> This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.

Not the last guy they executed. He was recording, then backed away when an officer approached him. Then he got dogpiled, his holstered gun was taken, and then he was shot repeatedly.

> Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles?

I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.

> I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?

Yeah, Walz is a weak Democrat who can't even condemn the organization killing and abducting his State's citizens. Exactly the kind of politician voters are tired of. All he can say over and over is to "not take the bait" by resisting occupation more forcefully.

> And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor?

I've not heard that alleged, but it wouldn't be surprising for some to be monitoring the situation. If you mean to imply that Democrat officials are organizing the resistance then that's laughable. If you're a Conservative then there are only a handful of Dems you should be afraid of, and the rest of the Dems will help you make sure they're not too influential.

> For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced?

A more focused INS under the DoJ would be a good reset. A paramilitary with twitchy trigger fingers is no way to enforce any law, much less something as nonviolent and bureaucratic as immigration. If someone is being violent, send the Police, hold a trial. If you need to sort out immigration status you can send a pencil pusher to get papers in order.

> Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?

No barriers? No. Extremely low ones though, absolutely. You do realize that almost all undocumented people living in the US are on overstayed visas, right? We let them in after checking they weren't dangerous, then they started working and living here. Now they make up a sizable chunk of the population. Clearly our immigration system is broken if it leaves this many residents undocumented. And your proposed solution is strict enforcement?

Imagine, if you will, applying this standard to, say, speeding. Repeated instances of speeding result in increasing fines, and eventually revocation of your license. That's what the law says! Should we not enforce this law?? Well. If we used cars' and phones' GPS and cameras to reconstruct a few days of driving behavior, then handed out punishment as dictated by law, 90% of drivers would instantly lose their license. Half of the population would be unable to go to work, buy food, of get their kids to school. It would be a disaster of historic scale. The problem then, is the law. To put it more succinctly: I am not a proponent of enforcing bad laws, and neither is just about anyone else here in reality.

> I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.

This kind of behavior would not be tolerated any more if it targeted other work environments. Harassment (and that's the most generous interpretation) is not free speech.

> then backed away when an officer approached him.

The video shows him physically interposing himself between the officer and a woman, and appearing to resist physically.

> You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference."

It is not broad, as explained by the one sentence you omitted from that paragraph.

> Walz is a weak Democrat who can't even condemn the organization

He has very clearly done this on multiple occasions. As I said, he has even been making public speeches claiming that ICE aren't even LEO, which is false.

> abducting his State's citizens

This has not occurred. Arrest is not abduction.

> If you mean to imply that Democrat officials are organizing the resistance then that's laughable.

I do mean to say that Cam Higby asserts exactly that, and appears to believe he has considerable evidence to substantiate the claim.

> You do realize that almost all undocumented people living in the US are on overstayed visas, right? We let them in after checking they weren't dangerous, then they started working and living here.

I don't understand why you think they should be permitted to stay under those conditions.

> Clearly our immigration system is broken if it leaves this many residents undocumented. And your proposed solution is strict enforcement?

Yes; if you have a time-limited visa, you should be expected to leave the country when it expires, and you should expect for there to be strict enforcement of that rule. Otherwise the time stamped on the visa is meaningless.

> Imagine, if you will, applying this standard to, say, speeding.

I see no reason why this is comparable.