When immigration enforcement is treated like self-defense in a “duty to retreat” state - the illegal alien's presence and preferences matter more than the citizen's right to protection
Perhaps a new concept can be introduced into the self-defense argument. Let's consider a principle of law that we might call, "Duty to Obey", or, perhaps, "Agression Follows Intent". One who is engaged in unlawful activity has voluntarily and willingly placed himself in harm's way, and must suffer the consequences of their choice. A citizen is required to obey the law in order to appeal to its protections. If a citizen breaks the law, they must bear responsibility as the aggressor in any confrontation that may result from that illegal activity. We are not saying that a person loses the rights of the accused as delineated in the Constitution, but in the moment(s) of lawless aggression or disobedience, those rights are subordinated to the person(s) being victimized by those actions or to the legally constituted power(s) of the state, respectively. The victimized citizen would be entitled to use whatever means or methods determined necessary as adjudged by a reasonable person. In other words, a person's actions to protect or defend oneself would be left to their own judgement according to the circumstances, limited only by reasonable attention to the safety of (uninvolved) others and their property. Again, in other words, FAFO. Just a modest proposal for moral clarity.
You have triggered a thought regarding Barak Hussein Obama and the notion of "leading from behind." Montgomery County, MD does not have stand your ground laws; Maryland law requires individuals to retreat, if safely possible, before using deadly force in public. However, the "Castle Doctrine" allows for self-defense without retreating when in one's home. We are planning a move to Florida.
what is omitted here is the rule of participation.
In Light of the Tragic Shooting and death of a Woman Who Was Protesting I.C.E. Actions in MInneapolis Yesterday, we should consider What Constitutional Rights Protesters have and don’t Have.
-keep in mind miss Good and her partner were members of “ Ice watch”
-The Minnesota ICE Watch group of which slain Minneapolis protester Renee Good was a member shared a detailed manual providing instructions on fighting police officers to free arrested radicals from their grasp, comparing each “de-arrest” to a “micro-intifada.”
The “de-arrest primer” manual was reposted on Instagram in June by MN ICE Watch, part of a loose collective of agitators who teach members how to disrupt law enforcement officers performing their duties, including ICE agents.
-What constitutes legal ICE protests by citizens of the United States? And when does protest against I.C.E enforcement operations become criminal by citizens or others?
In the United States, protesting ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations is legal up to a point—but it becomes criminal when citizens cross from expressing opposition into interfering with law enforcement or committing independent crimes.
1. What is Clearly Legal?
A person may:
-Protest peacefully (march, chant, hold signs, picket).
-Observe and record ICE activity in public places (as long as you don’t interfere).
-Verbally criticize or question officers.
-Advocate for immigrants, even strongly or politically.
-Provide general “know your rights” information (not case-specific advice during an operation).
-These activities are protected under the First Amendment.
2. When Do Protests Become Illegal?
-Protest becomes illegal when it crosses into obstruction, interference, or independent crimes. Common examples include:
A. Obstructing or interfering with ICE operations.
-This can include:
Blocking officers, vehicles, or entrances,
-Forming human chains to prevent arrests,
-Physically positioning yourself between ICE and a person being detained,
-Giving false directions or actively misleading officers during an operation.
-What Federal laws commonly apply:
-According to 18 U.S.C. § 1501, § 1512, § 371 (obstruction, witness tampering, conspiracy), and
-8 U.S.C. § 1324 (harboring, shielding, or concealing undocumented persons)
-Even nonviolent interference can be criminal.
B. Harboring or concealing individuals.
-If a person:
-Hides someone from ICE, or
-Transports them to avoid detection, or
-Provides shelter specifically to evade arrest.
-That can trigger felony charges under federal immigration law.
C. Trespassing or refusal to disperse.
-You may be charged if you:
-Enter restricted or private property, or
-Remain after a lawful order to disperse, or
-Occupy federal buildings or blocked areas.
D. Threats, assault, or property damage.
-Any of the following are crimes regardless of motive:
-Pushing, grabbing, or striking officers,
-Throwing objects,
-Vandalizing vehicles or buildings,
-Making credible threats of harm.
E. Conspiracy or organized disruption
-If people coordinate in advance to:
-Block arrests, or
-Disable vehicles, or
-Track and interfere with ICE movements.
-They can face conspiracy charges, even if no violence occurs.
