Here’s a quiz; choose carefully!
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component of the US Department of Homeland Security is
- a) a bunch of jack-booted, racist thugs on a power trip
- b) cowards hiding behind masks and terrorizing innocents
- c) the modern-day Gestapo for the Trump administration
- d) routinely violating the Constitution and everyone’s civil rights
- e) all of the above
The correct answer is, if you thought this was a real quiz, you desperately need to continue reading. If you correctly diagnosed the cleverly-hidden satire font, keep reading, too. You may be surprised!
I’m going to take some of the main criticisms I see in social media memes (so much from which to choose!) and explain why they are wrong using everyday language and examples.
Aren’t the masks and lack of uniforms Gestapo tactics? They used to teach history on the History channel; apparently not so much anymore. For the record, the Gestapo proudly wore uniforms, as they were associated with the SchutzStaffel, or SS, under Himmler. They did so because they wanted to strike fear into anyone who saw them, and they didn’t wear masks, because they did not fear anyone attacking them. ICE on the other hand does not wear uniforms because they often have to sneak up on suspects, and they wear masks specifically because they do fear people attacking them (or their families). ICE should have some identifying item (e.g., a badge, a tear-open jacket which shows POLICE) to show once the suspects are engaged, to be clear they are federal agents. But even that depends on the situation, and does not preclude them from completing the arrest without producing those identifying items. Here’s a fine video from NBC Boston which explains:
“ICE is terrorizing brown-skinned people at the airport.” This is part technical correction, part understanding what your rights are, and aren’t. First off, there is (generally) no ICE at the airport. You may see this as an unimportant distinction, but if you want t0 talk intelligently about a subject, you should probably know enough to identify the correct agency. If you’re flying anywhere, you’ll encounter TSA before you board an aircraft. As a reminder of the limits of your rights, try refusing to be searched at the TSA check point, and let me know how that goes! If you’re arriving in the United States, you’ll encounter Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which checks your passport and inspects your luggage. Again, US law and many lawsuits have established that CBP officers have a broad ability to search you and your belongings (including your cell phone) when you arrive. It’s nothing new; it’s been that way since before cell phones!
Perhaps you’ve heard of legal immigrants being arrested at the airport? There are numerous such reports. For example, I just read a Washington Post story entitled, “Scientist on green card detained for a week without explanation, lawyer says.” Yet within the story are these sentences:
In 2011, Kim faced a minor marijuana possession charge in Texas, (his attorney) said, but he fulfilled a community service requirement and successfully petitioned for nondisclosure to seal the offense from the public record.
“If a green card holder is convicted of a drug offense, violating their status, that person is issued a Notice to Appear and CBP coordinates detention space with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement to The Washington Post. “This alien is in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.”
Now, you and I may argue about whether deporting a scientist for a decade-old marijuana conviction is a smart policy. But like so many of these stories, there is a valid, legal reason people are being detained. Expunged records are legally available to immigration officials. There is an explanation, and it’s not because of the color of his skin.
Where’s your warrant? No doubt you saw a video with people asking ICE agents some variation on this question. The most famous is NY City Councilman Brad Lander in this clip:
Once and for all, ICE does not need a “judicial warrant” to arrest an illegal immigrant. That’s the law, despite what you may have read on some meme. They do need one to enter private property, but they often get past that by getting consent of the property owner. And there is no right for anyone to interfere with ICE by asking to see such a warrant. Ahh, but Mr. Lander is an American citizen, so how come ICE can arrest him? Watch the video. He locks arms with the man detained and refuses to let go, thus interfering with the federal agents. When you interfere with federal law enforcement, do you think they have to stop, leave, and go get a warrant to arrest you? No they don’t. If they do intend to charge you, they’ll need to explain to a judge the basis for the arrest. In most of these cases, the charges are dropped, which is appropriate.
Lost in this nonsense is the concept of nonviolent resistance, which is legitimate. Mr. Lander can stand up for his principals and interfere, and may pay a price for that act. Nonviolent resistance is not a “don’t go to jail card.” It means you’re ready to pay the price for your beliefs. Good for you. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s famous missive was titled “Letter from a Birmingham jail” for a reason! But don’t think that in any way permits you to interfere with federal law enforcement, nor does it allow you to cross from nonviolent to more active measures (like throwing stones, wrestling, etc.).
