"Activists have been calling for boycotts of hotel chains like Marriott and Hilton that cooperate with ICE, arguing that businesses should not be providing material support for an enforcement regime built on mass detention, deportation, and brutality. The government seems offended that anyone would even object. When one Hilton-branded hotel reportedly refused to host ICE agents, the backlash from the government was unhinged, with the Department of Homeland Security yelling on social media that it was "unacceptable.""
"As if private businesses are obligated to support armed state violence. As if saying no to ICE is somehow unreasonable or even traitorous. It's easy to dismiss the backlash as ideological, performative, or just another episode of internet outrage. But underneath it is a much older and much more serious question - one that sounds dusty until you think about how modern law enforcement actually works: What are the limits on the government's ability to force private space into service for coercive state power?"
Hotels across the country are accommodating ICE agents during raids, detention operations, and street abductions. Activists are organizing boycotts of hotel chains such as Marriott and Hilton for cooperating with ICE. The Department of Homeland Security publicly criticized a hotel that reportedly refused to host ICE agents, characterizing the refusal as unacceptable. Critics argue that compelling hotels to host enforcement personnel effectively makes businesses provide material support for coercive state operations. The situation raises constitutional questions about the limits on government authority to commandeer private spaces, invoking the Third Amendment’s prohibition on quartering soldiers during peacetime.
Read at Truthout
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]