to live in a post-truth society; we are fully living in hyper-reality.
>Bad Journalism
The guy who created the Pullitzer prize also co-invented Yellow Journalism.[0][1] There is neither good journalism or bad journalism; it's all simulation.
> the only thing real in hyper-reality is that the symbols hide the absence of facts
What's a fact? Concepts like justice and fairness are fundamentally cultural constructs, and yet they've always been a core concern of human society. Setting up "facts" in opposition to "simulation" is no less a rhetorical narrative than what the article is pushing.
My takeaway from post-structuralism generally isn't that we live in a "fake" reality, but that the human experience--individually, collectively--is deeply complicated.
potholereseller · 2h ago
Baudrilliard didn't assert that reality/facts never existed; he in fact asserted that prior to the 20th century, there was plenty of correlation between symbols and facts/reality. His vision of the hyper-real is that it is detached from reality and it's facts; this is why I included "mindspace" parenthetically as an alternative word for "hyper-reality"; those operating in hyper-reality are physically in reality, but their actions appear to be based on another world, which they share through things like news media.
> post-structuralism
I don't think Baudrilliard can be categorized as post-structuralist or post-modernist, because "Baudrillard had also opposed post-structuralism, and had distanced himself from postmodernism."[0]
Camus didn't consider his views existentialist, but I consider them as such. Likewise, for me authors like Baudrillard and Benedict Anderson (political scientist) have written works that I think well capture the substantive gist of post-structuralism, even if neither saw themselves as part of that intellectual movement (and few if anyone else would relate Anderson to post-structuralism).
Plus, AFAIU Baudrillard turned into an angry, cynical, conspiratorial old man, kinda like a teenager who discovers the world is far more complex than the simplified versions he was taught, and then becomes angry at the world for being hoodwinked, as well as at everybody's complicity. IOW, some of Baudrillard insights are powerful, but I don't care all that much about how he chose to make use of them. (That said, the radical and exaggerated way he conceives of and presents things lends much of that power.)
I've never read any of Baudrillard's books, though, just several of his essays.
tootie · 2h ago
The issue is the HN title not matching the actual story. The City headline is correct. And the HN headline has also been updated to be correct.
A lot of us doesn't come here to read about US internal politics
sillyfluke · 4h ago
>Because it's HN not /r/politics
Poltical stories that show "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" are not against the guidelines. A few years back someone said nearly half the YC batch was non-US. I think stories about city comptrollers and mayoral candidates getting arrested at immigration court would have some bearing on whether someone would want to base a company in the US.
A user who has enough karma to flag stories has flagged it for whatever reason, maybe they think the story is flamebait or without merit, who knows. It is not possible for a user with equal or higher karma to unflag it I believe. Only a moderator can unflag it, and if you want them to do that you have to email them (address in guidelines, no guarentee of success).
timr · 2h ago
> Poltical stories that show "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" are not against the guidelines.
Call me evil and obtuse, but this is neither interesting, nor new. The only thing new here is that (it seems) a huge swath of people are learning how the law works for the first time.
Brad Lander had nothing to do with the situation. He's a politician, and he was there "observing". It's the equivalent if I walked down to the Manhattan courthouse, ran up to the first defendant in shackles I saw in the hallway, and started interfering with their movement. I'd be arrested.
The fact that you, as a random bystander, aren't shown ID and briefed on the situation isn't relevant. If you aren't involved, you aren't involved.
Tadpole9181 · 1h ago
The ununiformed, masked men that refuse to identify themselves and won't show any legal documents have unilateral authority and cannot be questioned. Do not resist.
You will not receive a trial. You will be sent to a black site. Your family or lawyer will not be informed.
America: home of the free.
timr · 1h ago
> The ununiformed, masked men that refuse to identify themselves and won't show any legal documents have unilateral authority and cannot be questioned. Do not resist.
Again, Brad Lander was not being detained. He had nothing to do with anything. That's not "resistance", it's just interference.
Tadpole9181 · 1h ago
Brad Lander saw unidentified, masked, ununiformed men who refused to speak, had no legal documentation, and would not identify themselves to anyone carrying a man against his will.
I hope it's not against the rules to swear, but this cannot be stated clearly enough: That's called a fucking kidnapping.