Either everyone has due process, or no one does. This one sounds catchy, I’ll give you that. And people tend to think of rights as an all-or-nothing thing. The problem here is treating due process like a thing, rather than what it is: a process. I mean, the word is right there! Due process is different for different people and different circumstances. It means that whatever process (there’s that word again) is in place for the action involved must be followed. The government doesn’t get to short-circuit it. But the process is not the same for all people, at all times, in all actions. For example, in the case of illegal immigration due process, the appropriate law is called expedited removal. It reads:
undocumented persons who are apprehended anywhere in the U.S., cannot prove they have resided in the U.S. for at least two years; and, entered the U.S. between Ports of Entry (POEs) or were paroled into the U.S. and have their parole status revoked, may be deported in as little as a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before an immigration judge.
While the Trump administration has expanded who and where is subject to expedited removal, this law has been in effect going all the way back to George W. Bush. That is the due process: show you’ve been here at least two years and arrived at a POE, or you’re gone. In other cases due process involves much more, but the point to take away is it’s often different.
“ICE is harassing American citizens who did nothing wrong.” This one often comes up when ICE arrests a group and then ends up releasing one of the group because they are a citizen. But here’s the rub: if I show you a picture of a group, can you tell me which are citizens? When ICE goes to arrest a group, they can’t make immediate judgments about who is or isn’t a citizen. They do have information identifying the illegal aliens (legal term) they are going to arrest, and helping such a person hide, flee or evade arrest is a crime. It’s called harboring. The best example of this Kenny Laynez, an eighteen year-old US citizen detained for six hours in Florida. Here’s his arrest video:
Now I think the way the Florida Highway Patrol officers talked to/about the detainees is totally inappropriate. But what young Mr. Laynez did wrong was (1) refuse to open his door, (2) struggle with the officer who removed him, and (3) knowingly giving illegal immigrants a ride. I also think his comments about “you can’t do that” and “That’s not the way you arrest someone” were irritants, but of course the police should be professional enough to ignore them. Should he have been tried? No, and he wasn’t. He was released six hours later, as soon as they confirmed his citizenship. Which leads to the next one:
“I thought they were going to remove the worst first.” I often hear this from people who readily admit they never watched a single Trump campaign rally. While Trump did commit to rounding up the “bad hombres” (his words), he absolutely made it clear he intended the largest deportation effort in US history. Now no one should be under the ridiculous impression that all deportations were on hold until every violent criminal was first deported. When ICE finds a violent criminal alien along with many other nonviolent ones, they all get rolled up. This only makes sense.
Trump has widened the drag net for all illegal aliens, and made it clear that self-deportation is the best way to avoid ICE. While the numbers are in dispute, somewhere between 200,000 and one million illegal immigrants have left the country since the Trump administration began. And ICE stands to go from an annual budget of US $3 billion to US $45 billion, with a onetime plus-up of US $30 billion for detention facilities. So this more intensive search/detain/deport approach is likely to accelerate, not decelerate. Which relates to my final point:
“They are deporting immigrants who have no criminal record.” This sounds like a damning observation, if you don’t listen closely. Let me give you the same concept in a different example, to make the point clear.
They’re arresting fraudsters who haven’t killed anyone.
They’re arresting sexual assaulters who didn’t steal anything
They’re arresting thieves who pays their taxes
They’re arresting politicians who tell the truth.
That last one is of course an impossibility. I just put it there to make sure you’re still reading. What all these examples have in common is a classification error. Illegal immigration is a civil offense, not a criminal one. But in everyday language, both are crimes. I have yet to hear anyone shrug off President Trump’s being found “liable” for sexual abuse because it was a civil court finding.
By definition, illegal aliens have committed a civil violation, so mentioning they haven’t committed a crime is either (1) wrong, or (2) confused. Either way, it doesn’t matter. Now some like to point out that “the detained man has been living in the country for twenty years.” I know of no other crime where we decide, “well, it was so long ago, that’s that, guess we can’t do anything about it.” Certainly President Trump was accused of a crime from thirty years ago, at a date and time unspecified. An Egyptian illegal immigrant lived here peaceably in Colorado with his family (also illegal) for almost three years before he decided to “kill all the Zionists” (his words) by throwing Molotov cocktails at them. Was that the first thing he did wrong?
In case you think the real problem is the numbers ICE is rolling up, consider this chart. Trump’s 2025 numbers? So far, 150,000 deportations. He’s on track to perhaps slightly beat . . . Joe Biden’s record of last year. Was Joe Biden secretly running a Nazi regime? Was he only deporting the worst of the worst? Where was the outrage then?
