In Part 1 of this series Daniel Jupp took the reader back to the origins of ICE, its purpose and legitimacy, tracking its consistent practice of and duty to deport illegals for the last 22 years under previous US presidents including Joe Biden. Today he asks what changed this to make it ‘fascist’ – that is, to be widely perceived as such.
THE short answer here is Joe Biden, and the long answer is the radicalisation of the Democrat Party, the mainstream media, and the architects of modern mass migration into Western nations and the ways they corruptly profit from open borders.
Biden’s ‘victory’ in 2020 was conditional on three things. The first was a vast amount of electoral fraud made possible by mail-in ballots and covid changes to the operation of an election process.
The second was the complicity and conspiracy of the media and Establishment Republicans opposed to Trump, all pretending the election was a legitimate and honest one.
The third was the number of votes Democrats got from illegal aliens, who had no right to take part but were facilitated by the Democrat Party quite deliberately to rig elections.
High population levels of illegal alien-friendly blue (Democrat) states provide disproportionate numbers of representatives, since these are not based on the numbers of legal citizens but the illegal count too.
Imagine in the UK if we had no voting ID checks, the Labour Party was largely in control of postal ballots and lots of us voted by that method, and areas that welcomed illegal aliens got extra MPs for doing so. You’d then have an equivalent explanation both of why fraud worked in 2020 and why Democrats now support open borders so strongly (because it gives them inherent advantages).
During the Biden administration the lesson and policy was very clear. If the Democrat Party could get enough illegal aliens into the country as quickly as possible, it could be hoped that millions of these people would be acquired as voters whether or not they became citizens. And even without those additional illegal votes, the extra numbers alone, under the electoral college system, would give Democrats more representatives, potentially locking Republicans out of government for ever.
What then happened in the Biden term was an explosion of so-called sanctuary cities, places where illegal entrants are welcomed to serve Democrat Party interests, and the opening of the borders.
A catch and release policy meant that the formal appearance of having a sane government protecting the country was maintained, but no illegal migration was actually stopped. NGOs, charities and leftist organisations facilitated mass immigration on an unprecedented level, and sanctuary cities encouraged more people to come and welcomed them, prioritising them over existing citizens, when they arrived.
Naturally South Americans and others realised what was happening and that they could very easily enter the US. Huge migrant convoys took up the offer of an open border, especially after several South American nations (just as Trump described) realised they could simply empty their prisons and point these people at the US. Between 15million and 20million illegals were added thus to the US population in a single term.
What that meant was that the second Trump term was confronted with a much worse situation than the first. There are far more illegals to process and deport and the links between them and the Democrat Party and its interests are far more developed, formalised and experienced.
The Democrat Party knows that areas with high immigrant numbers are areas they control without any accountability or oversight because nobody else can be voted in there. All they need to do is keep giving the immigrant ‘communities’ more than the existing US citizens, adding to that immigrant population too, and they can be confident they can’t be removed from power.
The illegals, too, know the score. They know that Democratic state administrations have their backs, and that crimes they commit will be excused, while a false rhetoric of supposed compassion and progress will be deployed to justify what is really corrupt patronage of illegal migration. With this understanding, they are far less likely to agree to voluntary removal.
Therefore the Trump administration, unlike the Clinton administration, can’t just ask these people to go and have lots of them immediately agree to that. It has to remove them using the full deportation process, which includes detection, arrest and detention until they are physically escorted out of the country.
More people to remove means more confrontation with those who are far more likely to fight their removal, both legally through the courts and illegally by violence and ‘protest’ which becomes more like ongoing anarchy and domestic terrorism. Illegals more prone to resist arrest violently are encouraged by activist protesters (hyped up on media propaganda depicting these arrests as fascism) whose aim is to physically intervene and prevent these arrests.
So it’s not that ICE or Trump have become fascists, it is that they are trying to get back to normal immigration levels.
With a caseload already much larger thanks to the Biden term, removing more dangerous illegals is met with more demonstrations, more organised and violent opposition, and more confrontational moments that can lead to deaths or injuries. Like the deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. Violent opposition is cynically stoked to create and exploit such ‘martyrs’ who are in reality disposable useful idiots sacrificed after indoctrination to create yet more propaganda.
All of this is because illegal immigration benefits Democrat politics, and successful deportations do not.
Under Obama, there were 56 deaths involving ICE of people in ICE custody or people confronting ICE (since there are always some people who violently resist deportation or who die of some cause while in custody) but not one of them was described as fascism. Moreover if an armed police agency comes under routine physical attack, arguably the deaths result from the actions of those attacking or laying siege to ICE rather than on the nature of ICE changing, as argued in TCW by Gavin Innes.
Good spent a whole day harassing ICE agents, ignored instructions to stop, and drove her vehicle at agents, endangering them. Pretti took a loaded gun to a supposed peaceful protest, with two additional magazines, harassed agents in an aggressive manner, again ignored instructions, and placed his hands on officers and struggled with them before he was shot.
In Good’s case the first shot goes through the front windscreen, proving she was driving at an agent. You can also see how close the officers are when she reverses the car, when she accelerates the car forward, and when an officer exclaims in surprise as she brushes or clips him with the car. Those saying he should have just leapt aside have probably never had a car driven at them. Good died as the direct result of her own incredibly reckless and stupid actions, and as a direct result of the propaganda on ICE she had previously received.
In Pretti’s case the loaded gun is quite literally the smoking weapon. It seems he was disarmed, but a misfire caused the weapon to go off, without several agents being aware that he had just been disarmed and didn’t fire the weapon. An officer shouted ‘gun’ and the others reacted. The entire scenario was created by Pretti’s own actions in taking the gun with him and having it there as he physically confronted armed ICE agents.
These aren’t innocent civilians murdered in cold blood. They are people who were armed with deadly weapons (a car qualifies as that when you drive it at people, a gun certainly does when you take it to a protest) acting in stupid, confrontational ways that invited their deaths, with these deaths immediately exploited by the cynical people who persuaded them to be so stupid in the first place.
Readers may be interested to view this short video on Minnesota’s law – a duty to retreat – and Walter Hudson’s closing argument on the Goode and Pretti cases.
Tomorrow Daniel argues that the ICE protests are part of a repeated pattern of escalating violence, encouraged by Democrat leaders, occurring whenever Trump is in power (trying to enact the policies he was democratically elected to enact) which meet the criteria for domestic terrorism.