Did you not hear that someone pretending to be LEO attempted (and succeed in one case) the political assassination of two legislators and their spouses this weekend? More than ever, every single LEO should be under scrutiny for identification! He has every right to prevent a man from being disappeared by God knows who!
You may be a boot-stepping authoritarian who fully condones a US gestapo who can disappear anyone without question. The rest of us have higher standards and common sense.
timr · 1h ago
> Brad Lantern saw unidentified, masked, ununiformed men who refused to speak, had no legal documentation, and would not identify themselves to anyone carrying a man against his will.
Brad Lander was at the man's trial for illegal immigration, which was in a federal court building. So, you know...context matters. Also you can clearly see uniforms in the video [1], but I digress.
There is exactly zero chance that Lander was under the illusion that this hypothetical, rogue, pirate kidnapping operation smuggled themselves into a federal immigration court, Boondock Saints-style, in order to abduct the one guy Lander happened to be watching in the immigration trial just moments before.
> A lot of us doesn't come here to read about US internal politics
I see this a lot, and I think, "then why are you posting comments in a thread for a article discussing US internal politics?"
SantalBlush · 1h ago
Because they have an opinion on it, but want to appear even-handed.
pacomerh · 3h ago
You won't have a hackernews anymore if the country goes to shit though and we don't do anything about it, so it does matter. If you don't do politics, politics will do you.
JKCalhoun · 1h ago
I don't come here for articles about Rust, but what can I do? I guess not click on the thread....
But seriously, I come to HN for the variety of topics (though often technical) that so often surprise me.
Avshalom · 2h ago
US internal politics are also US external politics and all of this shit has been cheerled by the biggest names in Silicon Valley.
Hey remember when Peter Theil said we should get rid of democracy and Paul Graham said "we aren't going to like, stop giving money to people because of their opinions"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when the A in A16Z ran the futurist manifesto through a thesaurus?
Remember when Musk spent a quarter billion dollars to ensure this exact outcome?
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
You can always downvote or skip the article. Flagging it makes the decision for everyone else.
lmm · 2h ago
> You can always downvote
You literally can't. There's no downvote button for articles.
cosmicgadget · 1h ago
Touche, just skip then.
Simulacra · 7h ago
Flagged because it has nothing to do with technology, and actually goes against the rules.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
Why do you continue to comment on this post then?
stingrae · 7h ago
It is insane that federal agents are allowed to roam around in masks, without ID and just arrest people.
Any agent of the state. If I were King(TM) it wouldn't even be possible to call in an anonymous tip to the most mundane of local government offices. Sure a few people would get some retribution initially but eventually it'd result in better alignment between the interests of the state and people. Anything not worth doing fully above the table isn't worth doing.
fzeroracer · 1h ago
The speed with which other Americans went from 'we need guns to protect ourselves from the feds trampling over our rights' to 'federal agents bagging someone with zero identification or justification is OK actually' really does go to show how much of that was bluster. It's obvious to me that if federal agents weren't concerned with backlash for obviously illegal actions they would properly present themselves.
metalcrow · 1h ago
The true reason for this is that there are two (basically) groups of people in the US. The group that is pro gun might be opposed to this, but are not going to directly use weapons to defend themselves unless targeted. And they are not being targeted in this situation, so we don't see that coming into play.
mindslight · 7h ago
It's also insane that state governors haven't deployed their national guards to keep the peace against these lawless masked kidnap gangs [0]. Arrest them with guns drawn like any other violent criminals in the act, and keep them in jail until state judges can review the details of their situation.
This applies more to other kidnappings and less here, because this happened in a fascist-controlled building. But the point is we need to start drawing these types of hard dividing lines based on state authority following the law in good faith, rather than deferring to an autocratic federal executive that increasingly interprets it in bad faith.
[0] sorry fascism-cheerleaders - without uniforms, legal documentation of their authority, accountability to bystanders, and duly-issued arrest warrants, this is what they are.
incomingpain · 7h ago
They arent.
They need probable cause to arrest just like any other law enforcement. If they just arrest you because you're annoying or fake charges. You can sue them for deprivation of rights.
atmavatar · 4h ago
Of course, all that assumes the detainee is given due process.
