logo
Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good

Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good

The Advertiser11-05-2025

When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Emma Garlett: Ask yourself if you are an ally and if you are doing enough to support First Nations causes
Emma Garlett: Ask yourself if you are an ally and if you are doing enough to support First Nations causes

West Australian

time26 minutes ago

  • West Australian

Emma Garlett: Ask yourself if you are an ally and if you are doing enough to support First Nations causes

Diversity strategy. Check. Multicultural team. Check. Cultural awareness training. Check. But what does this all mean? Surely more than the pieces of paper they are written on. Some professions see more exposure to First Nations peoples and communities than others. But chances are with around one million Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia, you will have either worked with, know of or be friends with a First Nations person. You have to decide — do I to ignore First Nations people or be an ally? An ally is a person who actively supports reconciliation in its many forms between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Allies seek opportunities to amplify First Nations voices and seek information to learn from. There's the many face-value acts of allyship that are great when beginning your reconciliation journey or to reignite the momentum — breakfasts, cultural events and discussions held especially during National Reconciliation Week and NAIDOC Week are the most visible forms of engagement. While I encourage everyone to attend these events for exposure to and celebration of culture, there is a pressing need to go deeper than the surface. As an employee or an employer, inviting First Nations peoples to share their culture through training and workshops is a great first step to fostering understanding and seeing the world through a different perspective to foster a culturally safe environment for everyone. Going beyond this, it is great to explore if your organisation has longer term plans to embed diversity, respect and contagious learning of First Nations peoples and culture. This could include the development and implementation of a Reconciliation Action Plan or a cultural audit to understand your strengths and weaknesses. Another way is through opportunities for cultural recognition, like place-naming, language and arts in your home or workplace. If you've ever been across the Tasman to New Zealand, you'll see the amazing cultural celebration that has occurred, with Maori art, language and place-naming commonplace. Doing the same here in Australia would be a welcome step. The better equipped you are to help, the better the future will be for our children and their children. Supporting First Nations peoples is more than acknowledging atrocities and mistreatment — we are more than the sum total of a deficit discourse narrative. NAIDOC week takes place next month, I challenge you to be better prepared than you were for National Reconciliation Week and bring about deeper change in either your personal or professional environments. Be open, be positive, be proud.

The White House marching orders that sparked the LA migrant crackdown
The White House marching orders that sparked the LA migrant crackdown

