Oh, I’m not saying that that is what Portland should do (or that it isn’t).
Just trying to clarify the arguments.
I would says it is hard to see how removing protesters preventing deportations does not equate to “helping federal agents to enforce immigration laws”.
Whether we think city officials should be able to decide whether they or their local police force should or should not enforce federal laws is another question.
Personally, I don’t understand how there can be ‘sanctuary cities’. In most countries, that sort of rhetoric from a municipality would very quickly see some mayors under arrest and government forces on the streets if need be (at least if it actually amounted to any practical difference- see the wonderful ‘nuclear-free’ cities in the UK for examples of pointless protest statements being fine) but the US obviously doesn’t work that way.
In the countries I am familiar with this wouldn’t be an issue. The police would quite straightforwardly be required to assist regardless of what the local authority thought about it. The idea that say Rotherham Council might be able to tell the police not to arrest picketing miners simply wouldn’t apply.
Speaking pedantically (which is obviously the best way), from the images I’ve seen it’s fairly obvious that there’s quite a large disabled access ramp which does not appear to have been blocked so physical access would appear to have been possible - just not with vehicles.
Given the avatar, what else could I be? 
As it happens, I don’t think I am.
I used to be quite Conservative (in the non-US sense, i.e. a pinko liberal by US standards). As I’ve got older I realise that my certainties about politics and the clear superiority of capitalism and old-fashioned liberalism are waning fast - especially when faced with the clear racism and barking-madness of those in the parties I would have previously supported.
