State and federal authorities in New Orleans are actively monitoring online criticism and protests regarding an immigration enforcement operation known as Catahoula Crunch. Law enforcement records indicate that only 9 out of 38 individuals arrested had criminal histories beyond minor traffic violations, contradicting official claims that the operation targets dangerous offenders. Local leaders have expressed concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the arrests and the potential chilling effect on free speech due to the surveillance of public sentiment.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has framed the operation as a crackdown on 'criminal illegal aliens,' yet the data reviewed suggests that the majority of those arrested do not fit this characterization. Local officials, including New Orleans City Council President J.P. Morrell, have criticized the operation as a broad dragnet disproportionately affecting individuals based on their ethnicity, particularly in communities of color.

DHS has not provided detailed information about the detainees or their criminal backgrounds, despite public statements emphasizing the targeting of violent offenders. The operation is expected to last up to two months, with a goal of making at least 5,000 arrests in the region. Critics argue that the operation perpetuates harmful stereotypes about immigrants and undermines community trust.

The surveillance efforts include monitoring social media platforms and online forums where residents discuss the immigration raids. Reports indicate that state and federal agencies are collaborating closely, with the Louisiana State Police pledging operational support to immigration authorities. This cooperation has raised alarms among community organizers, who assert that their activities are lawful and aimed at protecting vulnerable populations.

The monitoring of public discourse and the potential for punitive measures against those who protest immigration enforcement have led to calls for greater accountability and transparency from authorities. Activists argue that the focus on surveillance rather than community safety reflects a troubling prioritization of state power over civil liberties.