Every day, more people are reporting what looks like a plainclothes kidnapping: no uniforms, no badges, just men in regular clothes picking someone up—sometimes in courthouses or jails—and leading them away in unmarked vehicles. It’s unsettling. But what you’ve likely witnessed isn’t a scene from a thriller—it’s part of a growing and highly controversial practice: ICE using private security contractors like G4S to detain immigrants. In this post, we explore how this happened, why it’s legally questionable, and how communities are pushing back.

1. Who’s Really Making the Arrest?
By law, only ICE, CBP, or DOJ officers can carry out immigration arrests. But if you look online, it’s often unmarked operatives or private security contractors who are doing it—standing in for ICE without credentials or uniforms. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a), nobody else is legally authorized.

Are These “Bounty Hunters”? No—but It Sure Feels That Way
Viral videos describe them as “bounty hunters grabbing immigrants in public,” but that’s misleading. Licensed bail agents (“bounty hunters”) work under state criminal law and have no authority over immigration arrests. What we’re seeing is private contractors—like G4S (now part of Allied Universal)—originally hired for transport or surveillance, but now often physically detaining people in public spaces.

ICE’s own internal messaging has warned that these contractors were performing “arrest-like activities”, entering real legal grey areas. (Solano v. ICE complaint (Feb 2021))

Legal Grey Zone: Why This May Be Flat‑Out Illegal
These aren’t just bad optics—they may break the law:

• No proper arrest authority: Private contractors aren’t federal law enforcement and cannot operate under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a).
• Dangerous lack of due process: Detainees often receive no Miranda warning, no access to counsel, and no warrant—violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
• Impersonation risk: When contractors imply they’re federal officers and detain people, they may break 18 U.S.C. § 912.
• Non‑delegation risk: The Constitution doesn’t allow federal arrest power to be delegated to private actors.

How Did We Get Here?
Starting around 2016, ICE began outsourcing detainee transport to private firms like G4S—especially in states with sanctuary policies. Contractors now sometimes arrest people days after jail release, without ICE agents visibly present. (AP News on ICE contracts and detention surge )

Legal Battles You Should Know About
Courts are pushing back—and slowly defining the limits:

• Solano v. ICE (Feb 2021): Pushed by the ACLU and Asian Law Caucus, this case demanded ICE stop contractor arrests in CA jails.
• Sept 2021: A judge refused to dismiss the case, noting ICE continued contractor arrests after internal concerns.
• July 2022 Settlement: ICE must only use ICE agents—not contractors—if arrests happen in L.A. or S.F. jails. (LA Times on settlement)

Any reforms won through these cases are geographically limited, and practices continue nationwide.
.
Plainclothes & Ruse Tactics
It's not just contractors—undercover ICE agents have started blending in during routine court and check-in operations.

In May 2025, several plainclothes agents detained at least four asylum-seekers at San Francisco’s immigration court—wearing badges but using unmarked vehicles while accompanied by G4S personnel. (San Francisco Standard)

These operations have been widely condemned as fear tactics that undermine due process. (Tennessee Courthouse Raid – Action5 News)

Why We Should All Care
When non-uniformed agents conduct high-impact detentions:

• Communities lose trust. Witnesses may avoid courts or aid out of fear.
• Everyday spaces become threatening. Jails, courts—even immigration check-ins feel dangerous.
• Even legal residents or citizens have been mistakenly targeted.
• Civil rights advocates describe these events as “shadow abductions” that attack constitutional guarantees. (Immigrant Defense Project)

Why Nothing Has Changed

• ICE maintains these contractors are simply “transporting,” not “arresting” — despite mounting evidence.
• Staffing and deportation quotas push ICE toward efficiency over legality.
• Contracts lack transparency, and FOIA can’t penetrate private agreements.

Solutions on the Table
To restore trust and legality, we need:

1. A national ban on contractor arrests—modeled after California’s legal wins.
2. Mandatory identification of all ICE agents—visible badges and plain-language notices.
3. Transparency mandates requiring ICE to report contractor use and operations.
4. Legal oversight expansion—extending California’s AB 937 protections nationwide.

What You Can Do
If you witness a suspicious detention:

• Ask calmly for credentials or a warrant.
• Record video/audio (observe local laws).
• Call local authorities or 911 if it appears illegal.
• Share your evidence with groups like the ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, or Immigrant Defense Project.

Support legal reforms like California’s AB 937 and urge your representatives to protect immigrant communities.

Final Thought
These are not random incidents—they’re part of a systematic shift toward outsourcing enforcement and operating in shadows. But if more individuals, lawyers, and communities speak up, push for transparency, and insist on constitutional integrity, we can shine a light on these practices—and curb them for good.

