ICE's Selective Engagement: When 'Law and Order' Suddenly Gets Picky
📰 THE STORY: The Independent reports that ICE agents have been instructed to avoid engaging with protestors in Minnesota and instead focus solely on arresting migrants with existing criminal records, marking a shift from previous confrontations with activists. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This 'selective engagement' is a tactic as old as policing itself. In the 1990s,
particularly under operations like 'Gatekeeper' (1994) on the US-Mexico border, authorities were simultaneously militarizing border enforcement and carefully managing public perception to avoid overt clashes that could generate negative press. Similarly, following the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests, strategies were refined to control public dissent without alienating broader segments
of the population. This isn't about human rights; it's about crowd control and narrative management, especially in an election year. Double Standard: The narrative applauds ICE for 'restraint' when engaging with U.S. citizens protesting its actions, yet this same 'restraint' is conspicuously absent when targeting non-citizens, often in their homes or workplaces, based on minor infractions or even
pre-existing deportation orders that lack due process. Imagine if law enforcement was ordered to 'avoid' protesters at Standing Rock but allowed to continue pipeline construction. The selective application of 'order' serves political ends. Critically, while the US demands 'human rights' from nations like Venezuela or Iran (often based on dubious claims from foreign-funded opposition groups), it