it's interesting to see just how debased certain ideas have become on the left.

i would expect an action of this type to be mostly focused on political prisoners, i.e. people that are being imprisoned unjustly, perhaps by being framed, or perhaps by being held without charge. while i don't want to make the same error that i'm about to throw out there, i strongly doubt that much of anybody in attendance has done any meaningful research on anybody they're holding at all. while i am aware that there have been cases of american-born citizens being deported because they have latin-sounding names (which is horrifically egregious, obviously.), i think a better assumption is that at least almost all of them have entered the country illegally, meaning they are not actually political prisoners, or being framed, or being held without charge. further, a good number of them could be being held on much greater charges. so, this is just a situation where these particular protestors happen to dislike the legitimate law that the migrants are being legitimately charged under, and it's consequently difficult to argue with a straight-face that this is a democratic way to approach the situation as there's no breach of constitutionality, no breakdown in the rule of law, no abuse of power...

i mean, that's the point of direct action: when citizens are convinced that the state is breaking the law in a way that harms people, and there is no oversight body to stop it, it becomes our responsibility to step in, even if the best we can do is a symbolic gesture. but, there is no credible argument, here, that the state is breaking any laws, except maybe some hokey concept of "natural law", which is in truth not law at all.

it's really just these peoples' opinion that the law should be changed, and they do have that right to their opinion. but, if they were to act independently of a collective like this, they'd be thrown out of it. it's an undemocratic demand.

and, what is the demand, exactly? to drop the charges? to release them on bail? i suppose that's another question: they certainly have the right to habeas corpus. but, that doesn't seem to be the argument being presented; rather, they just want them to drop the charges and release the prisoners because they say so, despite potentially clear evidence of breaking the law.

....because arresting them and deporting them is a "genocide" against the migrant community. there's another debased term.

i don't like jails, and i don't like deporting people, but these people were arrested legitimately under legitimate laws and need to prepare their legal cases, so this kind of thing is at best disruptive and pointless and at worst has potential to stimulate a backlash. and, if you don't like these laws, there's only one way to change them - and it's not by using the tactic we use when the state is overstepping it's bounds.

further, leftists usually use these tactics with comrades that they expect to welcome back into their communities. it's strange to make the case that they should be used for people that are working sub-minimum wage under the table and thereby undercutting the region's labour force, to the extent that this is actually true (which is quite a bit).

the point i want to a make is just about the debasement of these ideas. i think if you were to run something like this by historical anarchist revolutionaries from proudhon forwards, you'd get a lot of pushback on it. they'd be criticizing the migrants for accepting sub-minimum wage jobs and undermining workers, as well as questioning the appropriateness of working outside of democratic channels

but, i guess you know that capital has won when it's co-opted the voices against it.

https://www.facebook.com/events/374487699875224/