The government has between one and one-and-a-half million final deportation orders outstanding. These are people of all types who have completed every avenue to become legal immigrants, including asylum, and been turned away. They have no more due process when it comes to being deported. And they are all still in the country. They can be detained by ICE at any time, anywhere, and summarily deported. They have exhausted all forms of due process. But you can bet someone with a cell phone will record the encounter and claim the SS is among us.
You don’t have to agree with the Trump administration’s immigration and deportation policy. You may want to complain about it (I do sometimes, too), or even engage in civil disobedience. Go for it! First ask yourself why it’s different in your mind than last year under the Biden administration, or back in 2012 under President Obama? But comparing it to Nazi Germany and denigrating the ICE officers doing their legal mission under the rules that exist? nICE try, but wrong!
Well written and researched as usual. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side don’t deal in logic, only emotions. They refuse to let facts interfere with “their truth,” aka feelings. Thanks again.
Take care.
Pat, Well done!
Dreadful analysis. You are looking at the trees and miss the forest as well as the forest fire. You are going out of your way to support Trump’s policies. You have claimed that is not true, but the subtext of your comments show this. If you are so concerned with legality, why not write about Trump’s using the presidency to enrich himself and his family? That to me is a bigger issue than whether or not my handyman may be illegal. (yeah, this is a tu quoque argument but it is apt here….)
Biden’s removal of immigrants was almost entirely done at the border by limiting asylum there. Given limited resources, ICE was used mostly to focus on illegal, criminal immigrants.
Biden also tried to find a way through an executive order to allow illegal immigrant spouses of American citizens who have been here for a long time to legalize their status and that of their minor children. Trump opposed this, and his administration arrests spouses of Americans, including those of active servicemen. And his use of troops in LA is unprecedented (troops have been used during major riots but this is not the case now); the troops were a show of of force to intimidate not only illegal immigrants but everyone else.
Yes, these immigrants are technically illegal, a civil offense, but so are many civil offenses that are ignored for policy or rational reasons. Your comment that “I have yet to hear anyone shrug off President Trump’s being found “liable” for sexual abuse because it was a civil court finding” is laughable because that happens all the time with his supporters and certainly FOX News, Newsnation and other right wing organizations. If you think otherwise, you have not been reading any news. Trump’s court cases have been ignored by his supporters and acolytes, including the attorney general.
Regarding ICE masking that makes them all look like terrorists or bank robbers, I would suggest that it undermines the people’s faith in policing. The purpose is to scare not only illegal immigrants but also the rest of us, i.e,. to cow regular Americans. It will also likely backfire. See the comments by a retired FBI agent at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/25/immigration-officers-wearing-masks.
I always like a bottom-line-up-front, but I do expect something more than “oh, yeah, you’re a Trumper” as the rest of the argument.
I am defending ICE, because I used to work with them, and I know much of what is being said about them is nonsense. I encouraged people to oppose Trump’s immigration policies if they so choose, even up to nonviolent resistance, and I even said I can find complaint with some of the measures. But that makes me somehow “subtextually” a Trumper?
You find the Trump family’s enrichment a bigger issue. OK, I encourage you to start a blog and write about it. I’ll promise to respond. What possible link is there between your enrichment argument and this blog topic? Why bring it up?
Your argument about Biden’s deportations being at the border is weak, given Obama’s interior removals dwarfed anything Biden or Trump did. Did you even look at the data? And Biden did all kinds of things to reduce the sight of people clambering across the border. He created an orderly app. He flew people at night to cities across the country. He greatly increased Temporary Protected Status. These measures were all legal, and did nothing about the waves of immigrants entering the country but make them “technically” legal. The proof here is Trump has been able to unilaterally rescind all of it.
Without doing a search, can you name a specific instance when Fox News denied Trump’s finding of liability? They do generally ignore it, but I have yet to hear anyone say, “well, it’s only a civil finding” which is EXACTLY what many pro-immigration types are saying about their cases. And I think I can authoritatively say I watch more Fox News than you.
The fact that our civil immigration laws have long been ignored is an important one. I have said it many times, that when the law is long ignored, re-establishing the rule of law will be ugly and painful. That is what we are experiencing. And when I look into the cases cited in the legacy media (like the Kim case I linked), I always find a different story: a drug bust, a stolen identity, a sham marriage, a visa overstay, a job on a tourist visa, a link to a terrorist organization. The media either ignores or downplays the facts, but the government has every right to act in these cases.
You find and agree with characterizations about ICE (the FBI guy about “wearing masks”), and you divine their purpose (scaring). I can’t account for your feelings. I cited the laws, and the history books. If there was an outrage font, most of your response would have been composed in it. Here’s a simple challenge: take any of the major points I made about the law, the numbers, or the processes involved and show me where I was wrong.
