The recent exposure of the Minnesota ICE Watch group reveals a troubling aspect of activism around immigration enforcement. This organization, described as a “loose collective of agitators,” has been implicated in promoting a guide that instructs members on how to physically interfere with law enforcement actions. The manual, dubbed a “de-arrest primer,” lays out specific tactics for confronting officers during an arrest.
At first glance, the manual’s language is alarming. It refers to de-arrests as “micro-intifadas,” suggesting that even minor acts of defiance against law enforcement can inspire broader movements. The guide advises on various physical techniques aimed at hindering police operations. This includes instructions on the grip to use when pulling someone in custody away from officers, along with tactics for pushing police personnel off of arrestees. The manual acknowledges the potential legal consequences of such actions, even stating, “making physical contact with a law enforcement officer can get construed as assault in court.” Yet, it dismisses these risks by framing them as contextually dependent, asserting that the harm of inaction could outweigh the consequences of interference.
Furthermore, it outlines four explicit tactics for members to use during arrests. These range from opening the doors of law enforcement vehicles to discuss freeing those arrested to physically surrounding officers and chanting demands for releases. Such tactics blur the line between civil disobedience and unlawful assault, raising serious questions about the group’s intentions and the potential ramifications of its teachings.
Renee Good, a member of this group, was killed by an ICE agent after allegedly attempting to use her vehicle as a weapon against officers. This tragic incident illustrates the dangerous escalation that can accompany radical activism. After the shooting, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem described Good’s actions as “domestic terrorism,” pointing to a growing concern over the hostile environment surrounding discussions of immigration enforcement and law enforcement as a whole.
The uproar from this incident led to significant protests not only in Minneapolis but across the nation. The manual insists that those arrested face detrimental consequences, particularly for specific demographics, and claims that intervening in arrests is a worthy risk. Such messaging can incite dangerous confrontations and undermine respect for law enforcement, leading to a cycle of violence and unrest.
The tactics taught by Minnesota ICE Watch represent a troubling trend towards hostility against law enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding these methods, combined with the tragic circumstances surrounding Good’s death, suggests an increasing polarization on the topic of immigration enforcement. As this situation unfolds, it raises critical questions about the consequences of radical activism versus the rule of law.
"*" indicates required fields
