Protesters in DC Reject Surveillance and Deportation Policies

From the outset, the political climate in the capital has been marked by a clash between an administration that prioritizes public safety and a progressive narrative that interprets every firm measure as an attack on freedoms.

This is the case of a protester—a female activist—who, with a firm voice laced with resentment, declared at a public rally:

“The president has been trying to provoke violence in Black and Latino communities, having ICE kidnap our neighbors, harassing and profiling the Black community and seeking a reaction, but we say: No way, we won’t go! We won’t go to mass incarcerations, prisons, slavery, or ICE detention centers, to those ‘beautiful’ centers or to where the alligators live…”

Her protest reflects a confrontational vision: she claims that these communities must categorically reject participation in what they see as oppressive structures. But before granting blind sympathy to such statements, it is essential to examine what lies beneath that narrative.

Radical Criticism and Its Historical Background
It is true that the progressive left has denounced—sometimes with exaggeration—specific episodes of institutional abuse, unequal surveillance, or selective violence. However, to claim that the Trump administration, at this stage, is deliberately seeking to “provoke violence” among African Americans, Latinos, or their neighbors ignores the Republican principle of law, order, and equal protection under the law.

The history of policing in the United States does contain dark chapters—such as patrols inherited from the slave system—but that does not negate that today, any protest must also recognize the decisive steps taken to correct injustices. From selective raids to unlawful detentions, past missteps exist, but they do not define the present intent of an administration committed to restoring public peace.

Rejection as a Form of Politicization
By declaring “we won’t go”… to prisons or ICE detention centers, the protester takes rejection to a symbolic extreme: she delegitimizes not only legal enforcement tools but the very judicial and immigration systems themselves. The problem is that this ignores those who do suffer violent crimes and seek protection. In the constitutional system, everyone—legal or not—has rights, while the State has duties: to protect life and maintain order.

By shouting against “ICE detention centers,” she refuses to acknowledge legitimate legal mechanisms to address crime, even when those mechanisms ensure due process. Such ideological radicalism turns the debate into an abstraction and weakens the ability of the most vulnerable communities to demand justice.

An Idealistic Vision That Neglects Real Solutions
Freedom without order is not freedom—it is chaos. The protester criticizes “empty freedom,” yet at the same time refuses to accept legitimate tools of defense and justice, such as investigations, courts, and the detention of dangerous criminals. What happens if those authorities allow a city to become unsafe?

Legal mechanisms work when they operate with transparency and respect for individual rights. The National Guard, ICE, and law enforcement must act with prudence but also with firmness. Unconditional rejection is unacceptable when the priority must be protecting all citizens.

Shared Struggle, Not Antagonism
The fight for freedom and equality is not won by abandoning the rule of law, but by strengthening its institutions. The activist references international struggles—such as the situation in Palestine, labor exploitation, or the defense of Muslims and immigrants—seeking to legitimize her speech with noble causes. But it is not the same to fight against real oppression as to turn every form of legitimate authority into something toxic.

True solidarity among peoples is expressed by defending justice, order, and rights on all sides—not by constructing a narrative that fuels resentment and confrontation between communities.

Legislating from Responsibility, Not Rejection
The protester’s message expresses pain, distrust, and resistance. We understand that. But a conservative outlet knows that real freedom is not built by tearing down institutions, but by repairing them. It is not won by demanding radical exclusion, but by fostering responsible inclusion within the constitutional framework.

Saying “No way, we won’t go!” is not a banner of dignity; it is a call to isolation. What DC and the country need today is constructive discussion, not incendiary slogans. And that only happens when the protesting voices also recognize that the State has a duty to ensure security—without excuses or victimhood.