Brad Lander detained by masked federal agents inside immigration court
thecity.nyc
thecity.nyc
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?
Submitters: please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
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.
Wrong. There is a moral right to impede unjust authority.
> The agents have no duty to provide a warrant to a bystander, even if he is a government official.
So you're ignoring the fact that the officers didn't show a warrant to anyone, including the individuals they seized?
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]
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.
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...?
This is barely any different from "we thought we smelled weed".
The problem isn't ICE. They are just todays's live action remake of the same story we've seen before.
The problem is that there is no punishment, no consequences for all those people who, regardless of if through malice or ignorance, let these precedents be made and stand.
Arguably the current situation is worse than the abuses of years past because unlike drug prosecution to which a cross section of society is subjected ICE's prosecution targets (mostly) non citizens who will simply be deported to little effect upon the citizens whereas the citizens had to live with the fallout from drug prosecutions.
- detain you and tell you why he detained you
- get a prosecutor to press charges promptly, charges which have to be articulated in terms of specific statutes that your elected representatives wrote
- give you defense counsel to argue your case in court
- set a prompt court date to argue your case
- tell the public that you were put in jail, why, and the circumstances
- release those court docs to the public
- follow rules of evidence when presenting their case
There are abuses, but there are also a robust set of protections in place. If the cops thought they smelled weed in your car, and there was no weed in your car, you argue that in court, and it's really very likely that you will walk free. That outcome, for the most part, is why cops don't immediately put everyone with tattoos in jail.
This is very very different from the alternative, which is where a cop says he thinks your tattoo might look like MS-13, so you go to an offshore prison forever, with no visitation rights and no trial.
Those two outcomes are VERY different! For that reason, yes, the problem is ICE.
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...
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.
> "For more than three years I worked for the U.S. military back in my home country," Naser said in the video as the masked officers took him into custody. "I came here to make a better life. I didn't know this was going to happen like this for me."
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.
The mechanism that is not working right now is not the presidency - it's congress. You could have Trump still in charge, but if congress were opposed to his actions - even to the extent of just repulsing his usurpation of powers he's not supposed to have - he would be a lame duck. And in fact a president on their own can't revert all this, they need congress to pass laws.
What this means is that it could end as soon as 2026. But this possibility will not last forever; if Trump succeeds in putting in place commanders in the army and police who are personally loyal to him in spite of the laws, then restoring the Republic will take many years.
“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
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.
So, what are your thoughts about ICE going after immigrants who think they're legal but didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's on their paperwork? Because that is in the news as well.
It has swung, and they are *already paying* the price. That's the question.
> I can't blame the other side for sending in the goon squad to crack heads.
Even when it's your own head? Given the complexity of the system, it's implausible that any immigrant, including you (or I in Germany) have done everything perfectly. But it's worse than that, as people in the USA are currently facing removal for writing things on the internet which are theoretically constitutionally protected free speech.
And that's without any discussion about why nobody in power did anything about what Biden's admin said was about 11 million undocumented migrants:
The reason being the US economy, and of main importance the food supply, actually depends on their labour — depending on how fast they get removed, the USA would be looking a 50% supply cut in perishable hand-picked crops and dairy (if done instantly) to a mere 20% price inflation (if done over a few years). Similar for construction industry, but that's less critical than, you know, eating.
Yes and no. It's polarised, far too polarised. I hope we can deescalate and reach some reasonable middle ground. But that's going to require a lot of concessions from the left that I don't see any hint of willingness to make.
> it's worse than that, as people in the USA are currently facing removal for writing things on the internet which are theoretically constitutionally protected free speech.
Meh, that's a big nothingburger. Noncitizens have never had constitutional rights or at least not for decades. I don't like it but let's not pretend this is some radical change.
That's the first I've heard of it. Everyone else is saying it covers everyone in the USA, including the courts who ruled that kicking people out for blogging was unconstitutional and ordering the release of the people the US government had arrested: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.564...
and: https://time.com/7284578/judge-orders-release-of-rumeysa-ozt...
But again, as you've not answered the "Even when it's your own head?" part, I remind you that you earlier wrote:
> I'm an immigrant and a minority myself, not that people like you ever actually care about supporting people like me.