If they're just going to kidnap people and take them away to El Salvadorian prisons, things like probable cause, miranda rights, and evidence are moot.
anon291 · 1h ago
Except that is not what is happening. Usually, if you're arrested in the process of them trying to simply make space to carry out their official business, you just get removed and released. That is what is happening here. Contrary to various claims that citizens are being 'deported' en masse. Fewer than 70 out of millions of deportations last year were US citizens. These were either mistakes or had good reasons (such as minor citizen children).
stingrae · 7h ago
They are, it could be that the vast majority are acting in good faith, but the videos show a very different story. There is also no statement from ICE renouncing bad behavior from their agents.
Also, you are going to have a hard time suing if you are an El Salvadorian prison.
tootie · 2h ago
CBP has no authority to arrest citizens. They would have to be assuming Lander is undocumented and they clearly have no reason to suspect that.
chneu · 2h ago
US citizens have already been arrested and ICE has tried to deport them.
Multiple US citizens in Los Angeles were recently arrested on the street. Whole thing was caught on camera. Dudes are literally yelling, "I'm a US citizen, I was born here" and the ICE folks didn't give a crap.
sQL_inject · 3h ago
As a legal immigrant who waited years to get my citizenship let's adjust some words here:
"It's insane illegal immigrants are allowed to roam around without ID and commit theft by subsisting on the programs legal immigrants pay for."
busyant · 2h ago
The two "insanities" are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, I agree with you that illegal immigrants abuse the system and unfairly consume resources. I also agree with the parent comment that people acting as a police force (i.e., ICE) should carry and present ID.
rrauenza · 7h ago
I hope to see qualified immunity eventually re-evaluated by the courts due to this...
rolph · 7h ago
[actual] Brad Lander Detained by Masked Federal Agents Inside Immigration Court
“The federal agents escorted him into an elevator, with one member of his NYPD security detail alongside him.”
It sounds as if the “security detail” failed at protecting their protectee.
peteyPete · 7h ago
Go forth and arrest 3000 people a day, says Trump.. I assume performance is tied to that 40k bonus they're supposed to be getting under the big beautiful bullshit bill? Are they being paid a performance bonus? An incentive to put anyone in cuffs if they don't care about how its done. History will not be kind to those amoebas.
jimt1234 · 2h ago
> "I know I will get due process and that my rights will be protected," Lander said.
Huh? Has he been sleeping under a rock for the last six months?
watusername · 2h ago
Well, read the next paragraph. It's clearly an acknowledgment of privilege and an appeal:
“I know I will get due process and that my rights will be protected,” Lander said to a throng of supporters who gathered spontaneously in Foley Square that evening after his release.
“But Edgardo will sleep in an ICE detention facility God knows where tonight…he has been stripped of his due process rights in a country that is supposed to be founded on equal justice under law,” Lander continued, naming the immigrant detained by federal agents at the same time the comptroller was taken into custody.
edoceo · 2h ago
Lots of trust in his legal and PR teams?
Any proletariat (90% of USA) would not be so fortunate.
kjkjadksj · 7h ago
Won’t be the last. Wasn’t it last week we saw Sen. Padilla held to the floor by federal agents for asking questions?
xyst · 8h ago
Jack booted thugs.
ars · 7h ago
The article does not support the current HN title, not to mention that changing the title is against HN rules. Stick with the article title which is: "Brad Lander Detained by Masked Federal Agents Inside Immigration Court".
Juliate · 7h ago
There's a thing I don't get, as a non-USAmerican.
If someone unidentified, masked, showing no warrant, no legal justification of anything, kidnaps/attempts to kidnap someone, how are (organised) citizens not in their legitimate right to retaliate, according to what their local state allows them to?
Similarly, why/how are the law enforcement units not taking side against those kidnapping?
I mean, in my country, this would obviously call for immediate intervention of the police, but maybe that's because I'm still in a country where administrative enforcement is still ultimately under the control of the judiciary branch.
nemomarx · 6h ago
The cops personally agree with them, and so wouldn't intervene in any case.
