Last week, six masked and unidentifiable agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement fatally assaulted a 37-year-old federal nurse by dousing his eyes with pepper spray, forcing him to the ground, confiscating his legally owned handgun, and then shooting him nine times in the back.
The ICE operatives deployed by the federal government in Minneapolis have caused chaos and violence on a scale far surpassing the disturbances reportedly inflicted by undocumented immigrants living there.
According to the Constitution, the regulation of immigration—determining who may lawfully enter and stay in the United States—was entrusted to the states, while naturalization—the process of becoming an American citizen—was assigned to the federal government.
For the first time, the court ruled that Congress could derive regulatory authority from a source outside the Constitution. It reasoned that after British forces withdrew following their 1781 defeat, immigration control metaphorically transferred to the federal government—a justification lacking any real foundation.
Since then, federal immigration policies have fluctuated, usually influenced by economic factors and prevailing racial sentiments. A century after the Chinese Exclusion Act decision, urged by President Ronald Reagan, Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty and permanent legal status to all immigrants in the country at that time. Contrary to fears, this did not result in chaos.
The White House has justified the ICE agents’ killings of two innocent Americans amid the turmoil in Minneapolis by labeling them terrorists, agitators, assassins, and invoking self-defense. In doing so, it has sought to politically defame the deceased victims and distract from the Gestapo-like tactics employed by ICE on city streets. Moreover, ICE has obstructed justice by withholding all evidence of these killings from state investigators.
Do the masked agents enjoy immunity from murder charges as the White House alleges?
Both federal and state statutes—and every law enforcement officer, including those from DHS—recognize that if a vehicle is moving slowly under five miles per hour and attempting to turn away, lethal force is unwarranted; the driver must be allowed to maneuver or escape. If you are allegedly threatened by a man on all fours whose legally carried firearm you have already confiscated and who you temporarily blinded with pepper spray for photographing you, the appropriate response is restraint, not shooting him in the back.
The importance of police understanding right from wrong—in particular, that shooting an unarmed individual in the back is unlawful—is underscored by another peculiar Supreme Court decision. This ruling stated that prosecutions of government personnel for excessive force depend on whether similarly situated officials showed such foreknowledge, introducing yet another dubious legal standard.
Can Minnesota prosecute the ICE agents responsible? Absolutely, under both federal and state laws. Consider Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge, who was prosecuted by Idaho for excessive force after he fatally shot the wife of a fugitive by shooting her in the back. Notably, murder charges have no statute of limitations.
The danger posed by American Gestapo-style tactics pales next to the menace of American Psycho—a governance devoid of ethical foundation. Such government, like authoritarians in history, targets vulnerable minorities and rationalizes killing those who resist such oppression.
We face a state lacking social conscience and driven largely by asserting dominance over individuals. It disregards morality, natural law, the Constitution, and basic humanity. It holds no respect for life and, fearing that citizens might record its actions, openly defends killing those who film its use of force.
This deranged authority labeled the first person its agents killed in Minneapolis a terrorist. She was not. Then it accused her spouse of terrorism. She was not.
Next, it claimed the nurse who recorded the agents was there to kill them because he legally carried a handgun and ammunition. He was not. It stated that he “brandished” his firearm. He did not; the ICE agents disarmed him before shooting him. Now, it asserts that this nurse—shot in the back while on all fours on frozen ground and blinded by pepper spray—posed a threat. This is nonsense.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted to the press that her agents felt threatened and therefore disarmed the nurse. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms holds equal weight to the First Amendment. There was no lawful justification to pepper spray or detain the nurse; thus, the agents no more had the right to seize his gun than to silence his speech.
These blatant falsehoods contradict the visible evidence.
The same disturbed mindset that claimed authority to execute individuals without trial on the high seas has imported that brutal nihilism into our neighborhoods. If Congress fails to intervene by defunding this executive branch abuse, voters will hold it accountable.
Undoubtedly, the perpetrators currently hold the upper hand. People of Iran, be vigilant. When these psychopaths falter domestically, they will drag us into foreign conflicts.
Original article: creators.com
About the Author
