[biofunsf]

genuine question: What is the interpretation of the law such that ICE operations are wholly unlawful, and the military should broadly disobey an order to support/protect ICE operations?

While there's certainly many instances where ICE breaks the law, what would be the rationale for the military wholly refusing to support ICE performing their stated duty of enforcing immigration law? (besides more specific orders like "disperse these legal protesters" which could be disobeyed for more narrow reasons, because peaceful protesting is legal)

[aebtebeten]

No rationale for the military wholly refusing; that's a straw man.

This suggestion is that the insurrection act could be moving from the fire into the frying pan: I'm not saying the military would be good occupiers, only that they're probably better occupiers than ICE.

(and were they to be supporting ICE operations, from what I've seen in the news reported on this side of the Atlantic, they'd be more likely to ride herd on ICE than on the public*: keep the SOF LARPers on the up and up, as it were)

* after all, the Arctic Angels have been training for going up against the ВДВ, not for playing "respect my authoritah!" games with civilians.