I do think there's precedent that it's self defense to fire on an unidentified stranger who knocks on your door or tries to arrest you without showing ID, but you need to make it to court to press that defense and I can't say it's a great strategy for that reason
metalcrow · 1h ago
In theory, they are within their rights to retaliate. If an unknown person tried to kidnap you and doesn't present any form of ID, you have a very very strong case of self defense and genuine threat, and that would likely (IANAL) hold up in court if you ended up shooting them. It ended up holding up for Randy Weaver! You would want to surrender immediately upon being shown some ID, of course, but you could get away with it.
As for why law enforcement isn't taking sides, it's because doing so would basically be the start of a state succession attempt, and would bring federal agents in to take over the state. Some states have claimed they are willing to do that in certain situations (Alaska has said in the past it will use state troopers against government if they try to enact certain gun control laws), but no one is willing to go there yet. The best they can do now is categorically refuse to assist the feds.
MasihMinawal · 3h ago
politics digivolves to ...
... politics everywhere
NickC25 · 8h ago
Just dumb. ICE are out of control. I wonder why...
amanaplanacanal · 7h ago
Nah, they are completely in the control of Stephen Miller. This is the way he wants it.
billy99k · 6h ago
"New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was detained inside a Lower Manhattan immigration court building Tuesday morning by masked federal agents as he attempted to escort a man from his court appearance there. "
This is actually what happened, not the headline. He tried to forcibly remove someone there for court. It's all a a show, to make the Trump administration look bad.
crooked-v · 3h ago
"From a court appearance" is referring to him escorting the man out after the court appearance, not evading the court.
latentcall · 1h ago
I don’t think the administration needs any help to look bad.
zefalt · 1h ago
I feel like hackernews has been getting astroturfed by the same people that ruined reddit. Over the past few months, there have been increasingly one sided political stories and comments. It's a shame.
affinepplan · 1h ago
what on earth "other side" could there be to unidentified secret police arresting politicians of the opposite party
zefalt · 1h ago
Obstructing a federal officer. Watch the video. Any average citizen would be arrested and detained.
> Any average citizen would be arrested and detained.
yes, ICE thugs would probably behave equally lawlessly towards any civilian challenging them for a warrant. that doesn't make what happened less horrifying.
zefalt · 1h ago
Your choice of words reveals a lot. Don't manipulate words to serve your conclusion.
They are not "thugs". They are federal officers.
ICE did not behave "lawlessly". They are upholding federal law. In fact, it was Brad Lander who acted lawlessly.
This constant manipulation of words is tiring. I don't find what happened "horrifying" at all. Anyone impeding the law should face its consequences.
affinepplan · 1h ago
> They are not "thugs". They are federal officers.
are they? maybe they should identify themselves as such with names, badge numbers, and warrants?
> They are upholding federal law.
they clearly aren't given the number of court cases the Trump administration is rapidly losing related to its deportation activity.
> This constant manipulation of words is tiring
this constant sanewashing of cruelty is tiring. you should find it horrifying.
but I'm not going to go in circles with you. I hope you eventually look back on this part of your life with shame about your beliefs and who and what you defended.
JKCalhoun · 1h ago
I feel instead that we are living in "interesting times".
Clearly we're not meant to be upset that fed-cops can behave this way generally, we're meant to be upset that they dared treat another agent of the state, a more equal animal, the way they'd treat a common peasant who got similarly uppity. Caring about these generalities is outside our lane.
I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.
Some basic facts are true here:
a) Brad Lander had no official capacity in that situation.
b) As a random person, he had no right to demand to see any documents, whatsoever, from the people doing the arrest.
c) Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.
You don't just get to throw yourself in the middle of a law-enforcement action without consequence because you're a politician (or upset, or "moral", or...)
---
Edit: folks, read the article and watch the video [1]. A lot of you are just repeating things that plainly aren't true. Lander was in a federal courthouse. Uniformed police officers were present, and participated in his arrest. He had just attended the trial of the person being detained. There's simply no reasonable way that Lander believed that this was a "kidnapping", as many of you are saying. He knew exactly what was going on, and he knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact that cameras were there certainly wasn't a coincidence.
[1] https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hea...
There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".
Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.
