The Grand Illusion
Why do so many Republicans oppose requirements for ICE agents:
To wear body cameras?
To wear name badges?
To obtain a judicial warrant before forcing their way into homes, churches, and other private spaces?
To be prohibited from wearing masks?
To be held to the standards and accountability of other law enforcement agencies for use of force, especially lethal force?
Right now, ICE often operates more like Hitler’s brownshirts than like a legitimate law enforcement body, and yet Republicans oppose any reforms to ICE operating procedures, despite the killings of protesters and the blatant lying about those events.
Could it be that immigration reform is secondary to establishing the practice of punishing citizens for speaking out against heavy-handed government.
ICE isn’t the only area where the current administration is violating the Constitution and established law.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundational, congressionally enacted legal system (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) regulating the U.S. armed forces, and one of its provisions is that military personnel must not obey unlawful orders. A specific example of an unlawful order is one that suppresses lawful protest against suppression of First Amendment speech. Yet both President Trump and his Secretary of Defense/War have attempted to suppress the free speech of members of Congress, merely for pointing out this provision of the UCMJ. That’s certainly against the Constitution.
In addition, Trump has used the Department of Justice to attack political enemies, attempting to file lawsuits where even grand juries refuse to bring indictments. Federal attorneys (from both political parties) have literally resigned by the score in protest of such tactics, and at least one federal district attorney’s office had no attorney able or qualified to carry out such an indictment.
Trump has also flagrantly ignored the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution that bars officials from accepting foreign gifts or profits, although he’s paid lip service to it by funneling such gifts to façade foundations and family members (which at least one other President has done, not that such makes it legal, but never on the scale Trump has done).
So… why do a majority of Republican members of the House and Senate put up with such patent illegalities?
Is it because they believe that if the President (but only a Republican President) declares that something is legal, then it must be? Or are they simply afraid that their own President will attack them? Either way, what does all this say about the Republicans? (Not that the Democrats are exactly paragons of virtue).
LEM, it is simply unbridled tribalism – now devoid of empathy and shame.
As you said…
“In addition, Trump has used the Department of Justice to attack political enemies…” I will add that ICE is being used in the exact same way, to attack Trump / Republican enemies.
How to stop this? Well, as I’ve suggested multiple times on this site, there has to be some sort of balance in all things and this goes to politics and the checks and balances there in. There has to be the implicit threat that these powerful tools can and will be turned back against those people and parties that use them illicitly or immorally.
It is apparent that even overwhelming public opinion doesn’t often change policy (see for example some common sense gun law restrictions), so somehow the country’s governance needs to become a reflection of public opinion within the confines of the constitution, rule of law, scientific principles, and acceptable competency to enjoy the privilege of leadership. And those guideposts must be true for all.
“Could it be that immigration reform is secondary to establishing the practice of punishing citizens for speaking out against heavy-handed government.”
Ding-ding-ding
Plus what KTL said.
I’m pretty sure the Republican plan is never to allow any election that curtails their ability to do what they want. I mean, honestly, if the current maladministration is setting precedents, what’s to stop a future Democratic president from snatching the likes of Noem or Bondi off the street and whisking them to a foreign prison?
More egregiously, the Presidictator has stripped foes of the Secret Service protection they should have. Does he want the same to be done to him? Leaving him vulnerable to getting Maduro’d by the likes of Iran?
They’re going to find an excuse for martial law, or something similar. They only want to dish out the brownshirt stuff, never be subjected to it.
Body cameras make sense, and the use of them HAS been expanded. With rare exception (something necessarily covert), they could sensibly be universal..
Given the level of doxxing and threats to ICE agents and their families (the latter being particularly abhorrent regardless of ideological excuse; even the older traditional Mafia often hesitated to threaten families), wearing name tags and not wearing masks does NOT make sense. Presumably they do carry some ID which can be presented on demand to those who are not too actively hostile to do so. Enabling ICE agents or other law enforcement to be threatened is either seeking provocative confrontation, or seeking to shut them down, for which there is ZERO legitimate justification. If you want nearly unlimited immigration (a disastrous notion), change the law; otherwise enforce it vigorously.
Between border enforcement and internal enforcement sufficient to get millions to self-deport, the supposedly unstoppable illegal migration has been largely stopped, even slightly reversed. At least in those places where it was a problem (not limited to border states either; Home Depots at least as far from the southern border as Maryland had a lot of job seekers outside that were probably not citizens), getting control of migration and some degree of focus on removing the worst first, has surely helped greatly, although it may have limited the availability of cheap farm or hotel or construction labor. (interestingly, the construction of secure federal facilities requires citizens, and that requirement is sometimes a challenge to fulfill; but they probably get paid relatively well given the shortage)
Judicial warrants on ICE agents sounds good. Yet nothing prevented protestors from invading a church (regardless of whether the pastor’s day job involved working for ICE). The protestors should not enjoy ANY advantage due to limitations placed on law enforcement but not on them. So protestors should never set food uninvited on private property.
Legitimate protesting is actual speech (or carrying signs), not anything that might assault, threaten, intimidate, or accost anyone, nor interfere with law enforcement, nor damage property, obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic, litter, loiter, or create a public nuisance. Since many of the protests are highly organized (and sometimes have a degree of foreign funding), if the organizers fail to point out the safe and legal limits of proper protesting, one can suspect that they have no problem with a few (unwilling, mostly) martyrs for their side.
Historically, MINOR civil disobedience (sit-ins, etc) was largely tolerated albeit with some minor consequences. The pressure to tolerate more dangerous or destructive behavior is imprudent, to put it mildly.