I had assumed you were living in the USA, until checking your github account, so now I assume you're in Japan.
Please, imagine it is your own head that is the target of, in your own words, "the goon squad to crack heads".
What's happening today in the USA can happen anywhere, including where you live. (And where I live, but around here you can trip and fall over Stolperstein to be reminded of that latter part).
People care about constitutional rights when it suits their politics, but unreasonable searches at the border have been standard for decades, under multiple administrations from both parties.
> Please, imagine it is your own head that is the target of, in your own words, "the goon squad to crack heads".
> What's happening today in the USA can happen anywhere, including where you live.
As an immigrant I don't have any rights, I can't even vote. Like it or not, that's part of the tradeoff.
But being realistic, I feel a lot safer, in part because Japan has quite strict immigration enforcement. It doesn't (yet, touch wood) have the US' dramatic polarisation and two-party split; rather there is a strong social consensus and a strong rule of law. And having seen how much crime and antisocial behaviour many of my fellow immigrants are responsible for, I'd far rather have that than the alternative. Yes, I don't want to be on the end of the riot squad getting sent in. But I think the best way to avoid that is to not get to the state of affairs where it makes sense to send in the riot squad.
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.
Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment.
I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
A path, perhaps. Not carte blanche.
> Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment.
Nah. That's at most a convenient fig-leaf for their motivations.
> I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
You suspect wrong. And I'm not saying there's no case where the government should decide they know better than the people, but when they oppose the will of the people they should do it openly and directly, not with procedural rules-lawyering and disingenuous "tee-hee we're not actually opposing the law we're just prioritising other laws" arguments.
This is the most extreme version of the anti-states rights argument and effectively claims the California legislature shouldn't exist.
You do realize that this entire discussion is about an American citizen and an elected official no less (and not the first one) arrested by "ICE" (we don't really know who those folks are because they won't identify themselves), right?
Are you that removed from reality that you can't parse the title of the discussion in which you are participating?
I’m so tired of absolute nonsense like this being said by people who clearly know absolutely nothing about how this country works. Is this just barely disguised foreign agitation?
Immigration law isn't California state law, it's federal law, duly passed (and frankly any other approach would be crazy, unless you're proposing to introduce border checks between states). If the duly elected federal government felt it appropriate to leave the matter to the states, they would! If it was constitutionally inappropriate, the legislature would strike it down. States set their own laws on a lot of matters, but they don't get to opt out of federal laws they don't like.
Which law requires states to enforce Federal law? I'll save you the trouble of looking: It doesn't exist.
Cf. https://govfacts.org/explainer/understanding-federalism-vs-s...
As you seem to be ignorant of how government works in the USA.
the main reason why immigration law has not been enforced is because a large number of US businesses (farms, factories, etc.) depend on those illegal immigrants as their workforce
if you really wanted to enforce immigration law you would shut down businesses who employ illegals -- which would also stem the tide of people coming into the US -- but that hasn't been done because immigrants -- regardless of their official status -- are a net positive for the US economy
I'm all for that (although California seemingly isn't, given that they make it illegal for those businesses to use e-Verify in most cases). I don't see any contradiction between doing that and continuing regular immigration enforcement. I certainly don't see how you can argue that we should stop regular immigration enforcement until we've done this new thing.
That's like saying vigilantism is defensible.
I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
When traditional law enforcement fails to the point that the rule of law completely breaks down, vigilantism becomes defensible.
> I don't care if these "officers" (in quotes as we don't know who they are) are doing God's work, if they are 1) refusing to show proof that they are indeed officers and 2) have legal warrants for an arrest, and 3) provide those they arrest with due process, then they are acting outside the law
ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases. I don't like it, but this is the flipsides of decades of insisting that illegal immigration isn't a crime and illegal immigrants aren't criminals.
pretty hard to argue that the rule of law as completely broken down in the US
> ICE has the legal authority to arrest without warrants in many cases
yeah, you're probably right about that though I think it's more "some" cases than "many" (they can't enter your house to search for someone without a warrant); due process still holds though
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...
Perhaps then, you should go ahead and read the rules?
I see this a lot, and I think, "then why are you posting comments in a thread for a article discussing US internal politics?"
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?
