|
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:
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:
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:
Why Nothing Has Changed
Solutions on the Table To restore trust and legality, we need:
What You Can Do If you witness a suspicious detention:
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
1 Comment
When Chaos Becomes the Norm: Why I Wrote a White Paper on Executive Drift and Governance Breakdown6/10/2025 I didn’t set out to write a white paper. I set out to understand why I felt so damn uneasy. Maybe it started with seeing peaceful protestors met by armored vehicles. Maybe it was the endless chaos in Washington. Or maybe it was just me—an immigrant, veteran, and parent—wondering how much longer our institutions could bend before they break.
What began as frustration turned into research. What became research turned into structure. What emerged is now something I hope contributes meaningfully to the public record: a documented, reasoned critique of how executive power has drifted from constitutional constraint toward normalized chaos. 📄 Read the full white paper here! 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:
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:
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:
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: 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:
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:
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: “The Big Beautiful Bill”: What’s Really in It, What’s Likely to Pass, and What It Tells Us5/26/2025 We don’t talk much about TV or sports at my house. Our dinner table is usually a mash-up of topics like: my eldest son's running commentary on AI and the moral arc of video games, my youngest son’s digital dispatches from his post-college trek across Japan (equal parts neon and existential), and my wife and I debating backsplash options for our long-overdue kitchen remodel.
Lately, however there’s been a new contender for conversational dominance: the Big Beautiful Bill. And since I’m the resident Political Scientist in my home, it’s apparently my job to explain what it is, what it does, and whether we should actually be worried. So here it is—a plainspoken breakdown of what this bill proposes, what might realistically get passed, and what kind of government it seems designed to shape. Spoiler: it’s not all that beautiful. A Fiscal Grab Bag Disguised as Reform At its core, the bill is a budget reconciliation measure laced with permanent policy changes. It includes:
Some of the provisions—like the denial of Medicaid for undocumented immigrants—are not new. They already exist in federal policy and administrative practice. So why include them again? The answer appears to be less about legislative necessity and more about symbolic politics. These reassertions serve as red meat for the administration’s supporters, offering visible victories in areas already shaped by precedent. It’s less about changing the law and more about broadcasting allegiance to a specific worldview. It is, as one pundit described, a “smorgasbord of ideological victories” dressed in fiscal packaging. Will It Pass? The Senate is the firewall—at least that is how things were envisioned by our founding fathers, who masterminded the "Great American Experiment" between 1760s and 1787. Under the more recent (1985) Byrd Rule, provisions related strictly to federal revenue and spending can pass through the budget reconciliation process with a simple majority (51 votes, including the Vice President as tiebreaker). That’s how the Trump Administration hopes to push through the financial and tax sections of the bill (CRS, 2024). However, the more radical judicial and social policy tomfoolery—like limits on court contempt powers or structural changes to loan forgiveness—are not budgetary in nature. These typically require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and proceed to a vote. This distinction is crucial, because it means the bill, as written, almost certainly cannot pass. Unless those policy provisions are stripped out or diluted significantly, the bill would face strong opposition in the Senate. Moderate Republicans and Democrats alike have signaled resistance, particularly to cuts in disaster relief, SNAP, and veterans’ programs—many of which remain popular with constituents across all party lines. What’s At Stake Healthcare, in particular, is already on the chopping block. As I discussed in an earlier post (How Sick Will America Get?), the bill could roll back many protections under Medicaid expansion, erode HHS oversight authority, and prioritize short-term cost savings over long-term population health outcomes. These aren’t just policy tweaks—they’re foundational shifts that would limit access and reduce public accountability. On top of that, proposed cuts to FEMA disaster preparedness and VA care would have direct consequences. In an age of climate-driven emergencies and an aging veteran population, these cuts are not only deeply unpopular—they’re dangerous. Does The Administration Care? That’s the cynical but unavoidable question. The bill reflects a time-tested pattern: legislate in a way that shifts wealth and influence toward those that already have it, while weakening safeguards that protect the rest of us. The court reforms, in particular, are not about reducing bureaucracy—they’re about reducing oversight. Enriching loyalists through tax codes, deregulation, and public-private mechanisms appears to be the through-line. Whether through expanded tax shelters or privatized education and health services, the bill rewards aligned actors while dismantling public-facing institutions. Conclusion: What’s Real, What’s Rhetoric It’s unlikely this bill passes in its current form. The Senate will almost certainly strip out or stall the most controversial items, particularly those unrelated to the federal budget. Yet the danger lies in what can still get through via reconciliation—and what it signals about governance should a second Trump term come to pass. It’s not just about what’s in the bill. It’s about what kind of country this bill envisions—and who it leaves behind. Sources & Citations |
AuthorAxel Newe is a strategic partnerships and GTM leader with a background in healthcare, SaaS, and digital transformation. He’s also a Navy veteran, cyclist, and lifelong problem solver. Lately, he’s been writing not just from the field and the road—but from the gut—on democracy, civic engagement, and current events (minus the rage memes). This blog is where clarity meets commentary, one honest post at a time. ArchivesCategories
All
|
RSS Feed