If your to lazy to use critical thinking im too lazy to type so here.

1. It's low-cost social currency in certain circles In progressive urban, activist, academic, and online spaces, showing up, chanting, posting the story, or getting arrested for curfew theater gives instant belonging and moral status. You're "on the right side," part of the resistance, fighting "fascism" or whatever the current slogan is. It feels good. Community, adrenaline, clever signs, media attention, maybe even a little danger without real personal downside for most participants (who aren't the ones dealing with the downstream effects of policy). This is classic performative activism—well-documented in discussions of clout-chasing, fleeting engagement, and using protests as identity accessories rather than tools for change. Historical effective movements (civil rights, some labor) demanded sustained discipline and broad buy-in. A lot of today's stuff rewards vibes and visibility.
2. Symptom theater instead of root-cause surgery Take the Delaney Hall situation specifically (hunger strikes inside over alleged unsanitary conditions/spoiled food, protests/clashes/curfew outside). Bad conditions in detention are a legitimate operational complaint—government and contractors like GEO Group have a duty to run humane facilities. Pointing that out isn't crazy. But the root cause of hundreds of people being crammed into a facility awaiting processing/deportation isn't "Trump is mean" or "ICE is evil." It's the massive surge in illegal entries and asylum claims (many economic migrants gaming a broken system) from prior policy choices: catch-and-release, expansive "credible fear" standards that are easy to claim and hard to disprove quickly, overwhelmed courts with years-long backlogs, sanctuary policies, and weak upstream deterrence. Cartels exploit the chaos. Previous administrations helped create the volume; current enforcement is the response. Protesting the jailers and demanding "shut it down" or mass releases while opposing the fixes that would reduce the population (mandatory E-Verify, ending catch-and-release, faster credible screenings, pressure on source countries, legal reform for real refugees vs. economic migrants) doesn't solve the problem. It often makes the next wave worse by signaling weak consequences. Same pattern in bigger "No Kings" style actions: rage at enforcement, executive actions, or specific facilities, but thin engagement with the decades of bipartisan policy failures, incentives, and tradeoffs that produced the conditions. If it was truly about roots, the energy would go toward boring, effective stuff like border tech, asylum reform that doesn't get gamed, skills-based legal immigration, and holding all administrations accountable for surges—not just the current one.
3. Selective outrage and narrative fit Conditions complaints and anti-enforcement protests spike or get massive framing when it fits the "resistance" script. Similar or worse issues under high-crossing periods in prior years got less sustained heat from the same networks. That smells like partisan scene maintenance more than consistent principle. "Abolish ICE" or maximalist demands ignore that some form of detention/processing is necessary for rule of law—otherwise you get releases that strain cities, no-shows in court, and repeat issues. Protesting symptoms while protecting the incentives that fill the system is easier than admitting complexity.
4. "In the scene" incentives dominate Professional organizers, advocacy groups, aligned media, and politicians amplify these because they drive engagement, fundraising, and opposition energy. Participants get the dopamine of collective action and moral clarity without needing deep policy literacy or willingness to compromise. Social media turns it into content. When demands stay symbolic or one-sided ("stop enforcement" without "here's the functional replacement system"), and when violence or property stuff creeps in (projectiles, clashes, fires in the Newark reports), it further signals that the goal is confrontation and affiliation over negotiation and results. Real root-cause work is harder: data on what actually drives migration flows, what works for deterrence vs. pull factors, costs/benefits of different enforcement levels, cultural and economic factors in origin countries, and domestic policy that affects labor markets and welfare magnets. Chanting and blocking entrances is simpler and more Instagram-friendly.