But seriously, I come to HN for the variety of topics (though often technical) that so often surprise me.
You literally can't. There's no downvote button for articles.
It sounds as if the “security detail” failed at protecting their protectee.
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.
> “Is your freedom more important than my safety?!”
> I don’t know you, my lunch is more important to me than you 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.
Also, you are going to have a hard time suing if you are an El Salvadorian prison.
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.
Well I got downvoted and everyone like you seem to think due process has been suspended.
Literally before I posted the guy had been released.
""I am just fine, I lost a button, but I'm going to sleep in my bed tonight.""
The Trump administration has been routinely embedding other agencies like the FBI in ICE operations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ice-oper...
Impeding federal law enforcement officers is a crime - to which other federal officers (not sure about ICE) have the ability to make an arrest.
Yes, you're required to comply with law enforcement. But if you're required to comply with unidentified law enforcement, we're gonna have problems.
Just as in many jurisdictions you can be arrested for Resisting Arrest as the sole charge. "We weren't going to or had no grounds to arrest you, but since you resisted[1], we're now arresting you for that."
[1] for varying definitions of "resist"
In the video I saw, Lander wasn’t asking the agents to prove that they were law enforcement. He was asking if they had a judicial warrant to detain the person he was holding onto. He did seem to believe they were law enforcement.
The problem is, ICE doesn’t need a judicial warrant to detain someone suspected of immigration offenses in a public space. Lander didn’t seem to know this, or at least feigned ignorance.
What do you do with someone who doesn’t know the law, and is actively interfering with a planned arrest? Briefly detaining them seems like a reasonable path to get the job done.
Common refrain in these reports, "Was refused access to counsel, and loaded onto a plane/taken to a facility".
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...
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.
I mean, if masked, unidentified people are kidnapping other people, what prevents _other_ masked, unidentified people to attack the kidnappers?
Where this goes, as I understand it from my European heritage, is that you are _already_ in a situation where there's a strong incentive for an active resistance force to appear.
ICE is clearly working as both an oppressive force, and as an incitement to violence. There have been precedents in history. It never ended well for _them_.
If you're referring to why a civilian milita isn't spinning to to stop them, that's because there are (basically) two groups of people in the US. The type that are strongly pro gun, pro militia, and have knowledge in both are generally actually supportive of this particular case, and furthermore wouldn't act anyway unless they or people they like were directly targeted. This is an unfortunate cultural aspect of the US, and correcting it would have a lag time of many decades. Furthermore, the groups that did attempt to correct it got crushed by the federal government for a few decades (see the MOVE bombings, and the Black Partners history), so are extra behind. However, spinning up a small militia for directly opposing this may happen. It would look similar to the CHAZ, but that requires a large group of dedicated and motivated people to spontaneously group together.
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.
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.
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.
If someone is trying to overthrow the government - they will be Patriots if they win.
Legal doesn't matter at all if someone is at that point
If law enforcement wants him to stop doing that, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to prove that they actually have the authority to do so.
Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.
No-one in the banner image of this article has a uniform? Is it too much to ask to be uniformed while acting in this capacity? There doesn't seem to be a need for subterfuge, they just don't want the bad optics.
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.
Two NYPD officers were present, Landers' security detail. They weren't there to effect or assist with the arrest.
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.
If the same acts are/were committed (i.e. ditch the sex trafficking example because the .gov doesn't really do that) what makes their misdeeds not equivalent to those of the non-state actor?
https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-win-dem-nomination-for...
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.
Huh? Has he been sleeping under a rock for the last six months?
“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.I am happy to change my mind, but in this situation all I see is a political candidate interfering with federal agents and getting arrested for it. I see lots of really questionable things happening, like these agents wearing masks and dressing in hoodies, but mentioning that does not address the due process question. If someone could address this point directly and without hyperbole, I am eager to be better informed about it.
What about masked men kidnapping random people, then sending them somewhere like a prison in El Salvador seems just to you? Do you remember this happening previously in your life?
For some context, under Obama in 2013, there were roughly 197,000 expedited removals (45% of ~432,000 total deportations). So this was widely used by DHS during the Obama administration. Nothing has changed except ICE policies about where people are permitted to be detained and where they are targeting people. Unless I'm missing something?
