Steven Greenhut: ICE’s unraveling cases spotlight agency’s police-state tactics 64%
By Steven Greenhut83%
7/24/2026, 5:00:06 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 175 hits. Analysis detected 1,638 faulty-reasoning hits from 858 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.4% and a BS Rank of 64% (8,001 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.40% of the article peer group.
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% 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 Protection 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.
Policing is an important aspect of society, which is all the more reason to assure that the police — including federal agents — respect the constitutionally protected rights of the citizenry.
As the old saying goes, “Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.”
The key takeaway from that proposed refresher course: It’s past time to force ICE to behave in a manner consistent with a non-police state.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board.
Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
Speakers
4speakers14%attributed speech736writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageThe Washington Post
31 attributed words25% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.