The Australian

timean hour ago

  • The Australian

The White House marching orders that sparked the LA migrant crackdown

Even with the high-profile arrests of suspects by masked immigration agents and the plane loads of migrants swiftly ferried out of the US, President Trump was falling short of the number of daily deportations carried out by the Biden administration in its final year. So in late May, Stephen Miller, a top White House aide and the architect of the president's immigration agenda, addressed a meeting at the headquarters of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The message was clear: The president, who promised to deport millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, wasn't pleased. The agency had better step it up. Gang members and violent criminals, what Trump called the 'worst of the worst,' weren't the sole target of deportations. Federal agents needed to 'just go out there and arrest illegal aliens,' Miller told top ICE officials, who had come from across the US, according to people familiar with the meeting. Agents didn't need to develop target lists of immigrants suspected of being in the US illegally, a longstanding practice, Miller said. Instead, he directed them to target Home Depot, where day laborers typically gather for hire, or 7-Eleven convenience stores. Miller bet that he and a handful of agents could go out on the streets of Washington, D.C., and arrest 30 people right away. 'Who here thinks they can do it?' Miller said, asking for a show of hands. ICE agents appeared to follow Miller's tip and conducted an immigration sweep Friday at the Home Depot in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Westlake in Los Angeles, helping set off a weekend of protests around Los Angeles County, including at the federal detention center in the city's downtown. On Saturday, Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Southern California, despite objections by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Protesters hold up a sign near police in riot gear outside the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Santa Ana, California. Picture: AFP Law-enforcement officers used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang stun grenades against increasingly unruly crowds. Demonstrators threw tree branches, scooters, fireworks and debris from a freeway overpass onto police vehicles below. The unrest continued Monday and roughly 700 Marines were dispatched to protect federal property and personnel. 'To do this in militaristic gear in L.A. is intended to notch up the image of deportations being in high gear,' said Muzaffar Chishti, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. 'But the actual deportations are paltry compared with the imagery.' Since Miller's meeting with ICE officials, daily arrests have risen, according to ICE officials. There are no written directives, but officers have been told to 'do what you need to do' to make more arrests, according to current and former ICE officials familiar with the directives. The administration's immigration enforcement is a sharp break with past government practices, according to attorneys, immigration advocates and officials from previous administrations. Federal agents make warrantless arrests. Masked agents take people into custody without identifying themselves. Plainclothes agents in at least a dozen cities have arrested migrants who showed up to their court hearings. And across the US, people suspected of being in the country illegally are disappearing into the federal detention system without notice to families or lawyers, according to attorneys, witnesses and officials. In Coral Springs, Fla., at least eight agents in tactical gear, shields and rifles surrounded a home with guns raised to arrest a father with no criminal history. In Irvine, Calif., ICE agents drove a phalanx of military vehicles in the Orange County suburb to arrest a person, though not for illegal immigration. They were seeking a resident's son who had allegedly posted fliers alerting neighbors to the presence of ICE agents. The raid alarmed the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization that defends free speech, which requested a copy of the warrant. 'Criticism of government officials is core protected speech, and to criticize them you have every right to identify them,' said Aaron Terr, the group's director of public advocacy. The Trump administration defends its tactics for arrests, including many documented in cellphone videos and posted on social media. ICE officers have been donning protective gear and concealing their faces because of threats, said Tom Homan, the White House border czar. 'They're simply trying to enforce the law, and they're trying to protect themselves,' he said. 'Keeping President Trump's promise to deport illegal aliens is something the administration takes seriously,' said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman. Breaking glass The Trump administration hopes news reports and other publicity about its tough enforcement actions will prompt immigrants who are in the country illegally to leave the US voluntarily. Migrants have been offered a $1,000 payment if they document their departures. On social media, regional ICE offices post photos of immigrants taken into custody along with photos of burly ICE agents, their faces masked or blurred or their backs turned. 'Over the past 100 days, ICE and our partners have accomplished some amazing feats,' the ICE office in Houston posted on X. The Border Patrol's El Centro sector in Southern California posted photos of a broken car window on Facebook: The caption said, 'This illegal alien is listing his accomplishments for the past week: Refused to open window during an immigration inspection; Got his window shattered for an extraction.' An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent patrols the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building Picture: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/AFP Alfredo 'Lelo' Juarez Zeferino, a Washington state farmworkers union organizer, was another ICE target. Agents in an unmarked car stopped him as he was driving his wife to her job at a tulip farm. The agents, who didn't show badges or identification, smashed in his window and pulled him from the car, according to Familias Unidas por la Justica, a farmworker union. ICE has stopped regularly publishing arrest data, and has been accused of overstating the numbers. The Trump administration arrested roughly 66,500 migrants