What was the job of the Gestapo supposed to be, if not what it actually did?
Exactly. Being the Gestapo is the whole point. Same goes for the American Gestapo, aka ICE.
To answer the OP question, I think we should first ensure that we all agree that crime is crime. People with work visas are authorized to work. People who do not have them are not authorized to work. Intentionally hiring people who are not authorized to work is a crime.
That’s the legal position of the US government, per several decades of back-and-forth between the Democrats and Republicans, meeting together at some middle point. Whether that’s correct and should go more one way or more one way is irrelevant. It’s the current state of the law.
Likewise, it’s legal for a person to come to the country and seek asylum. They’re not criminal when they do so. That said, under asylum policy, you are not authorized to work.
Being unauthorized to work isn’t quite the same thing as criminally working. It’s a crime to employ someone who is unauthorized. Working without authorization means that you can be deported, but it’s not a crime in-and-of-itself.
Cracking down on crime is reasonable. The Executive’s job description is to execute the laws and some group should exist to do so.
Under Trump, ICE is working to find people who are working without authorization and deporting them. That’s a method that does align with ICE’s mandate but relatively high-expense, low-effectiveness method of reducing the number of people who are working without authorization. Largely, it follows traditional liberal ideology of using government jobs as a way to (depending on how you view it) support people who aren’t competent to get non-government work or to use government budgets to buy political support. It creates headlines that mobilize political dollars and energize the base. But, in terms of ending unauthorized work it’s like using tweezers to dig a tunnel through a mountain.
Methods that are liable to work better are things like fining employers for hiring unauthorized workers and reducing work visa quotas from countries with higher rates of visa overstays. The former could fall under the mandate of ICE but I think they’ve generally been organized as a workforce of grunt labor, not as detectives and prosecutors. Some other organization might have better skills to truly drive down unauthorized work on the day that there’s a real political will to do so.
Fines and criminal charges against employers illegally employing undocumented workers is exactly the sort of thing that the Obama administration focused on in its crackdown on illegal immigration. And you’re right, it was highly effective and cost-effective.
No, it’s working to attack brown people, assault them, terrorize them, and deport them. Including citizens.
Which of course is its job; ethnic cleansing and persecution. It has nothing to do with immigration or jobs, just skin color.
I did say:
support people who aren’t competent to get non-government work or to use government budgets to buy political support. It creates headlines that mobilize political dollars and energize the base.
The primary motivation appears to be FDR style leaf raking. Give people work to do, then mobilize them when you want to do something big and nasty.
New biography presents FDR as one of America’s greatest political scoundrels.
No, the primary motivation is for Trump to build up a personal army of Brownshirts he can use to persecute people he doesn’t like. Especially everyone who isn’t white. It’s standard fascism.
That’s what I said.
I’ll take a stab at answering the zombie OP. Anytime I think of ICE, the problem is not the why, it’s the how.
ICE’s job is two different things/two departments: (1) to enforce immigration laws (civil infractions) - the dept of ICE we know and hate; and (2) enforce most criminal laws (crimes) - not what we think ICE does and you probably never knew this department existed.
We’ll focus on (1) - enforcing Immigration laws. There is really two broad types: overstaying your visa = civil infraction, not a crime. The penalty is deportation. The other is illegally crossing the border = a real crime. Subject to jail, etc (and also deportation since you are in the country w/o a visa).
Overstaying your Visa
This “ICE” (more technically known as "enforcement and removal operations = ERO) can arrest someone who has overstayed their visa. You’re not being arrested for committing a crime. Just means you should not be in the US, and since you haven’t already left yourself, you will be detained so ICE can deport you.
Illegally Crossing the Border
That act is a crime anyone in the world can commit, even me. If you are not a US citizen/proper status when you do it, two things are true: You committed a crime of crossing the border, and coincidentally, assuming you did the version of the crime of crossing from outside the US to inside the US, you are now also present inside the US without permission (an admin violation subject to deportation - see above).
Deportation
ICE (the ERO ice), can refer potential crimes to the DOJ for prosecution. They can’t investigate crimes, they can’t even arrest you for a crime. It’s only: apprehend, detain, remove. It’s an administrative arrest (just apprehending you for a civil infraction so we can deport you back), the warrant is not a real warrant, it’s an administrative warrant (it’s not approved by an Art III Judge). Again, all that is happening is someone failed to leave on their own, so this ICE is just making you go back now. Nothing criminal, not the subject not the enforcer, is happening.
The other ICE
The other component of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, they are real agents who enforce real crimes. Similar to the FBI. It doesn’t have anything to do with someone’s immigration status, but kind of circles around it because the crimes are drug trafficking (which usually involves a border) or human trafficking (which usually involves a border), etc.
So which masked guy is it: an admin officer or an actual criminal special agent?
Beats me. Both have the “ICE” logo, both armed, both have a badge, etc. They look the same.
There are some tells: they have to identify which if you ask, or their badge will distinguish; or the type of warrant (signed by a fed Judge or no?); do they talk about immigration status stuff or crime stuff.
So anyways, if we’re talking about the ero ICE, it’s not really about why they are enforcing administrative immigration laws, it’s how they do that. It would be like if my house was out of code and the building inspectors showed up in masks and raided my house and pointed guns at everyone and tear gassed my neighbors. That’s pure gestapo shit full-stop. It doesn’t match the minor admin violation I committed. The how is the problem.
Late: While not a part of ICE, US Customs and Border Protection are playing a big role in this whole “ICE” fiasco. For example, they played a big role in the helicopter raid of the apartment building in Chicago. They are wild and have zero experience with administrative violations - be like having prison guards enforce it - they are used to rough tactics.
