For me, one of the most important issues we face moving forward is our respect for the law and democracy.
Whether one agrees with it or not, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a legal federal agency carrying out legally authorized duties. To claim otherwise is misleading and, at best, risks undermining public trust; at worst, can lead to physical harm and even death.
In a democratic republic, individuals do not get to decide which laws they will obey. If people disagree with a law, the proper way to change it is through the democratic process, primarily voting. Taking things into your own hands is a revolution.
Like it or not, Donald Trump was legally elected as the President of the United States, and illegal immigration was one of the central issues of his campaign. While media coverage may suggest otherwise, ICE is carrying out policies that were supported by voters. When protesters openly obstruct federal law enforcement, they are not simply protesting policy; they are protesting the outcome of a democratic process. Likewise, when elected officials encourage resistance to federal law or attempt to block its enforcement, they risk doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing, undermining democracy itself.
If people want to abolish ICE or change immigration enforcement, the solution is straightforward: elect leaders who will do so. Taking the law into one’s own hands is vigilantism, not civic engagement. This argument is not about being pro-ICE; it is about being pro-rule of law and pro-democracy.
What I do not understand is the modern obsession with protests. What do they accomplish? When was the last time a massive demonstration produced real, lasting change? During Trump’s two terms as president, the United States has witnessed an unprecedented level of protests for this century, yet what has changed? Whether organized by women’s groups or movements like “No Kings,” Trump is still the president. There is no clause in our Constitution stating that if enough people march in the streets, a president will be removed or laws changed.
In many ways, protest culture today is stuck in the past. Yet, modern protesters are not the protesters of the 1960s. Those earlier movements were largely philosophical and issue-driven; today’s protests are overwhelmingly political and partisan. That distinction matters.
Consider one example: President Barack Obama, with the help of ICE, deported nearly three million people during his administration with relatively little public outcry. When Trump took office and continued many of the same policies — including family separations — he was suddenly compared to Adolph Hitler.
In the 1960s, protesters marched against both Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon. Party affiliation was irrelevant; opposition to the war was the unifying cause. It is difficult for modern presidents to take protest movements seriously when they appear driven more by political allegiance than by consistent principles.
We also should not look back at the 1960s through rose-colored glasses. Take the Civil Rights Movement. We rightly honor grassroots demonstrators who risked their lives to force change. But ultimately, lasting change came through legislation.
“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.” Those are not my words, but Hillary Clinton’s from when she ran in the 2008 Democratic Primary. Protest raised awareness, but the law created change.
There is another lesson from that era. While protests helped push the United States out of Vietnam, escalating violence, particularly during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, also fueled a backlash. It contributed to a wave of Republican victories that started with Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign. Many Americans, the so-called “silent majority,” were in effect protesting the protesters.
In many ways, the same dynamic exists today. Trump’s victory was driven not only by support for him, but also by a rejection of what many voters perceived as lawlessness on the left.
This is not an argument against all protests. Peaceful marches are an important part of American history and a constitutional right. They can help motivate government leaders for change.
The problem arises when elected officials cross a line, such as a Portland city councilor calling for ICE to be “taken apart, brick by brick,” a Minneapolis city councilman urging citizens to “rise up” and patrol neighborhoods to confront federal authorities, or when city leaders claim ICE may not operate within their limits. These statements encourage criminal behavior, undermine legal authority, are unconstitutional, and place people in danger.
One final point. We are currently witnessing large-scale protests in Iran, a country ruled for more than 40 years by a genuinely repressive regime. Their leaders were not democratically elected. Those protesters are seeking a revolution and the overthrow of their government. That context matters.
My fear is that too many Americans would be happy with revolution rather than reform. They want to tear down America and replace it with something different, and have convinced too many others to take to the streets in a misguided attempt to defend democracy, where the true aim is to destroy it.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to Southwest Ledger for sharing his column