3. An Important nuance: “Speech vs. conduct”
-Courts draw a sharp distinction:
-Protected actions are: Speech, signs, chanting, filming, moral opposition
-Non-protected actions are: -Actions that physically interfere, delay, hide, or aid evasion.
-You can loudly say “This is unjust.”
-You cannot stop the arrest from happening.
4. State and local charges can also apply.
-In addition to federal law, protesters may be charged under state law for:
-Disorderly conduct, or
-Resisting or obstructing an officer,
-Trespassing, or
-Unlawful assembly or riot (in rare or escalated situations).
5. A simple rule of thumb says that:
-Protest is legal.
-Interference is not.
If your actions:
-Express opposition → they are likely protected, but if they
-Physically impede, conceal, or disrupt enforcement → they are potentially criminal.
-According to the Cornell Law School, if the officer involved in this shooting is charged with a crime, it will be guided by the following Law: 28 U.S. Code, Paragraph 1442–Federal Officers or Agencies Sued or Prosecuted. From what I’ve read, this action may start in state and transfer to Federal Court, or start in Federal Court. Legal experts are welcome to add or correct any of these U.S. Statutes that I have listed here.
-There are laws on the books for decades or centuries even that outline the responsibilities and rights of citizens as well as law enforcement officers on the local, state, and Federal levels. The legal system will prevail—not mob rule.
The analogy between Duty to Retreat and progressive immigration policy genuinely clarifies something that felt fuzzy before. Transferring risk from aggressor to victim is exactly what happens when enforcement is framed as the real violence rather than the initial violation. I saw this play out locally when a sanctuary city policy meant repeat offenders cycled back onto streets within hours, and any pushback got framed as fear-mongering.
I joined substack because of Unlicensed Punditry. I used to be a liberal growing up in Vancouver B.C. My grandmother hosted many a meeting at our house growing up including NDP MLA Rohini Arora and a teenaged Pierre Pollievre, with his brother and mother. Thankyou so much for intelligent and logical articles. Law enforcement should be treated with respect and laws should not be mere suggestion or an attack.
Perhaps a new concept can be introduced into the self-defense argument. Let's consider a principle of law that we might call, "Duty to Obey", or, perhaps, "Agression Follows Intent". One who is engaged in unlawful activity has voluntarily and willingly placed himself in harm's way, and must suffer the consequences of their choice. A citizen is required to obey the law in order to appeal to its protections. If a citizen breaks the law, they must bear responsibility as the aggressor in any confrontation that may result from that illegal activity. We are not saying that a person loses the rights of the accused as delineated in the Constitution, but in the moment(s) of lawless aggression or disobedience, those rights are subordinated to the person(s) being victimized by those actions or to the legally constituted power(s) of the state, respectively. The victimized citizen would be entitled to use whatever means or methods determined necessary as adjudged by a reasonable person. In other words, a person's actions to protect or defend oneself would be left to their own judgement according to the circumstances, limited only by reasonable attention to the safety of (uninvolved) others and their property. Again, in other words, FAFO. Just a modest proposal for moral clarity.
You have triggered a thought regarding Barak Hussein Obama and the notion of "leading from behind." Montgomery County, MD does not have stand your ground laws; Maryland law requires individuals to retreat, if safely possible, before using deadly force in public. However, the "Castle Doctrine" allows for self-defense without retreating when in one's home. We are planning a move to Florida.
what is omitted here is the rule of participation.
In Light of the Tragic Shooting and death of a Woman Who Was Protesting I.C.E. Actions in MInneapolis Yesterday, we should consider What Constitutional Rights Protesters have and don’t Have.
-keep in mind miss Good and her partner were members of “ Ice watch”
-The Minnesota ICE Watch group of which slain Minneapolis protester Renee Good was a member shared a detailed manual providing instructions on fighting police officers to free arrested radicals from their grasp, comparing each “de-arrest” to a “micro-intifada.”
The “de-arrest primer” manual was reposted on Instagram in June by MN ICE Watch, part of a loose collective of agitators who teach members how to disrupt law enforcement officers performing their duties, including ICE agents.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/12/us-news/minnesota-ice-watch-group-shared-de-arresting-manual-comparing-tactics-for-fighting-cops-to-a-micro-intifada/?utm_social_handle_id=134486075205&utm_social_post_id=650212950&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=facebook&sr_share=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPTQa9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeVX5uVMKbqnyIgrKMXmX56ebQc98YBSowZ7uPXLukEO1WT1L06UsRTREoKkY_aem_56ZD0ybjHEW6DB1KPRZTEQ
-What constitutes legal ICE protests by citizens of the United States? And when does protest against I.C.E enforcement operations become criminal by citizens or others?
