The 1989-established TV series ‘Cops’ surprisingly turned into an unforeseen advantage for America’s law enforcement, portraying them as heroes combating disarray. However, the reality of law enforcement, specifically related to immigration under former President Donald Trump’s administration, deviates drastically from this glamorized image. Instead of dealing with conspicuously unruly individuals, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, often hidden behind masks or neck gaiters, corral individuals engaged in mundane everyday activities. The lack of criminal context around these arrests has irrevocably tainted immigration enforcement’s reputation.
Given the frequent emotional tumult and the argument that immigration violations do not represent a ‘real crime’ to some, public support for heavy-handed immigration enforcement tends to wane. This was evident during Trump’s tenure and seems to accelerate currently. The approval ratings for immigration policies upon Trump’s inauguration in January were strong, though they have dropped significantly over time.
The observation of a president’s performance on immigration is multifaceted, divided into border control and the treatment of immigrants in the U.S. On the one hand, Trump’s tough stance on border crossings significantly reduced the numbers from Mexico, garnering him sustained approval. Nevertheless, the public has shown a distinct lack of support for aggressive ICE raids within local U.S. communities, targeting non-criminal immigrants.
After regaining regulatory control, the Trump administration adopted unorthodox strategies, like airlifting migrants to Guantánamo Bay and relegating others to an inhumane mega-prison in El Salvador. These actions, combined with rumors circling ICE street operations, kept immigrant communities across the nation in a state of constant worry.
The administration sought to maintain an advantageous position by emphasizing the criminal nature of the arrested immigrants, despite often lacking evidentiary support. The mistaken assumption, promulgated by proponents of amnesty and seemingly latched onto by the media, that once someone gains any footing here, they should have unfettered rights, was challenged.
In the wake of these aggressive immigration policies, there was a significant shift in American attitudes towards immigration, with a peak of 55% of the citizens desiring a decrease in immigration, a record high since 2001. This shift was predominantly reflected among Republicans, though Democrats and independents exhibited similar attitudes.
Rather than resorting to draconian tactics, it would behoove the current administration to bolster the immigration court system and ensure due process. This could involve enlisting retired lawyers to address the existing backlog in the immigration courts. From public sentiment, it’s clear that Americans are not fundamentally opposed to deportations; rather, they advocate for legal due process and fair hearings for detainees.
If due process were to be neglected, local and state governments might increasingly join the sanctuary movement, refusing to cooperate with ICE. Should the officials attempt to retaliate, they may inadvertently enhance the status of those who oppose them.
Stephen Miller, the mastermind behind the former administration’s immigration policies, has been notoriously critical of due-process rights for ICE detainees. In fact, he once suggested that the White House was considering actions akin to wartime measures, which could effectively curtail an individual’s constitutional right to challenge their arrest or imprisonment.
Couple this with the fact that ICE isn’t mandated to publicly disclose the names of those arrested; you’ve got a recipe for accusations of civil rights violations. Detainees might be hurriedly deported before they have a chance to legally challenge their detention, an act starkly contrasting the nation’s constitutional promises.