Sources

• Solano v. ICE Lawsuit (2021) – ACLU/Asian Law Caucus
• 8 U.S.C. § 1357 – Immigration Arrest Authority
• 18 U.S.C. § 912 – Federal Officer Impersonation
• ICE Settlement in California (2022)
• SF Standard Coverage of May 2025 Arrests
• Action5 News Coverage of Tennessee Taco Truck Incident
• Immigrant Defense Project - ICEWatch
• Asian Law Caucus
• ACLU of Northern California
• Share Your Story – IDP

In Part I, I drew the historical line between Charles X of France and Donald Trump. Both rose to power on promises of restoration. Both alienated legislatures. Both flirted with silencing dissent. Charles went too far. Trump might, too.

So what happened when Charles X crossed the line? The answer lies in events that started 26 July 1830.

​Charles issued a set of repressive orders known as the July Ordinances, which:

• Suspended freedom of the press
• Dissolved the progressive legislature
• Changed election laws to favor loyalists (Alpha History)

By the morning of July 27, Parisians revolted. Workers, students, and even some middle-class citizens took to the streets. What followed wasn’t a chaotic civil war—but a highly focused push to defend civil rights and constitutional government.

Despite personal risk,  the media took the lead in keeping citizens of France informed and helped kick off the revolution. Tradesmen, workers and merchants followed suit. Charles abdicated, fled to Britain, and the monarchy was replaced (briefly) by a constitutional regime.

What can that teach us?

Resisting Autocracy Doesn't Require Violence
The July Revolution worked not because it burned everything down, but because it focused on defending institutions, not destroying them. The press played a critical role. So did moderate politicians who refused to accept illegal decrees.
​
Today, we’re not facing royal ordinances, but we are looking at:

• Plans to dismantle civil service protections (via Project 2025)
• Open threats to prosecute political opponents
• Legal theories that place the president above the law (Heritage Foundation, 2024)

The Power of Civil Society
In 1830 France, it was the teachers, printers, municipal workers--not just elites—who resisted. They refused to implement illegal orders, slowed down compliance, and gave people space to act.
Here in the U.S., we’ll need:

• Lawyers and judges who uphold the law, even under pressure
• Journalists who don’t flinch when the subpoenas arrive
• Public servants who know that democracy is in their job description

Final Thought: The Resistance Is Already Here
If President Trump continues to try to govern like Charles X, the institutions that survive will be the ones willing to say "no"—even when it’s hard. The American republic won’t be saved by spectacle. It will be saved by professionals, institutional guardians, people who know their history and hopefully the rest of us.

The July Revolution was three days. But its effects rippled across Europe.

Let’s learn something from it.

Sources & Citations:

• Alpha History – July Ordinances and Revolution
• Encyclopedia of Revolutions of 1848 – France
• Heritage Foundation – Unitary Executive Theory
• Project 2025 Blueprint
• Washington Post – Trump's Second-Term Blueprint​

Back in college, I took a politics class on revolutionary France. Not just Robespierre and guillotines, but what came after: republic, monarchy, collapse, and more monarchy, etc. That's when I first encountered Charles X (or Charles the Dull), the last Bourbon king of France. At the time, I thought of him as just another bland royal with a bad legacy. But these days? He looks a lot like the current occupant of the White House.

Many compare President Trump to the Austrian Corporal that had a hold on Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. I get it—the nationalist tone, the loyalty tests, the disregard for institutions. But if you're going to pull from European history, Charles X might be the better analog.

Charles X ruled France from 1824 to 1830, and spent his time in power trying to return France to a bygone "golden" age. He:

• Re-instituted royal indemnities to aristocrats dispossessed during the Revolution
• ​Re-empowered the Catholic Church in education, law, and public offices
• Pushed censorship and curtailed freedom of the press
• Dissolved the Paris National Guard, which was loyal to the people, not the crown (Britannica)

​Eventually, his obsession with restoring the past and bypassing elected bodies triggered the July Revolution of 1830. After just three days of unrest, Charles abdicated and fled.

Donald Trump’s playbook doesn’t look so different:

• He idealizes a past that didn’t exist the way he remembers it.
• He routinely threatens institutions that don’t conform to his wishes—the DOJ, military, courts.
• He has made no secret of wanting to punish political enemies and fire non-loyal federal workers (Brookings, 2024).
• His allies at Project 2025 plan to gut civil protections and consolidate executive power (Project 2025).

Like Charles, Trump seems focused on loyalty over competency, legacy over liberty, and personal grievance over public service.

Where This Could Go?

History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes (Mark Twain) . Charles X's France didn’t fall into civil war, but it did spiral into political instability, reactionary succession, and eventually authoritarianism under Napoleon III. His attempt to restore an imagined past created a vacuum of leadership and legitimacy.

Will the second Trump term follow a similar path? Maybe not in three days like the July Revolution—but it could erode American institutions to the point where something more unstable replaces them.

This is Part I of a two-part series. In Part II, I’ll explore what Charles X’s downfall and the July Revolution teach us about resistance, resilience, and recovery.

​Sources & Citations:

• Britannica – Charles X
• Alpha History – Charles X and the July Ordinances
• Brookings – Trump and Unitary Executive Power
• Project 2025 – The Next Conservative Presidency Blueprint
• Washington Post – Trump’s Second-Term Plans
• NPR – Charles X and the July Revolution