And so long as some semblance of due process is observed, every illegal that there is no compelling reason in law to let stay shouid be deported, and any other reaction is emotionalism or destructive politics. The first duty a government has is to its citizens, not to humanitarianism for everyone else. And to make a solid effort that those to be deported are alive at the time of deportation, nothing more.
We DO need immigration; controlled and with identities known, limited in number to what benefits our own citizenry, clean records, needed job skills, English skills, and willingness to assimilate in most public conduct rather than demand that their cultural peculiarities be accommodated. And the immigrants can be all colors and come from most places that aren’t severely culturally problematic. But it’s unrealistic to suppose that everyone everywhere is equal, unless they were adopted by those culturally compatible with us shortly after being born.
I think the far left frequently abuses any claim they might have to equal rights.
R., I think you need more accurate information sources.
RH, Been a long time since you’ve posted. I’ll say this, you saved it up, and have not disappointed. I’ll agree with KevinJ and suggest you check sources on some of your assertions and not stick with the one or two that reinforce your opinion.
For example, LEM suggested a few posts ago that nearly all existing law enforcement officials have done just fine having to show they are actually law enforcement officials (no masks, badges and ID indicated). The exception seems to be the militarized and unaccountable/full uminity bearing federals. So, those snowflakes, fully armed paramilitaries, are scared of the civilian population to the extent that they need special protections? Oh, please! Cry them a river the poor dear darlings.
So I won’t jump into most of this. Others have pointed out you are citing false things and to maybe research more. But..
You said “Judicial warrants on ICE agents sounds good. Yet nothing prevented protestors from invading a church (regardless of whether the pastor’s day job involved working for ICE). The protestors should not enjoy ANY advantage due to limitations placed on law enforcement but not on them.”
So first of all, you’re saying Federal Authorities shouldn’t have accountability and limitations on their power because… Someone breaking the law doesn’t? That’s… a take.
Second of all you try to bunch all protestors together as somehow criminal. Which is factually wrong.
Try again?
Being individually identifiable at a distance goes beyond accountability, and into stupid in an environment where some are going beyond the bounds of legitimate protest, and specifically attempting to track (complete with apps, one of which (ICEblock) was removed from the iPhone App Store, but others remain) ICE vehicles and individual officers.
Don’t tell me that my sources are defective just because outlets like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc don’t report doxxing. They don’t report (or bury) a lot contrary to the Democratic party line.
Again, I welcome body cameras. That’s plenty accountable.
If there’s a finalized deportation order (been a few times that was lacking, so no the good guys aren’t perfect), I don’t care whether the warrant is judicial, administrative, or a note from someone’s mama. Likewise for anyone with a violent criminal record. Let their recidivism take place in some other country.
Illegals need their unquestioned humanity relocated outside our borders, unless the situation is such that the law REQUIRES granting them special consideration. There is IMO no reason that should even be controversial.
Either enforce the law or change it, pursuing the latter by writing Congress, not by attempting to impede ICE.
“Don’t tell me that my sources are defective just because outlets like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc don’t report doxxing.”
I’m telling you your sources aren’t as accurate as they need to be.
Not because of what some other outlet or other is saying. Critical thinking about information sources takes a lot more than that.
So I won’t say “get your news from ____.” Why would you listen to me? I’m just some guy on the internet.
But what I will say is, when your assertions run contrary to what *LEM* says, *that* is when you should reassess. Our host has an amazing background with both breadth and depth of knowledge. He’s proven to think things through (just re-read one of his books). He’s a better guideline to what’s actually going than most.
My assertions are not obligated to align with anyone, even if I often agree with them (and usually fail to mention it when I do).
I might add that our host on occasion criticizes BOTH sides, and his stories can usually be read that way, or without too much stretching in alignment with any position that is more practical than extreme. For artistry or entertainment, IMO that IS practical, because there’s no point alienating half your potential audience. I also recall Tolkien, who was said to greatly dislike allegory (which is a blunt object if applied to readers), although he had no problem with principles being implied in the flow of fiction.
I listen occasionally to the allegedly main-stream media, that is the leftist propaganda channels even though they rapidly spike my blood pressure, and also read widely, although I don’t favor cult supported content (Epoch TImes (Falun Gong), for example despite considerable sympathy for their opposition to the PRC government; or to a lesser extent, the Washington Times (Moonies) although their content seems less influenced by their unfortunate connections)
I also worked for decades in a capacity (a TLA) that made me aware of threats most don’t see. So my attitude against adversaries and terrorists isn’t gentle. Those who enable illegal immigration may imagine themselves humanitarians, but some percentage, even if small, of those they enable ARE violent criminals or terrorists, or at least cost more than they produce. We do not need anyone that arrives in violation of our law; and if we do, then change the law rather than failing to enforce it with full vigor.
“I don’t care whether the warrant is judicial, administrative, or a note from someone’s mama.”
Sounds to me that you don’t care much whether ICE or anyone else in government follows the law. The CONSTITUTIONAL rationale for JUDICIAL warrants is to put a check on the executive branch, and it sounds like you want to do away with that.
Due process matters. That doesn’t invalidate administrative warrants in some situations, including locating and removing illegals for which a final deportation order has already been issued. Apparently there’s some history in both law and rulings behind that, so it is not arbitrary executive action. (also, nearly any executive of either party that doesn’t prefer inaction will look for interpretations that favor their policies, and fight for them in court; that’s not unusual either)
So I’m not at all bothered that in such specific cases, the absolute maximum of process and recourse might be denied.
Dealing with tens of thousands, will there be occasional screwups that seriously inconvenience people who should have been left alone? Yes, but that doesn’t justify inaction or action so hamstrung as to be nearly equivalent to inaction.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/02/04/dhs-sets-record-straight-administrative-warrants-and-american-public-support
thank you for this article, keep up the good work