The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
Yes, you do have a right to raise this as an issue... but not anywhere anyway. In all this discussion about the rule of law, we forget that the rule of the law also dictates how citizen redresses are to be handled... in a court of law, using established procedures.
> The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.
False equivocation... The 2nd amendment crowd has an amendment to our constitution allowing them to do what they do: own weapons. There is no amendment that lets you willy-nilly march into a court and demand papers. If you want that, I would suggest writing your legislator to propose such an amendment.
2. I did not equate the two, other than as a means of resisting tyranny. You have no legal right (other than in NH) to seek to overthrow the government, 2nd amendment or otherwise.
Well, you can theorize a "moral duty" to do whatever you want, but that won't stop you from getting actually arrested, under real laws. But you do you.
The thing about being a martyr for your beliefs is that it comes with a downside. This article is trying to stir up controversy that someone doing something illegal (i.e. obstruction) was arrested for a valid reason.
Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.
I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.
Sure you do. Call the police. Record it, capture the details for evidence.
> Just stand back and watch?
Again, you're welcome to call the police. But no, you don't just get to rush in and start interfering because your sophisticated understanding of the circumstances as a complete nobody make you feel like Captain America.
> That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?
It's obviously not a "kidnapping". Nobody seriously believes that -- most obviously, Brad Lander, who wouldn't be screaming for a warrant from "kidnappers".
Or are you just restricting this logic to plainclothes officers, who aren't wearing uniforms at all?
Since we're all clutching our pearls, we might as well clutch all of them.
He was refusing to unlink his arm from the person ICE wanted to detain until ICE presented documentation establishing the legality of what they were doing. It was a perfectly reasonable request.
(You can also easily imagine why it wouldn't be ideal to publish the name of someone who is actively being harassed by masked thugs.)
If I were being mistreated by enforcers I would want my name anywhere and everywhere. Public scrutiny is one's only hope when government seeks to mistreat you.
If I was ever blackmailed with "do X or we will kill Y", the first thing I would do is to tell the entire world. This would massively increase the risks associated with actually killing that person, as then the police would immediately know who to suspect.
YOU may not know the man's name, but people who read at least the first four paragraphs of this article will know that his name is Edgardo.
Sometimes, criticism is poised to cause reform. Currently, it's poised to support the fascist takeover in progress. Having to circle the wagons sucks as it further empowers the authoritarians on our side, but at this point it is what it is - traditional American governance (with all of its warts and flaws) versus autocratic fascism red in tooth and claw.
No comments yet
We do not have to sit back and let this happen.
I have never seen this work for something this politicized.
I don’t see a connection between their efficacy and what happened in Minnesota, which was an event that is arguably all the more reason to protest.
The scale of the protests is encouraging, but I remember the mass protests under Bush were about as large, and the war continued and he stayed in power. Organization needs to do something with the mass of people who are out in the streets to direct them.
Whether the elections are fair and the opposition is even allowed to field a candidate... now that's a different story.
Trump was already divisive enough that the Republican majority in the House shrank in 2024.
The whole "there won't be elections" hysteria is exactly because the current MAGA movement is scared shitless of being rejected again.
Furthermore, if Trump-y candidates do poorly in 2026, he'll be a lame duck president with little political clout for his final 2 years.
Politicians are many things, but charitable to unpopular people without power is not one of them.
I think largely they have not yet been effective at protecting immigrants.
> They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events.
Right, so to some degree they "work" as tools for existing political groups in attracting attention, resources and possibly votes. But does it better enable those groups to actually help immigrants? Or does it just give political organizations a powerful talking point in the midterms?
Sure would help if the media would cover them to the extent that they did for George Floyd/Women's March/etc.
That's why the voting public were shocked to find out she was helping lead cabinet meetings. The good doctor was not elected.
No comments yet
I don't support what the current administration is doing; not by a long shot. But to say, "they did just shoot two elected representatives," is disingenuous at best.
Citation needed
I don't remember the exact sentence but it was something like that: "That's the issue with pandering to violent conspiracy theorists, if they feel betrayed they will aim that violence at you".
Do you disagree with this characterization?
Publicly they've been claiming that he's some left wing extremist despite all available evidence.
