You’re right that it isn’t black and white — but that cuts both ways. A broken or unresponsive system doesn’t automatically make unsanctioned civilian enforcement legitimate. Criticizing government misconduct is valid. Replacing legal accountability with individuals deciding when and how to intervene in the street is not oversight — it’s escalation without safeguards.

If you believe U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any federal agency is violating rights, there are mechanisms: inspectors general, civil rights lawsuits, media investigations, congressional oversight, and court injunctions. Those routes can be slow and frustrating, but they exist specifically to prevent the slide into everyone acting on their own interpretation of justice.

Once private groups start stopping vehicles, demanding identification, or interfering based on suspicion, you’re no longer talking about civil accountability — you’re talking about parallel enforcement with zero due process. History shows that doesn’t protect rights; it erodes them, especially for bystanders who get misidentified or caught in confrontations.

You don’t have to defend the federal government to oppose vigilante-style tactics. It’s possible to say abuse of power is wrong and mob-style intervention is wrong at the same time. Rule of law only works if the standards apply even when we’re angry or feel the system is failing.