1. You may gave worked with ICE a decade ago. I think the organization and its leadership has changed a great deal in that period. There were also more limitations on the actions of ICE (even if legal) by previous administrations. Under new legislation, ICE and the Border patrol will have a bigger budget than for al state and local law enforcement combined. What does that make America look like?
2. ICE has been sued for racial profiling. There are now injunctions against ICE for doing this, but the Trump administration is suing back in federal court and certainly thinks that racial profiling (arresting dark skinned people, people speaking foreign languages, etc.) is just fine. This is like the stop and frisk issues that police departments used and which were found ot be destructive of any faith n the police and counterproductive. As ICE does this, more and more American citizens will be caught in their dragnet. I am old and white, so I am likely OK, but others?
3. Fox News does not “generally” ignore Trump’s court cases, they totally ignore it and anything else that might sully Trump.
4. If you do not think that using masked agents and the military to patrol otherwise peaceful cities to catch peaceful illegal immigrants is not intimidation , that is your view but not that of a lot of Americans. (See, for example, a libertarian think tank on this: https://www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-order).
5. My point is that what may be legal (sort of, maybe bot on its application) is not necessarily sensible or just.
6. We clearly disagree. Just be thankful that when you travel to the States, you do not look like or sound like the Mexicans who surround you in your new home.
1) There were different limitations on ICE under different administrations, but none of the current policies violate the law. Other administrations (blue & red) simply avoided enforcing it.
2) As you well know, anybody can use anybody for anything. We’ll see how the case goes. But if ICE can produce a single administrative warrant, and point to a single sighting at the Home Depot in question, the plaintiffs will lose the suit. Stand by!
3) Are you still generalizing about Fox News? How much do you watch it? And if you’re relying on clips which show up on late night TV, just stop.
4) I did not say it is not intimidating. I object to any allegation it is (1) Gestapo, (2) illegal, or (3) intended solely/primarily to intimidate. Much of the Trump admin’s immigration policies are intended in general to induce illegal immigrants to self-deport. That is the cheapest, safest, and most direct solution.
5) Here we can agree. For example, it’s perfectly legal for DHS to make fun of the sadness in the illegal immigrants community, but immoral as hell as well.
6) One thing I have learned as an expat: the identification of “other” is not a unique American identifier. As I stroll through crowds of people with darker skin, my head clearly above the entire crowd, those around me are making a slew of judgments. “He’s got money so he can pay a higher price,” “He probably doesn’t speak Spanish, so we can make jokes and he won’t know,” “He’s coming from El Norte, so pull him over for a little bite (mordita)” “He must be arrogant, he’s a gringo.” If you think Gringos don’t get special treatment by police, border officials, etc, you are wildly naive.
Regarding Fox News, I rely on journalists and others who watch it and actually quantify how it handles stories differently than other tv or cable news outlets do. I watch little tv news but see bits and pieces of the right and left during the day in newspapers, news sites, substacks, twitter, and bluesky on the internet.
On your first point, that is exactly what I was saying. Previous administrations had perhaps law on their side but chose not to turn major cities upside down to enforce major actions against illegal immigrants by ICE agents dressed as SWAT team members ready for war invading Home Depots; arresting criminals and deporting them is a different issue. BTW, this is what even local district attorneys often do, i.e., decide to use their resources to focus on certain kinds of crime vice others. Other administrations did not want to expend energy and political capital to arrest individuals who had had no criminal records (aside from being illegal), had been in the US for decades, developed roots, married, and had American children or American spouses. Occasionally they did so, but generally avoided mass arrests. And since these immigrants were not legal, they could not collect social security but paid taxes. What is happening now is is a choice by the Trump administration to show who was in charge and in my view, maybe not yours, instill fear. And, I have yet to find a truly valid number on those who have self-deported (itself not a new phenomenon); CBP in April said that 5,000 people have used its app to self deport, but that is a tiny figure. My guess is that those who have deeper roots in the US will not do so.
On your second point, ICE has so far lost due in federal court due to its alleged racial profiling. I do not understand your point on why a single sighting or a warrant for a single individual at a Home Depot makes that mass roundup not racial profiling.
As to Fox News, relying on other journalists/commentators/etc is weak form, for obvious reasons. I record ABC, NBC, and Bret Baier on Fox and can watch all three in about 30 minutes, skipping commercials and fluff. I invite you to try it, just to test your previous sources. I don’t watch the opinion shows on Fox, but lumping them in with the news division is a mistake, unless you include “The View” as ABC.