In the United States, protesting ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations is legal up to a point—but it becomes criminal when citizens cross from expressing opposition into interfering with law enforcement or committing independent crimes.
1. What is Clearly Legal?
A person may:
-Protest peacefully (march, chant, hold signs, picket).
-Observe and record ICE activity in public places (as long as you don’t interfere).
-Verbally criticize or question officers.
-Advocate for immigrants, even strongly or politically.
-Provide general “know your rights” information (not case-specific advice during an operation).
-These activities are protected under the First Amendment.
2. When Do Protests Become Illegal?
-Protest becomes illegal when it crosses into obstruction, interference, or independent crimes. Common examples include:
A. Obstructing or interfering with ICE operations.
-This can include:
Blocking officers, vehicles, or entrances,
-Forming human chains to prevent arrests,
-Physically positioning yourself between ICE and a person being detained,
-Giving false directions or actively misleading officers during an operation.
-What Federal laws commonly apply:
-According to 18 U.S.C. § 1501, § 1512, § 371 (obstruction, witness tampering, conspiracy), and
-8 U.S.C. § 1324 (harboring, shielding, or concealing undocumented persons)
-Even nonviolent interference can be criminal.
B. Harboring or concealing individuals.
-If a person:
-Hides someone from ICE, or
-Transports them to avoid detection, or
-Provides shelter specifically to evade arrest.
-That can trigger felony charges under federal immigration law.
C. Trespassing or refusal to disperse.
-You may be charged if you:
-Enter restricted or private property, or
-Remain after a lawful order to disperse, or
-Occupy federal buildings or blocked areas.
D. Threats, assault, or property damage.
-Any of the following are crimes regardless of motive:
-Pushing, grabbing, or striking officers,
-Throwing objects,
-Vandalizing vehicles or buildings,
-Making credible threats of harm.
E. Conspiracy or organized disruption
-If people coordinate in advance to:
-Block arrests, or
-Disable vehicles, or
-Track and interfere with ICE movements.
-They can face conspiracy charges, even if no violence occurs.
3. An Important nuance: “Speech vs. conduct”
-Courts draw a sharp distinction:
-Protected actions are: Speech, signs, chanting, filming, moral opposition
-Non-protected actions are: -Actions that physically interfere, delay, hide, or aid evasion.
-You can loudly say “This is unjust.”
-You cannot stop the arrest from happening.
4. State and local charges can also apply.
-In addition to federal law, protesters may be charged under state law for:
-Disorderly conduct, or
-Resisting or obstructing an officer,
-Trespassing, or
-Unlawful assembly or riot (in rare or escalated situations).
5. A simple rule of thumb says that:
-Protest is legal.
-Interference is not.
If your actions:
-Express opposition → they are likely protected, but if they
-Physically impede, conceal, or disrupt enforcement → they are potentially criminal.
-According to the Cornell Law School, if the officer involved in this shooting is charged with a crime, it will be guided by the following Law: 28 U.S. Code, Paragraph 1442–Federal Officers or Agencies Sued or Prosecuted. From what I’ve read, this action may start in state and transfer to Federal Court, or start in Federal Court. Legal experts are welcome to add or correct any of these U.S. Statutes that I have listed here.
-There are laws on the books for decades or centuries even that outline the responsibilities and rights of citizens as well as law enforcement officers on the local, state, and Federal levels. The legal system will prevail—not mob rule.
The analogy between Duty to Retreat and progressive immigration policy genuinely clarifies something that felt fuzzy before. Transferring risk from aggressor to victim is exactly what happens when enforcement is framed as the real violence rather than the initial violation. I saw this play out locally when a sanctuary city policy meant repeat offenders cycled back onto streets within hours, and any pushback got framed as fear-mongering.
I joined substack because of Unlicensed Punditry. I used to be a liberal growing up in Vancouver B.C. My grandmother hosted many a meeting at our house growing up including NDP MLA Rohini Arora and a teenaged Pierre Pollievre, with his brother and mother. Thankyou so much for intelligent and logical articles. Law enforcement should be treated with respect and laws should not be mere suggestion or an attack.