ICE overkills, trying to run up enforcement numbers
An execution in Biddeford, Maine
Gordon L. Weil
Many years ago, I commuted from Maine to New York City via
Boston airport every week. I could walk
across the terminal, past the gate agent and step onto the plane. There was no security line. I could arrive at the gate just before it
closed.
The world has changed, and that will never happen again.
From trust, we’ve gone to distrust. From safety, we’ve gone to danger. From rare shootings, we’ve gone to firing at
will. From avoiding threats, we’ve gone
to “stand your ground.” Is this
progress? Are we making America great
again?
This week, where we’ve arrived was Biddeford, Maine. ICE sought a person who had entered the
country illegally. They tried to make a
driver stop his car so they could arrest him as that person. He wasn’t that person. He may have panicked. There no evidence he wanted to harm the ICE
agents, though he may have wanted to drive away. The ICE agents killed him.
This was the second fatal shooting this week by ICE agents
of a person who was not a threat. There
have been 11 ICE fatal shootings during President Trump’s second term. They are part of his policy to reduce the
number of potentially illegal immigrants, with 2,000 arrests daily as the target.
He promised to halt the flow of unlawful entrants and has
been generally successful, gaining wide public support. Beyond that, he promised to rid the country of
undocumented residents who are criminals, again receiving broad public
support.
But his ICE has gone after easy targets, productive members
of the community who entered illegally perhaps many years ago. They are neighbors of American citizens who
have no problem with their presence, and he does not have wide public support
for their removal. His poll ratings on
immigration became negative.
The reaction to Trump’s immigration policy shows that, like many
public issues, there is a grey zone. While
ending illegal entry is generally what people want, they do not want wholesale
deportation or an official army of vigilantes.
ICE has become a political football, but it enjoys Trump’s
full backing. It is only restrained when its excesses become liabilities to his
standing. Some Democrats call for its outright
abolition, but that demand has an echo of former President Biden’s excessively
loose immigration policy that added to the scope of the problem.
The U.S. needs to enforce its immigration laws to ensure national
security and the ability to carry out an agreed population policy. If not called ICE, the country needs responsible
policing of its laws.
The question boils down to whether the removal of any
illegal person is worth the death of anybody – that person, ICE agents,
protesters or innocent bystanders. The
answer should be that immigration enforcement is not worth any deaths,
especially because each incident is not the life-or-death last chance the
federal government will have to apprehend a violator.
It is evident that the use of firearms by ICE has become the
first tool that comes to mind and comes to hand. It should be the last. ICE agents should be banned from using their
weapons for enforcement. They should
only be used for self-defense when there is no other alternative. Or disarm ICE agents, requiring them to call for
armed help in limited situations.
In Biddeford, ICE agents had options they ignored. They
include (a) step back, get out of the way, (b) damage the vehicle, not the driver,
(c) let the driver get away at this time or (d) interview neighbors to find out
about the person, making identification more certain and establishing where the
person can be approached peacefully.
None of these options is possible if the object is mostly to
add to the numbers of people removed, no matter what the cost.
Why has the world changed so radically from the time when I
could stroll onto a plane to one where an innocent and friendly woman in
Minneapolis is killed by an ICE agent who refused to step clear of her slow-moving
car?
One cause is terrorism.
It’s a world-wide challenge.
Still, authorities seem to have ended ordinary crime by labelling every
violent act as terrorism. That allows
for a violent response, often providing prompt justice at the end of a gun
barrel.
Another is guns themselves.
The Second Amendment authorizes broad gun rights, but the Supreme Court
initially allowed some limits. Gun advocates
see an absolute right, and the Court has been inching in their direction. Increasing availability and access have been
the path to the acceptance of greater use.
Perhaps most important is Trump and his partisans turning
political opponents into the embodiment of evil. That has led to the death of innocents and
the growing threats to elected officials and judges. Clearly, this is overkill.