living in the US illegally and deported nearly 66,000 in its first 100 days, a higher pace of arrests compared with 2024, and a slightly slower pace for deportations. Earlier this year, ICE officials set daily arrest quotas and deputized agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law-enforcement agencies. ICE officials eliminated a Biden-era policy that blocked officers from arresting people without proof of legal residency who happened to be in the vicinity of targeted suspects. Raids at schools, churches and hospitals are now allowed. In February, two agents wearing tactical gear entered El Potro's Mexican Cafe and Cantina in Liberty, Mo., while another guarded the front door, according to a lawsuit filed in the US District Court in Chicago. In all, more than 10 agents participated. The ICE agents said they were looking for someone, but didn't say who, or provide a photograph, according to the lawsuit. Agents arrested 12 restaurant employees. The suit against the government alleges that the arrests were made without a warrant or probable cause that the workers would flee. In a court filing, much of which was redacted, the government said the arrests 'were supported by documented, probable cause determinations.' One problem for the administration was that ICE had only about 5,000 officers ready and trained to make arrests, according to an agency official. As ICE officers face more threats, they form ever-larger teams to conduct arrests, officials said. Larger teams means ICE can be in fewer places. Officials from the White House and the Department of Homeland Security have made clear there will be consequences for not hitting arrest targets. Top officials at DHS have pushed out one acting ICE director and are threatening a second. Late last month, the top ICE official overseeing arrests and deportations, Kenneth Genalo, resigned rather than fire deputies for poor performance, said people familiar with the matter. One reason deportations haven't picked up might be that ICE operations have received so much attention, prompting migrants to be more cautious, according to agents and leaders. Last kiss On a recent morning, half a dozen SUVs waited in the dark of a suburban neighborhood in San Antonio. Agents joked over the radio about how easy they were to spot: They had struggled to turn off their automatic headlights, and two neighbors drove around the block, peering into the agents' windows before returning to their driveways. Minutes later, their target, a Cuban father who worked at a local candy factory, began loading two young children into a red SUV. The agents initially planned to follow and arrest him after he had dropped the children at school. Instead, they decided to arrest him immediately because the children's mother was also in the car. With lights flashing, the SUVs converged on the car. The man stepped from the driver's seat with his hands up while the woman in the passenger seat scolded the agents for arresting him in front of the children. She asked if she could give her husband a kiss before they took him. None of the agents responded. The agents next tailed a yellow pickup through a taqueria restaurant drive-through line before arresting the driver. They let him go when he showed a Global Entry card proving he was a US citizen. Agents said they may have confused the man with his son. Elsewhere, Americans detained by ICE have said they were held for hours or longer before being allowed to prove their citizenship. Courthouse arrests have become a nationwide strategy, according to DHS officials and lawyers. They allow ICE to boost arrest numbers with fewer resources. It also puts migrants in a corner: Should they risk arrest by following the legal process and appearing in court? At a court in Phoenix last month, attorney Isaac Ortega said prosecutors requested dismissals for a string of cases, including that of his client, a Venezuelan man who had entered the US legally under a Biden administration program terminated by Trump. A Dominican man, left on the ground, and an activist are detained by plain clothes officers with ICE after an immigration hearing inside the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York. Picture: AP /Yuki Iwamura After the man left the hearing room, agents arrested him. They refused to identify themselves, answer questions or show a warrant. 'It was completely out of the norm,' Ortega said. Other lawyers say clients have been denied access to legal counsel. Luis Campos, a Tucson-based attorney, said a Border Patrol agent physically blocked him from seeing a woman on the maternity ward who had just given birth. The woman and her family had requested that she have counsel, Campos said. ICE said all laws and procedures were followed. In some jurisdictions, agents said their supervisors have allowed them to more frequently seek criminal warrants to arrest targets. Administrative warrants are typically used for illegal immigration, which is a civil, not a criminal, violation. Criminal warrants allow agents to break down doors and forcibly enter homes. Maksim Zaitsev, a 36-year-old Russian citizen with a pending asylum case, said he was beaten by ICE agents after calling for his wife when the agents arrested him during an immigration check-in at an ICE office. 'It was like I was in a washing machine,' Zaitsev said in an interview from a detention facility in Adelanto, Calif. Photographs in court filings show Zaitsev with bruises and scabs on his face. Zaitsev was charged for biting an officer, but a federal judge dismissed the assault case, citing government misconduct. Zaitsev said it was self-defense. 'We came to the United States for protection because of what we encountered in Russia,' he said. 'It seems that we are encountering here what we fled.' Videos shared on social media show plainclothes men, one masked, arresting people at a courthouse in Albemarle County, Va., without identifying themselves or their agency. That prompted James Hingeley, the county's elected commonwealth attorney, to launch an investigation. ICE said in a statement that the arrest was a lawful operation by its agency and bystanders who attempted to intervene would be prosecuted. Hingeley said arrests by officers who don't identify themselves pose a threat to the people being taken into custody, as well as to bystanders. 'If you operate as if you're a street gang,' he said, 'you create a danger to yourself and the public.' Read related topics: Donald Trump

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store