My Argument for a Well Run I.C.E.

Here is my new slogan: Somewhere between "Woke" and "MAGA" is the real truth ... I would now like to add, "and the solutions."

Every healthy society must hold two ideas together at once: a real concern for people and a real commitment to law. If either one is promoted to point of canceling the other, the whole system eventually turns cruel. By that I mean, either cruel by chaos (where the vulnerable get exploited for political gain) or cruel by indifference (where power gets used without restraint).

President Obama & Tom Homan (Picture chosen to illustrate our current situation is not a new situation.)

That’s why a well-run Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. When enforcement is competent, limited, transparent, and accountable, it protects the public, undercuts criminal networks, and preserves the legitimacy of a legal immigration system.

For frame of reference here is a short history of I.C.E. and what it was meant to do.

I.C.E. was created in the post 9/11 reorganization that formed the Department of Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS as a new executive department. In that reshuffling, I.C.E. emerged as a federal law enforcement agency under DHS, formed by merging functions that had previously existed in the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 

That origin matters, because it helps explain the agency’s scope and the continual debate around it.

From the beginning, immigration enforcement was being handled not only as a labor or social policy question, but also through the lens of security, investigations, and transnational crime. Whether one thinks that’s good or bad, that’s historically what happened.

The point isn’t that every choice has been right or that every agent is has been good. In any organization or collective there will be bad choices and bad people from time to time. That is true in education, social services, religion, charitable organization so certainly, government.

However, if a nation is going to have immigration laws at all, it inevitably needs some arm of government tasked with enforcing them and with dismantling the criminal enterprises that exploit porous enforcement. That is why I believe “well run” matters.

There are two common temptations in our current public discourse: One side treats enforcement itself as immoral (Woke). The other side treats enforcement as proof of protection no matter how it’s carried out (MAGA).

Both are wrong.

A poorly run enforcement system is the worst of all worlds: it is harsh where it shouldn’t be, soft where it can’t be, and chaotic everywhere. It breeds distrust, fuels conspiracies, and hands a megaphone to extremists.

A well-run system does the opposite: it creates predictability, narrows discretion, and makes outcomes more defensible, even when the outcomes are painful. On June 20, 2010, then President Obama wrote:

So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious.  And that remains true today.  And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system. 

To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades.  Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country.  In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.  ... More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants make a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally ... In sum, the system is broken.  And everybody knows it.  Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics. 

President Barak Obama tried to hold together compassion and enforcement. He said a month later, “We can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful." He paired that line with an insistence that enforcement priorities should focus on threats and serious offenders rather than indiscriminate fear.

President George W. Bush, arguing for comprehensive immigration reform, still insisted that border control and enforcement were non-negotiable because sovereignty and law matter. In a 2006 address, he said America must “enforce our immigration laws at the border” while pursuing reforms.

During a Democratic primary debate exchange about whether someone whose “only offense” is being undocumented should be deported, President Joe Biden’s answer was not “never”instead he replied: “if they committed a major crime, they should be deported.” 

You can disagree with how each administration executed policy (and people do). But these quotes reveal something important: mainstream American leadership has repeatedly affirmed that enforcement is a necessary part of any coherent immigration system. And, most Americans agree. As of Monday (1/26/2026) CNN reported that despite the recent issues in Minneapolis 56% of Americans still believe illegal immigration is a problem.

Douglas Murray's, The Strange Death of Europe is a cautionary tale because it’s less about “immigrants as villains” and more about “leaders without nerve.” His argument is this: a society or nation that loses confidence in its own legitimacy will not do three basic things:

1.     Enforce borders consistently

2.     Articulate a moral logic for enforcement

3.     Set clear expectations for assimilation and civic unity.

Murray frames the immigration crisis as a mixture of four things: 1) mass migration, 2) the failure of multiculturalism, 3) the overtaxing of the local and national infrastructures, and 4) the “Western fixation on guilt,” ... while refusing to practice ethical restraint. 

You see: when enforcement becomes poor or politically performative ordinary citizens stop trusting the established institutions. And when that happens, two things occur. Political opponents capitalize and citizens often start to look to movements that have little or no expertise with immigration and who, at times, act very similar to the institutions they repudiate—pragmatically without conscience and ethics. Oh, and conspiracy theories abound exponentially.

A well-run I.C.E. is one way to prevent this. Not because it solves everything, but because it keeps the center from collapsing: it says, “We have laws, they mean something, enforcement must happen, but it must also be bounded.”

So, what does “well run” look like in practice?

Clear priorities. Focus resources on people who are real threats (violent crime, trafficking, smuggling networks, fraud), not political posturing.

Speedy due process. Competent enforcement depends on functioning courts, interpreters, access to counsel, and timely adjudication so that decisions feel lawful, not arbitrary.

Humane custody standards and tight oversight. Detention, when used, should be monitored, limited, and accountable. When oversight is weakened, abuse scandals become inevitable, and enforcement loses legitimacy. 

Coordination that reduces chaos. Federal and local cooperation should be consistent and transparent. Patchwork enforcement (or hidden enforcement) produces fear and rumors, and it causes communities to be less willing to report crime.

Public honesty. Leaders must be able to say, without virtue-signaling: “We will welcome many and we will enforce the law; both will be true.” The alternative is what Murray talks about in his book: silence, guilt, and evasion, followed by wannabe social media heroes and chaos.

In the end, a "well run" I.C.E. is not a substitute for immigration reform. The idea of immigration without enforcement is a fantasy. But, on the other hand, enforcement without integrity is as wrong as no enforcement at all.

If the goal is an immigration that is both humane and sustainable, then we should demand: laws that are clear, processes that are fair, and enforcement that is ethical precisely because it is restrained, accountable, and competently administered.