ICE Is Shredding the Bill of Rights. Defending That Isn't Conservative.

https://reason.com/2026/07/31/ice-is-shredding-the-bill-of-rights-conservatives-should-support-accountability-and-reform/

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/50322494

Many conservatives need a refresher course regarding the nature of law enforcement in a free society. No matter what behavior ICE agents engage in—stopping people without a warrant, detaining American citizens or demanding we show our papers, or using deadly force in relatively unthreatening situations—they instinctively defend the government agents. Social-media feeds are filled with right-wing commentators supporting and even cheering ICE.

Their argument: ICE is doing a legitimate job removing illegal immigrants, so it deserves support and respect. They give ICE a pass because they like the end result. "Since Ruby Ridge and Waco in the 1990s, a faction of right-wing populists had excoriated federal law enforcement," The Washington Post explained. "Now those agents are being deployed by their allies." Ideally, both political sides should always defend the Constitution's limits on federal authority, but in our imperfect world each side cheers when the feds are deployed against foes. This is a dangerous tendency.

We can't expect politically active people to act in a principled manner, but self-preservation should dictate a different response. What goes around comes around. One should never support the exertion of government power in a way that we wouldn't want wielded by our enemies. There's no guarantee "our" side will always be in control.

The latest news about ICE is deeply troubling. The New York Times conducted an investigation into 550 assault cases the Trump administration has filed against people who have been arrested during immigration-enforcement operations. That's a common law-enforcement strategy, by the way—to charge people with resisting arrest or assaulting officers during arrests. I've seen it in my coverage of police use-of-force cases. Accusing the accused of assault further tips the scales of justice in the government's favor.

According to the newspaper's report, of 400 cases adjudicated so far, more than half have unraveled as juries have acquitted the defendants, judges have tossed the cases or prosecutors have withdrawn the charges. That's an astounding percentage, it noted, given that the federal Justice Department has a 90 percent conviction rate (through trials or plea deals) in criminal cases. It shows that most of these cases should never have been brought.

ICE's behavior has often been atrocious. A "close examination…reveals that in its rush to meet White House demands for deportations, federal law enforcement has engaged in extensive misconduct—ranging from attacking protesters to destroying evidence and misrepresenting facts in court," per the Times' review of case documents. Videos showed that officers were sometimes the ones who first became physical, and officials withheld and even destroyed evidence. The agents rarely were injured. In one case, the agent caused his own injuries by smashing a window.

A normal person can support ICE's mission while opposing government officials who twist the law, abuse suspects, and offer misrepresentations in court. Actually, if you don't oppose misbehavior by law enforcement, then you are disrespecting the constitutional foundations of our nation. Just look at the core amendments in the U.S. Constitution, which are mostly designed to put limits on how the government—especially law enforcement—behaves.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. The Third Amendment keeps the government's soldiers from commandeering your home. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. The Fifth Amendment requires due process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. The Eighth Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishments. The connections are obvious: The amendments are about protecting the public, not giving immunity to officers of the state.

A new report alleges that "failures in vetting, training, accountability and institutional culture" at ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement have enabled some agents accused or convicted of serious crimes to remain on the force. For years, we've seen news reports about horrible conditions in ICE detention centers. In my view, crimes committed under the color of authority are the worst, as victims have little recourse when authorities are the abusers.

One common retort from MAGA: These abuses also took place under the Biden, Obama, and Bush administrations. That's true, so the proper response would be to build support for an end to the misuse of government power under any administration and in any federal division—not defend this administration's behavior because everyone else did it, too. And the president differs in that he always doubles down. After ICE recently killed two people, Trump rebuked the Department of Homeland Security's reasonable plan to temporarily halt most traffic stops.

147 points · 8 comments · view on lemmy.world

8 Comments

cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 26d (3 replies)

Conservatives in name only. What they really are is authoritarian — as long as the authority is on their side.

Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 26d

I just call them fascists these days.

Astronut@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 26d

What they really are is criminal traitors!

Snowies@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 24d

I wouldn’t even call them authoritarians.

They don’t want to live in an authoritarian state.

They want everyone who disagrees with them or doesn’t LOOK LIKE them to live in an authoritarian state.

They only want to live in modern America technologically and 1950s America culturally.

Except they really don’t even want that, because most “conservative” women would not survive 6 months living as a 1950s American housewife.

It sounds nice to be taken care of, but they were also treated like property and/or house pets. They had no money of their own and no bank accounts. If you wanted something and you weren’t a famous actress or something — A man had to buy it for you.

It was legal in the United States to deny someone a job or a bank account, simply because they were a woman, until 1974.

Star Wars came out in 1974… 5 months earlier.

It’s crazy to me think about stuff like that. It kind of makes sense why there’s so much god damn push back every time we tell people to stop being assholes… apparently not being assholes is pretty recent from a human history perspective.

phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 25d

Conservatives ave never defended the Bill of Rights, except their distorted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Arancello@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 25d

While their country descends into a dictatorship, top priority for usa people is next episode of wives of los angeles.

FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 23d

Defending that is treason

CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d

LOL, I love it when a certain type (and Reason is chock full of these types) like to talk about The True Conservative and The True Conservatism. 🤣

I mean, you have to studiously ignore a lot about both the movement and the people in it to prop up the lofty fantasies about what conservatism is really about...