We agree other administration used a version of prosecutorial discretion, and that led us to the disaster at the border under Biden. How is that a positive policy argument? And it confirms what I argued: the current, stricter enforcement is still well within the law (and keeps winning preliminary court challenges). Please don’t make the Social Security argument, as it is factually incorrect. Yes, illegal immigrants do pay into SS and can’t get money back out (legally). Do you know how E-verify (and SS) works? They have to put in a valid SS number; you can’t just put in 111-11-1111! SO the illegals use valid SS numbers of real people (often legal immigrants with the same or similar names)! Guess what that is? Identity theft. Do a cursory search and you can find many stories of people’s lives upended because their SS numbers were compromised by illegal immigrants!
On the specific ACLU case about ICE racial profiling in California, the plaintiffs “won” a TRO which is unsurprising: racial profiling is against the law, and it doesn’t take a Harvard law degree for a judge to issue a TRO against it. Part of the 9th Circuit upheld the TRO on appeal: again, unsurprising, given it’s a TRO and the 9th’s well-established record. I bet even SCOTUS will uphold the TRO. But when it comes to actual trial? This goes to my point. If during discovery, the ACLU finds ICE communications that say, “hey, drive by Home Depots and arrest brown people” they will win. If ICE produces a warrant that says “Roberto X is a known illegal immigrant, and sources say he hangs out on the Home Depot at 231 Smith Street. Arrest him,” ICE will win. I’m betting the latter is more likely than the former. The ACLU has to prove racial profiling, and can’t use disparate effect (“most of the people they arrested were brown.”) to do so.
Those without legal status can get an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). According to the Social Security Administration:
An ITIN is issued by the IRS for federal tax purposes only.
An ITIN doesn’t:
–Qualify you for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit
–Provide or change immigration status
–Authorize you to work legally in the U.S.
–Serve as identification outside the federal tax system
My understanding is that is one workaround. Is it perfect? No. That there is identity theft I am sure. And the stats on this are all over the place, at least according to my cursory search. However, most identity theft is the result of hacking and people trying to steal from Social Security, not pay into it.
I still do not understand your last point. If ICE has a warrant for Roberto X, does that mean they can grab up all brown people or Spanish speaking people in the area before learning their status? In many instances, according to news reports, they had no warrants. Like Captain Renault in Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects?” Here it means people who look different from from an ICE ideal, I guess, which sound like racial profiling.
I’m not sure what you think ITINs are working around. They’re for ensuring people who can’t get SSNs can still register and pay federal income taxes. The fact some illegals pay into SS but can’t get benefits is an odd pro-illegal immigration argument. Anyway, ITINs do not work with eVerify: you must enter an SSN. That is why there is large scale identity fraud in that area. The size of other types of identity fraud is irrelevant. Why would we in any way permit or excuse any case of illegal immigrants’ identity fraud of a US citizen?
In my example, the warrant for Roberto X would be an administrative one, produced by ICE (it’s all they need, and they don’t need to show it to anyone before they return before the judge). When ICE is out administering such warrants, they are allowed to inquire about other people in the vicinity of the target. When ICE asks, if people take off running, it is suspicious behavior which can lead to detainment. The color of the individuals in the parking lot is a variable they don’t need to take account. If someone in the parking lot says, f’ off, here’s my green card, there is nothing ICE can do but run it. It’s actually a little trickier for US citizens, because we (still) have no authoritative citizenship document. If they interfere, of course, they too will be detained. but they can’t be deported.
I explained in this very post why ICE doesn’t need a judicial warrant, nor do they have to produce or show one to anyone.
In determining where to conduct immigration sweeps, they can use tips about gathering places. Nearly every major news story in the past six months has identified the link between Home Depots and illegal immigrants looking for work, so they can of course act on that “news.” So they have probable cause to go there and ask questions. In your closing sentence, the words “sound like” are doing a lot of heavy lifting. If the ACLU can produce something about targeting brown-skinned people, ICE will be in serious trouble. If not, ICE will show all the things I mention here. And the detentions, regardless of race, will be deemed legal by the courts.
If you’re truly still having a problem with this, consider this analogy: A witness sees a case of vandalism and reports it to the police seconds later. The witness identifies the vandal as a six-foot tall white man. Police set up an immediate, three block zone and question every white man they see. Profiling, or probable cause?
Thanks for a well written piece. The border and interior removal chart was interesting and especially revealing.