ICE, ICE Baby

Article 045.

Don't mistake this as a tribute to Vanilla Ice's 1990 hit single. This is far off from a catchy tune and Rob Van Winkle’s fancy outfits. I'm not referring to the cubes you have in the freezer or the bergs in North Pole either. I'm referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department (more popularly know as ICE) that's been the coldest and most cringe-y three-letter word you've been hearing as of late.

As soon as Donald Trump was sworn into office this 2025, he kept his promise to stop the Southern border invasion and empowered law enforcement to sweep the nation of criminal illegal immigrants. Federal officers marched into sanctuary cities and nabbed hundreds of criminal aliens on Trump's first day in the office creating quite a stir and putting the nation on its toes.

I read a Vox article online written by Christian Paz earlier this month and it really resonated with me. Below is an excerpt from what he has written about this conflicting ideology of anti-immigrant immigrants--

What makes this era of immigration politics perhaps a bit more complicated on top of those existing economic reasons is the added concerns over fairness and orderliness that many nonwhite Americans, and even immigrants from previous generations feel.

US Rep. Juan Vargas, a progressive Democrat who represents San Diego and the part of California that borders Mexico, told me that there’s a sense among some of his constituents that recent immigrants, both legal and not, are cutting the line. This feeling about newcomers not paying their dues is, again, a longstanding sentiment among immigrant groups across American history, but it appears updated for the post-pandemic era. While older immigrants feel they have worked hard and waited their turn, they feel newer ones have taken advantage of the asylum system, or gone through less of a struggle than they have.

Vargas told me about a conversation he had with a constituent in his district who told him she disagrees with his stance on immigration policy, even though she once “came across illegally too” and lived in the US for 15 years without documentation.

“I started talking to her, and she said, ‘You know, these new immigrants, they get everything. They get here and they get everything. We didn’t get anything, and so I think they should all be deported,’” Vargas said. “I said, ‘Oh, so, because you were given a chance, you don’t think other people should get that same chance?’ She goes, ‘Well, it’s different.’ … Really, in what way? How is it different? … And she didn’t have a very good answer.”

This aggressive stance by Trump regarding immigration and deportation has caused a great divide but not between Republicans and Democrats but within the leftists themselves. It made it truly hard to go against his policies. There are those in the Senate and House willing to back Trump up on certain tough-on-immigration measures and there are some progressives who are committed to resisting his every move on immigration. In mid January, the House and Senate voted to pass the Laken Riley Act-- which requires federal authorities to detain migrants accused of crimes like theft, assault to an officer, inflicting injury or killing someone among other things. It was named after a Georgia nursing student who was killed last year by a Venezuelan man who had entered the United States illegally and was allowed to stay and pursue his immigration case. If you haven't heard of Laken's story, here's a Wiki link [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laken_Riley] you can use as an easy read and after doing so, how do you not pull for stricter immigration policies?

This is not to downplay the social aspect of it all. There are compelling arguments and stories that touches the humanity of this war against immigration such as fracturing families and communities by getting children separated from their parents. Understanding the plight that these individuals have to go to physically just cross the border is also cruel in nature. Asylum seekers who've endured too much suffering on their Native Lands are getting pushed to greener and safer pastures. Those who are undocumented but are not a menace to society, and they are the majority, are now living in fear and uncertainty. Even legal immigrants can be impacted by this immigration push and to a certain extent may end up as deportation casualties. Inevitably race also comes into play. Hard not to. Would a Hispanic, Chinese or Arab be more likely to be flagged as an illegal as supposed to a White or Black man? How do you draw the line from stereotyping? Or perhaps you don't and trust in ICE's intel and in certain uninformed situations have them make a "very well calculated" guess?? Needless to say, the anxiety and stress level is at an all time high and this battle at the border is just beginning. With Trump in the oval office in the next 4 years, things can get really hectic.