Yes, that's risky. Some people might get hurt. A lot of people are being hurt, and will continue to be hurt, by the current situation. We all have to make our own choices about when principles and long-term outcomes outweigh our instinct for self preservation.
This seems to be a pattern in most non democratic countries...
There is a parallel authoritarian system being built up, starting with the creation of DHS in 2001 and ending god knows where. The massive expansion of ICE should ring alarm bells for everyone. This power grab does not end. It will expand and continue.
Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
>Why are the right libertarians and 2A folks not speaking up right now? We have masked feds rolling up and barging in without warrants...?
Right now you're making the same complaints about immigration process that hardcore libertarians made decades ago about traffic court and code enforcement and were brushed off for various reasons. They're keeping their mouths shut so as to not interfere with the learning process.
> I would be absolutely elated if the end result of all this crap is a judicial president that eviscerates the many parallel systems that the feds/state/local governments run in all sorts of specialty areas of law.
I think we saw what giving power to the "right guy" in the executive branch lead us. The thing that will stop us going down this road is, at this point, active resistance from local and state governments, private businesses and government contractors, and large multi-national corporations.
You need a lot of ICE, an absolutely staggering number of cops and jails, to deport twenty million people. It should be crystal clear by now that they will attempt to follow through with this promise, by whatever means necessary.
Can you point me to some examples of people a decade ago running afoul of traffic or code enforcement, and being sent to an extrajudicial concentration camp for it?
But seriously, stop trying to be edgy with needlessly contrarian points. Stop gloating because us libertarians were talking about the trend of unaccountable government processes before it was popular. The dam breaking is not something to be celebrated, you're just adding fuel to the fire.
It's time to circle the wagons and defend our country together. True libertarians are not "keeping our mouths shut", but rather speaking out against the rapidly increasing government power. One cause, which we have to be mature and acknowledge, is the destruction of bureaucracy (which we've always disliked, but at least it moderated) in favor of unrestrained autocracy.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-el-salvador-deporte...
If I'm correctly interpreting what you said - yes, I agree that presently some people end up running afoul of traffic enforcement, which causes them to run afoul of immigration, which causes them to end up in the concentration camp.
But the larger argument is contrasting the longer-existing authoritarian/autocratic dynamics of code/traffic enforcers versus the more recent development of autocratic immigration enforcers.
It has been entertaining listening to the people at Reason Magazine lately. They have convinced themselves thoroughly that they're not actually racist authoritarians, so now that they're getting what they really want, but it's so diametrically opposed to what they say they believe, they have to contort themselves endlessly.
Do not expect any kind of help from those kinds of people. Their anti-authoritarianism is largely performative or reserved to their in-group. When it's not performative, it's just rich kids complaining they're not allowed do to whatever they want.
Their top immigration story right now is a great example: https://reason.com/2025/06/12/california-immigration-raids-a...
No comments yet
Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
You’re arguing that your personal opinion is “the will of the electorate”. The policies directing local police to focus on crime affecting their communities instead of shadowing federal immigration enforcement weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives.
California’s sanctuary laws are the subject of considerable mythology but they had no effect on crime rates according to actual studies because they don’t prohibit cops from working with law enforcement for cases involving people who pose a risk to their communities. They can’t hold people without cause or use a parking ticket to get someone deported but there’s no problem cooperating with federal law enforcement to get rid of a robber, killer, rapist, etc. – the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-...
Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Democracy means going along with popular decisions even if you disagree, not finding tricks to undermine what was nationally agreed because your corner of the country doesn't like it.
> the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
Most of the electorate wants all illegal immigrants deported, not just the ones caught committing violent crimes.
If it can happen to a brown person, it can happen to you - maybe have a little self interest, or perhaps consider how boring America would be without immigrants and black people - that's kinda where all our culture comes from, in our melting pot everything blends together.
Contrary to the current title here on HN, Lander was not arrested for asking to see a warrant; TFA states the opposite, "It wasn’t immediately clear what charges, if any, the mayoral candidate will face. A spokesperson for ICE didn’t immediately return a request for comment."
If an event is so important to know about, why fabricate such an important aspect of the event in this way?
Look at the murder of the 2 democrats a few days ago by a fake cop.