I'll be the first to admit they look like masked goons and entirely unprofessional grabbing people off the street in hoodies. It's horrible optics and is absurdly unprofessional. I completely disagree with the mechanics of how this is being carried out. But it's not unconstitutional or unlawful as far I can tell.
The problem is that you can’t tell: if they follow the law, you can be fairly confident that it is constitutional but when they’re rapidly deporting people without hearings and with officers actively resisting oversight, we have only their word that the people being deported do in fact meet those criteria. Since they’ve been documented as detaining citizens, lying about things like asylum claims or criminal status, etc. in many cases, their word alone is now untrustworthy for any case. They chose to create that distrust and the only way to build trust is for them to stop prioritizing quotas over legality.
What’s happening now is exactly what happens every time some incompetent boss tells everyone to hit a number no matter what, except that the stakes are far higher.
So I've seen this claim a few times and I have personally heard of a few well publicized cases where this occurred. Given the nature of the work, I'd imagine it's almost impossible for this not to happen at some point. From Wikipedia:
- Between FY 2015 and Q2 FY 2020, ICE arrested 674 individuals believed to be U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70 (GAO)
- From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained around 1,480 U.S. citizens
- 2008-2012 saw 834 U.S. citizens and 28,489 permanent residents mistakenly placed on immigration detainers .
So it seems this may have been happening at an even higher rate under other administrations. This is not a defense of the practice... I can't describe how angry I would be if this happened to someone in my family. But I am trying to be objective and react based on numbers, not emotions, and convince others to do the same.
> What’s happening now is exactly what happens every time some incompetent boss tells everyone to hit a number no matter what, except that the stakes are far higher.
My biggest concern is that words being misused are burning the credibility that may eventually be necessary. It would not surprise me if Trump started ordering them to do unconstitional and unlawful things. But if you've been throwing those words around carelessly and inaccurately, you'll have no credibility to use them when the need truly arises.
Any proletariat (90% of USA) would not be so fortunate.
... politics everywhere
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.
You can pull-quote Trump saying literally anything, from being pro-gun to anti-gun, pro-queer to radically anti-queer, literal child molester to saint.
His words literally don't matter, because he says them all.
Pay attention only to his actions.
I swear, as a liberal, the amount of pearl clutching and out of context nefariousness everyone frets about is insane.
1. Strongman opponent's speech, rather than leaping to extremes immediately
2. Understand Trump, moreso than other politicians, says all kinds of things he doesn't intend to do
But given the combined discrepancy between Harris vs the Attorney General in every single county of NC, the Elon contact for those voting machines, and Trump saying it out loud, I'm kind of at the point I'm not sure if the last election was legitimate. I don't have a lot of hope for 2026 or 228 since we're already past "the US military is deployed against its own citizens and make an extra-constitutonal arrest" stage with no consequences. Also the "disobey the Supreme Court" stage. But I guess we'll see and it'll be a great day to be proven wrong.
Though, I hardly even called America a democracy before that given the intense Gerrymandering, a lack of an established right/obligation to vote, and completely disproportionate representation in legislation. The whole system is a joke in it's design.
Part of the toxicness of current news media is the "And this can never be changed" doomerism.
Bullshit. Everything can be changed. It just takes action and convincing others to take action.
France didn't preserve their retirement age by walking around with signs. They had to get disobedient. Break shit, stop collecting trash or running services.
Shockingly, people who are going to fuck you for power or money could care less if you're upset about being fucked. And now that the majority of media in America is controlled by 7 billionaires and they've spent 30 years justifying shooting or run over protestors, they're calling the bluff and betting Americans will roll over and take it.
And they're probably right.
The last gasp of conservativism.
Rhetoric doesn't match. Marx literally said that the only for the working class to overthrow their oppressors (business owners) was to make them not a live.
He was very radical.
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.
This is solely in response to what has happened since January 21st of this year.
That's incredible actually. Concerning for sure if you planned on people being sheep.
That's why the voting public were shocked to find out she was helping lead cabinet meetings. The good doctor was not elected.
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.
> 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.
I suspect his post will read as a calm and level-headed analysis 10-20 years from now. He showed no support or protest against any political policy.
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.