By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The recently passed budget, signed by the president, heavily favors the wealthy through tax cuts while simultaneously cutting healthcare and food programs for the poor. A significant portion of the budget is allocated to expanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), creating a massive domestic police force with unprecedented resources and authority. This expansion includes funding for detention facilities, hiring thousands of new agents, and constructing a border wall, further militarizing the border. The budget also increases fees for immigrants, seemingly designed to generate revenue from those most vulnerable. This combination of economic inequality and increased policing foreshadows a potential police state, blurring the lines between military operations and civilian law enforcement to suppress dissent and protect the elite.
Read the original article here
ICE is about to become the biggest police force in the US, a prospect that rightfully gives pause. The sheer scale of this impending expansion is staggering, with projections indicating an agency larger than the FBI, with a budget surpassing that of many national militaries. It’s a buildup that echoes historical warnings about the dangers of unchecked power and the potential for abuse, raising legitimate concerns about the erosion of civil liberties. The core of these concerns centers around the authority ICE will wield and the implications for the American people.
The implications are chilling, especially considering that the agency will possess the power to surveil, seize, and detain individuals deemed “undesirable.” This isn’t just about immigration enforcement; it’s about creating a powerful force with broad discretionary power, a force that, history teaches us, can be easily weaponized for political or ideological purposes. The vast sums of money allocated for immigrant detention are particularly concerning, given the potential for misuse and the moral questions surrounding mass incarceration. It really feels like the building of a new internal military force.
The recruitment of personnel for this massive undertaking is another aspect that demands scrutiny. There are stories of individuals eager to take on this kind of work, and there are the inevitable comparisons to historical forces like the Gestapo. The influx of “otherwise unemployable” individuals, as one commenter noted, raises questions about training, qualifications, and the potential for abuse of power. We’ve seen this before: a large organization, hastily assembled, often recruits individuals with little regard for the law.
The rise of ICE also raises questions about the role of private contractors and the potential for government overreach and corruption. As the agency expands, it’s inevitable that contracts will be awarded to private companies, potentially creating a web of financial incentives that further entrenches the system. This mirrors the situation in Iraq. There is a real danger of ICE becoming another profit center for corporations. It’s very concerning.
One must ask what will be the fate of the agency after it “completes” its mission? Will it be dismantled? The historical precedent, unfortunately, is not encouraging. Once such a force is established, it’s difficult to dismantle it, and the potential for its use against various populations of individuals is always present. The use of the term “fascism pipeline” is apt here. The pipeline, as described, becomes increasingly clear with each expansion of the agency’s authority.
It’s also important to consider the potential for this expansion to affect local police forces. The idea that ICE will operate independently in American cities, potentially supplanting or overshadowing local law enforcement, is concerning, and we have reason to believe they will eventually target other groups of people. The implications for community trust and the overall balance of power are significant. What happens when ICE starts to operate outside of their initial “mandate”?
The parallels to historical events are unavoidable. The warning signs of potential abuses, such as the unchecked authority, the vast resources, and the potential for targeting specific groups, are a reminder of what can happen when a government’s power becomes too concentrated. And many are concerned about the level of training they will receive. Is it enough to prevent abuse of power?
The reactions from different segments of the population are also telling. The silence or support from those who typically advocate for smaller government and individual liberties is particularly noteworthy. The fear here is that the agency will not be satisfied in its initial target of “illegal” immigrants, and will begin to target others. We are reminded of the words of a famous poet: “First they came…”