But it is also important for our side to understand the rule and know when we are and are not on the right side of the law and what to expect from state and local law enforcement, even in a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Point One: Protesting against ICE is clearly protected by the First Amendment, much as ICE may seek to disagree.
Point Two: Government may, nonetheless impose time, place, and manner restrictions in the interests of keeping the peace. For instance, government may require protests to be a certain distance from an ICE facility if that cuts down on confrontations. It may require protests to disburse before dark if protests after dark tend to lead to violence. It may limit the volume of protests and so forth. State and local police, even in a sanctuary jurisdiction, will enforce these limits.
Point Three: Any violence against ICE, such as vandalizing their facilities or assaulting ICE members is a crime and is properly prosecuted to the full extent of the law. ICE often lies about these things, but they do occur and should not be condoned.
Point Four: Getting in the way and physically trying to block ICE vehicles or agents is criminal obstruction, even if done without violence. I believe it can be a legitimate form of civil disobedience (more on that later), but it is illegal and state and local police, even in a sanctuary jurisdiction, will not allow it.
Point Five: Filming ICE in action is protected by the First Amendment, much as ICE may object, so long as it is at a distance and does not interfere. Teaching immigrants their rights, including the right not to admit ICE into private areas without a judicial warrant, is also protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.
Point Six: This is the one I am not clear on as to when tracking ICE and warning people about its location is protected by the First Amendment and when it becomes criminal obstruction. There are experts who can give better guidance on this.
But the part that interests me most, and that people on our side most need to understand is the matter of peaceably blocking ICE vehicles and other acts of civil disobedience.
First, it really is criminal obstruction, and the state and local authorities, even in a sanctuary jurisdiction, will not allow it, and will protect ICE agents at work and make arrests if necessary. This has the uncomfortable effect of subverting a sanctuary laws by forcing local authorities to be complicit in ICE actions. On the other hand local police are generally less violent than ICE, less abusive, less prone to use tear gas and pepper spray, and so forth.
And really, civil disobedience is the sole preserve of private citizens. There are serious problems with government officials, tasked with enforcing the law, choosing to disobey it. Yes, there is the difficult issue of disobeying an unlawful order, which I expect to come up sooner or later. But deciding that a valid law is nonetheless unjust is a dangerous power in the hands of people tasked with enforcing it. No matter how much we may applaud it in this case, it sets a dangerous precedent that may come back to haunt us.
Second, private citizens who wish to get in the way and try to block ICE need to understand that this is civil disobedience. Upon making the decision to engage in civil disobedience, the people doing so should understand the guidelines underlying civil disobedience. (Not laws, since civil disobedience is illegal by definition, but moral guidelines set forth, as I understand it, by Martin Luther King). And those guidelines are:
First, a person engaged in civil disobedience is breaking a law he or she considers unjust. Check.
Second, the disobeyer breaks the law openly with no attempt to conceal his or her actions. Again, check.
Third, the disobeyer acts breaks the law without violence. This point requires further elaboration. An initial commitment to reject violence is not enough. The disobeyer will be facing people who do their utmost to provoke in order to justify a violent response. I highly recommend the movie Freedom Song about the Civil Rights movement. It makes the point I had not seen before or even known that the Civil Rights movement did not send people cold into a potentially dangerous situation. First, anyone going into such a situation rehearsed the sort of provocation they were likely to face, prepared for it, and was trained in not being provoked. (The hero of the movie snaps when the trainers spit on him and is warned he must accept even that without retaliation).
It is my understanding that immigrant rights groups frequently do train people in this way before they go into any situation that might mean confronting ICE. What I don't know is how universal this training is. I realize that the current situation differs from the Civil Rights movement in that advocates do not choose when and where a confrontation takes place. But training in restraint should be universal for anyone sent into a potentially dangerous situation.
Fourth, the disobeyer must accept the penalties imposed for breaking the law, however unjust. And this is important. No matter how obviously unjust the law may seem to you, there are people who disagree, or it would not be law in the first place. And yes, I do understand that ICE grossly inflates charges at best and fabricates outright at worst. Submitting to the law does not mean foregoing the right to challenge lies told by the other side, or to challenge their actions as unconstitutional. But there are real dangers in people who believe that the justice of their cause places them above the law. The Gaza protesters are an obvious example. People on our side need to understand that any attempt to block ICE is criminal obstruction, cannot be condoned by any law enforcement, and will be prosecuted as criminal obstruction. Anyone who makes such and attempt should do so with that understanding. So should people who cheer them on.
No comments:
Post a Comment