There was also this controversial response from ICE Director Tom Homan, who had some harsh words for Pope Francis regarding the latter's strong criticism of Trump's mass deportation initiative. The Pope stated on his open letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops that "those who entered the United States illegally should not be treated as criminals and that the overall plan could not be supported as it violates human dignity." To which the border czar responded, "I've got harsh words for the pope: I say this as a lifelong Catholic. He ought to focus on his work and leave enforcement to us. He's got a wall around the Vatican, does he not?" And it wasn't just Homan. The Pope also rejected Vice President JD Vance's use of Catholic theology to justify the immigration crackdown. Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, told the media the the push was "a very Christian concept-- You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world." Vance also took to social media arguing that a person's noble duties to their own children eclipses that off those, "to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away. Just google ordo amoris", he tweeted, which refers to a medieval Catholic concept on the "order of love" or "order of charity" to God, ourselves and our neighbors. The Pope contradicted this interpretation of Vance stating that, "Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups," he wrote. "The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the 'Good Samaritan,' that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception." I was raised Catholic and have a solemn relationship with God. But I'm torn here. I just want to take the politics out of religion or religion out of politics, whichever is fitting. I clearly fathom both sides but even my corpulent mind seems piffling to plant my foot across either line.

Regardless of your liberal or conservative views, we ALL do not want further crime happening at all, period (okay, maybe minimize). But since that is unrealistically naive to say, best scenario is we don't want that happening in American soil. Nowhere nearby our areas especially not in our presence. Which leads us to the most debated and controversial topic between the two factions-- is "illegal" immigration truly illegal or not? If I play the dumb guy, which maybe is 90% accurate, at least on this argument, I would say it is illegal. Otherwise, what would sovereignty actually mean? Should we just, like what this world has been clamoring for-- be one nation? Forget calling each country a "country". Just consolidate territories and call all of it what we already call Earth. We can go wherever we want, whenever we want. No territorial governance. Borders no more and policies are universal. It might solve racism for all we know. Either that or it sparks the beginning of this planet's downfall. I could just imagine the chaos, the discord, the anarchy. It is truly hard to draw the line between the "legality" of this issue. Plus the irony of Americans on either side of this rope doesn't help. On one corner you have the socialist fighting for the immigrants right to entry yet refusing to house any of them. And then on the other, the patriot who vehemently opposes illegal entry yet refuses to work the low-waged jobs. Which one is legitimately virtuous? 

But here truly lies the problem with immigration and you can definitely agree with me on this or not. It is all or nothing. We either follow the law or we don't. There cannot be "in-betweens". We either send back all of them or none of them. I know, it sounds like a tall order trying to deport all illegal aliens, probably impractical and impossible, especially in one term. I'm certain Trump also knows that it would be crazy to do an all-inclusive send off. Whether Americans admit it or not, the United States' workforce would come to a screeching halt if say we get rid of all illegal aliens tomorrow. Americans already got spoiled to a certain degree where blue-collar work isn't appealing anymore. Minimum wage is not as enticing. This country has evolved and even if there are Americans who would still accept the hands-on labor work that illegal immigrants purportedly took away, I don't think there would be enough of us for this economy to keep going. And if there's one thing that Corporate America would never allow to falter, it's the economy. So yes, "illegal" immigration is here to stay. Right now ICE is eyeing allegedly just illegal criminal immigrants. And if they happen to bump into an undocumented individual with "no criminal record", then them too gets dragged along. The argument being that crossing the border illegally is a crime, hence, no such thing as an innocent illegal immigrant. I guess you can say there is a priority list where ICE targets illegal aliens convicted with murder, rape, robbery or assault charges first and then those who are guilty of this basic crime of illegal entry.

Here's a solution (just like that right?). What if we absolve these illegal aliens if they manage to stay in the country undetected for 10 years? Maybe even 15? Or 7 if we feeling generous. I mean we can simply apply (tweak it a bit) the concept of squatting-- that if an individual has adverse possession of land, and through tenure, that they may claim ownership of said land. I say it is a great reconciliation. Let those who cross the border take their chances and allow them the opportunity to contribute to American society. Hey if they somehow find a way to circumvent entry into America, they move on to Squid Game Round 2. And if they also surpass the required term, however long that is, then they are provided means to citizenship. No hard feelings. You outsmarted the system, you deserve to stay. Obviously, cracking down on illegal immigrants would be more stringent and undoubtedly intense. Homeland Security will be round the clock and busier than fireworks on 4th of July. But all of this of course is barring any crimes committed. They have to be clean. Otherwise they are automatically out of the game and banned for life from any traveling privileges or re-entry to the US. Fair deal? I know you're smirking right now but this could be the best solution out there, just saying. You heard it here first by the way, in case this actually comes into fruition. You never know.

Alright I'll stop. Collaborate? Probably not. Listen? If you have something meaningful to say. So let me hear it...

 

Cold as I.C.E