Stephen Miller's 'Immunity' Defense: Just Like His Credibility
Miller's 'immunity' claim, made in response to an ICE officer shooting Renee Good, is not just legally shaky; it's a rhetorical smokescreen the far-right has deployed for years to shield agents from the consequences of their actions. This echoes the Bush administration's attempts to grant military personnel, and later contractors, sweeping impunity in war zones (remember Blackwater in Iraq?). The
pattern is clear: create a class of enforcers, then declare them above the law. History consistently shows that this kind of blanket immunity is less about protecting agents and more about empowering a brutal apparatus without oversight. One might wonder if this 'immunity' extends to actual legal statutes, or just to Stephen Miller's personal interpretation of them. The 'experts' who 'fact-check'
Miller are merely stating what anyone with a basic understanding of due process knows: federal immunity is not a 'get out of jail free' card for criminal acts. It's a selective legal protection, not an unconditional license to harm. But why bother with legal nuance when a strong, authoritarian narrative works so much better for the base?