The claims of assault that DHS fabricated and published on social media and via other channels after the fact to justify it, of which there is no evidence, before Lander was released without any charges are interesting in terms of understanding the current regime's propaganda propensity, but have nothing to do with explaining the events clearly captured on video.
Clickbait, Incitement, Selling something, or Bad Journalism
It happens all the time, but your point is absolutely correct. Media fabrication undermines confidence in the reporting.
Baudrilliard was careful to point out that simulation isn't a matter of fabrication; to simulate is to obscure the absence of facts, not to create false facts. A simulacrum is a symbol that obscures the fact that it refers to nothing; whereas a symbol, in centuries past, invariably referred to something, real or imagined. The resulting reality (or maybe "mindspace"?) is a construct on top of the real world -- a hyper-reality -- in which every symbol is a simulacrum; the only thing real in hyper-reality is that the symbols hide the absence of facts. This is why, again as the other commenter mentions, we appear to live in a post-truth society; we are fully living in hyper-reality.
>Bad Journalism
The guy who created the Pullitzer prize also co-invented Yellow Journalism.[0][1] There is neither good journalism or bad journalism; it's all simulation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer#Pulitzer_Prize
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Origins:_Pul...
What's a fact? Concepts like justice and fairness are fundamentally cultural constructs, and yet they've always been a core concern of human society. Setting up "facts" in opposition to "simulation" is no less a rhetorical narrative than what the article is pushing.
My takeaway from post-structuralism generally isn't that we live in a "fake" reality, but that the human experience--individually, collectively--is deeply complicated.
> post-structuralism
I don't think Baudrilliard can be categorized as post-structuralist or post-modernist, because "Baudrillard had also opposed post-structuralism, and had distanced himself from postmodernism."[0]
[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard>
Plus, AFAIU Baudrillard turned into an angry, cynical, conspiratorial old man, kinda like a teenager who discovers the world is far more complex than the simplified versions he was taught, and then becomes angry at the world for being hoodwinked, as well as at everybody's complicity. IOW, some of Baudrillard insights are powerful, but I don't care all that much about how he chose to make use of them. (That said, the radical and exaggerated way he conceives of and presents things lends much of that power.)
I've never read any of Baudrillard's books, though, just several of his essays.
A lot of us doesn't come here to read about US internal politics
Poltical stories that show "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" are not against the guidelines. A few years back someone said nearly half the YC batch was non-US. I think stories about city comptrollers and mayoral candidates getting arrested at immigration court would have some bearing on whether someone would want to base a company in the US.
A user who has enough karma to flag stories has flagged it for whatever reason, maybe they think the story is flamebait or without merit, who knows. It is not possible for a user with equal or higher karma to unflag it I believe. Only a moderator can unflag it, and if you want them to do that you have to email them (address in guidelines, no guarentee of success).
Call me evil and obtuse, but this is neither interesting, nor new. The only thing new here is that (it seems) a huge swath of people are learning how the law works for the first time.
Brad Lander had nothing to do with the situation. He's a politician, and he was there "observing". It's the equivalent if I walked down to the Manhattan courthouse, ran up to the first defendant in shackles I saw in the hallway, and started interfering with their movement. I'd be arrested.
The fact that you, as a random bystander, aren't shown ID and briefed on the situation isn't relevant. If you aren't involved, you aren't involved.
You will not receive a trial. You will be sent to a black site. Your family or lawyer will not be informed.
America: home of the free.
Again, Brad Lander was not being detained. He had nothing to do with anything. That's not "resistance", it's just interference.
I hope it's not against the rules to swear, but this cannot be stated clearly enough: That's called a fucking kidnapping.
Did you not hear that someone pretending to be LEO attempted (and succeed in one case) the political assassination of two legislators and their spouses this weekend? More than ever, every single LEO should be under scrutiny for identification! He has every right to prevent a man from being disappeared by God knows who!
You may be a boot-stepping authoritarian who fully condones a US gestapo who can disappear anyone without question. The rest of us have higher standards and common sense.
Brad Lander was at the man's trial for illegal immigration, which was in a federal court building. So, you know...context matters. Also you can clearly see uniforms in the video [1], but I digress.