I saw another minor nuance re: employers.
It’s not a crime to knowingly hire someone who should not allowed inside the US. That’s just a civil admin violation. Think building code infraction. You pay a fine and stop employing them.
It can become a crime, though. It becomes no longer an admin violation but an actual crime if there is a pattern of the employer knowingly hiring people over and over again. This is now criminal behavior that we want to punish.
Sure; it depends on their skin color. White guys can hire all the brown people they like, then have ICE haul them off before payday to save money. But if they are brown then they are guilty of not being white and will be punished accordingly.
Because, again, ICE isn’t about crime, immigration or employment. It’s about racist thuggery, attacking other people Trump doesn’t like, and nothing else. They’re American Brownshirts.
As @CoolHandCox pointed out, there is a bit of nuance as to what “crime” or administrative infraction has occurred and to what extent it justifies sending Federal officers wearing balaclavas and body armor in tactical armored MRAP trucks to battering-ram doors at 3am.
In contrast to the conservative ideology of demonizing anyone and anything different from their narrow view of “normal” as an existential threat?
[quote=“Sage_Rat, post:42, topic:825949, full:true”]
It creates headlines that mobilize political dollars and energize the base. But, in terms of ending unauthorized work it’s like using tweezers to dig a tunnel through a mountain.
Methods that are liable to work better are things like fining employers for hiring unauthorized workers and reducing work visa quotas from countries with higher rates of visa overstays. The former could fall under the mandate of ICE but I think they’ve generally been organized as a workforce of grunt labor, not as detectives and prosecutors. Some other organization might have better skills to truly drive down unauthorized work on the day that there’s a real political will to do so.[/quote]
It would also seem to have the added benefit of working as a deterrent by sending a strong message. If you come to the USA illegally you will have jack-booted thugs in balaclavas kick down your door and if anyone gets in the way, they might get shot in the face.
I will ask you the same question I ask conservatives I spend time with who seem very passionate about immigration: What “problem” are you trying to actually solve?
I would just say it would (or should) be the person’s threat level that drives the response - not the charge. If they are known to be violent, then you’ll need a bigger response (even for an infraction). If they are not violent, you won’t need that. If the only info you have is the infraction (which is inherently nonviolent), or crime (which is usually of the nonviolent variety), then by definition they are nonviolent unless you have more info.
It is well-documented that a “Swat” style response can trigger the actual violence it is trying to prevent when done against nonviolent people. Which is likely the point, since it can justify even more violent force and the (manufactured) cycle escalates.
I’ve actually had the thought that since CE stands for Customs Enforcement, I’d love to put all these yahoos to work inspecting cargo for human trafficking and invasive species. They won’t be smart about it, but the sheer volume would be a help, right…?
And for smuggling, be it illegal knock offs, stolen goods, undocumented dual-use technology, weapons, such as guns, explosives, or terrorist nukes bound for NYC.
That I could get behind!
They can still even wear their masks, those little proud boys!
I always wonder the same thing.
Personally, I’m opposed to the idea that we have a large number of people who are unauthorized to work. It makes no sense for asylum seekers that they’re blocked from being able to support themselves; it opens up workers to exploitation, due the fear of being deported; and it creates a strange loophole around the whole immigration process for no reason.
I’m also concerned that Mexico has stayed a relatively poor, mismanaged country despite the amount of cross-migration and money flow. In general, I fear that the strong connection has served less as a cross-collaboration and more as a brain drain, robbing Mexico of the hard-working, industrious people during their youth. Whereas, say, if you look at people who come from India they largely return to their home country and start up a school to teach more people how to do tech and upgrade their own country. In terms of Mexico, the relationship that we have only appears to be a positive on one side, and potentially harmful on the other.
But, that’s all mediated by the understanding that the ability to access a fairly large, relatively cheap body of people past the native born population helps to boost America’s competitiveness on the global stage. Likewise, our current agricultural process relies on shipping in people from Latin America (largely Mexican) to harvest and that, minus that, we’d all starve.
It’s a large complicated situation that merits a reasoned and metered response.
But if we run all of the above (plus two extra) through Democratic and Republican political theory:
- People are working without authorization. - Law & Order violation so Republicans would want to end.
- People can be exploited. - Democratic, bleeding heart outlook so they would want to end.
- Legal loophole. - Law & Order violation, Republican want to end.
- Long term risk of destabilizing the country on our Southern border. Long-term focused, Conservative want to end.
- Makes America more competitive. Pro-business, Republican wants to continue.
- Food security necessity. Realpolitik, everyone wants to continue.
- They compete with Americans for jobs. Blue-collar worker-protectionism, Democratic wants to end.
- They’re making more tan babies than we’re making white babies. Traditionally Democratic South, now MAGA, wants it to end.
In general, we have 3 reasons to reduce illegal immigration/unauthorized work that are Republican/Conservative and 2 that are Democratic. But we have two Republican/Realpolitik reasons to continue.
Overall, it’s not clear that a Republican nor a Conservative should really be all that hardcore on ending it. It should be a long-term slow goal but not an emergency operation.
Personally, I just see people backing what their TV is telling them to believe without thinking about it. Political theory has very little to do with modern politics. If one side says X then the other side has to say anti-X.
I feel like it’s also worth pointing out that, regardless of how one might feel about immigration, if the First Amendment to the Constitution says that people are allowed to complain and protest against the government then that’s absolutely a good and protected activity.
The only person that doesn’t approve of that isn’t anti-immigration, they’re anti-American.
So while we might be, nominally, discussing immigration we shouldn’t let that distract away from the other and possibly more relevant part of the equation.