There is exactly zero chance that Lander was under the illusion that this hypothetical, rogue, pirate kidnapping operation smuggled themselves into a federal immigration court, Boondock Saints-style, in order to abduct the one guy Lander happened to be watching in the immigration trial just moments before.
[1] https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hea...
I see this a lot, and I think, "then why are you posting comments in a thread for a article discussing US internal politics?"
But seriously, I come to HN for the variety of topics (though often technical) that so often surprise me.
Hey remember when Peter Theil said we should get rid of democracy and Paul Graham said "we aren't going to like, stop giving money to people because of their opinions"? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Remember when the A in A16Z ran the futurist manifesto through a thesaurus?
Remember when Musk spent a quarter billion dollars to ensure this exact outcome?
You literally can't. There's no downvote button for articles.
This applies more to other kidnappings and less here, because this happened in a fascist-controlled building. But the point is we need to start drawing these types of hard dividing lines based on state authority following the law in good faith, rather than deferring to an autocratic federal executive that increasingly interprets it in bad faith.
[0] sorry fascism-cheerleaders - without uniforms, legal documentation of their authority, accountability to bystanders, and duly-issued arrest warrants, this is what they are.
They need probable cause to arrest just like any other law enforcement. If they just arrest you because you're annoying or fake charges. You can sue them for deprivation of rights.
If they're just going to kidnap people and take them away to El Salvadorian prisons, things like probable cause, miranda rights, and evidence are moot.
Also, you are going to have a hard time suing if you are an El Salvadorian prison.
Multiple US citizens in Los Angeles were recently arrested on the street. Whole thing was caught on camera. Dudes are literally yelling, "I'm a US citizen, I was born here" and the ICE folks didn't give a crap.
"It's insane illegal immigrants are allowed to roam around without ID and commit theft by subsisting on the programs legal immigrants pay for."
In fact, I agree with you that illegal immigrants abuse the system and unfairly consume resources. I also agree with the parent comment that people acting as a police force (i.e., ICE) should carry and present ID.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/06/17/brad-lander-arrest-ice-im...
It sounds as if the “security detail” failed at protecting their protectee.
Huh? Has he been sleeping under a rock for the last six months?
Any proletariat (90% of USA) would not be so fortunate.
If someone unidentified, masked, showing no warrant, no legal justification of anything, kidnaps/attempts to kidnap someone, how are (organised) citizens not in their legitimate right to retaliate, according to what their local state allows them to?
Similarly, why/how are the law enforcement units not taking side against those kidnapping?
I mean, in my country, this would obviously call for immediate intervention of the police, but maybe that's because I'm still in a country where administrative enforcement is still ultimately under the control of the judiciary branch.
I do think there's precedent that it's self defense to fire on an unidentified stranger who knocks on your door or tries to arrest you without showing ID, but you need to make it to court to press that defense and I can't say it's a great strategy for that reason
As for why law enforcement isn't taking sides, it's because doing so would basically be the start of a state succession attempt, and would bring federal agents in to take over the state. Some states have claimed they are willing to do that in certain situations (Alaska has said in the past it will use state troopers against government if they try to enact certain gun control laws), but no one is willing to go there yet. The best they can do now is categorically refuse to assist the feds.
... politics everywhere
This is actually what happened, not the headline. He tried to forcibly remove someone there for court. It's all a a show, to make the Trump administration look bad.
https://x.com/w_terrence/status/1935025940075266435
> Any average citizen would be arrested and detained.
yes, ICE thugs would probably behave equally lawlessly towards any civilian challenging them for a warrant. that doesn't make what happened less horrifying.
They are not "thugs". They are federal officers.
ICE did not behave "lawlessly". They are upholding federal law. In fact, it was Brad Lander who acted lawlessly.
This constant manipulation of words is tiring. I don't find what happened "horrifying" at all. Anyone impeding the law should face its consequences.
are they? maybe they should identify themselves as such with names, badge numbers, and warrants?
> They are upholding federal law.
they clearly aren't given the number of court cases the Trump administration is rapidly losing related to its deportation activity.
> This constant manipulation of words is tiring
this constant sanewashing of cruelty is tiring. you should find it horrifying.
but I'm not going to go in circles with you. I hope you eventually look back on this part of your life with shame about your beliefs and who and what you defended.