By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ICE has been placing new recruits into training programs before the completion of the agency’s vetting process, a deviation from previous protocols. This change has occurred amidst a hiring surge to meet the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy. As a result, ICE has dismissed over 200 recruits during training, with some having failed drug tests, possessing disqualifying criminal backgrounds, or not meeting physical or academic standards. Officials are concerned that this accelerated process may allow unsuitable candidates to be hired, especially as the agency aims to expand its workforce.
Read the original article here
Some new ICE recruits have shown up to training without full vetting. This, honestly, is a bit of a shock, or maybe not. You kind of expect thorough background checks and stringent evaluations when you’re dealing with law enforcement, especially an agency like ICE. The idea of people showing up to training without that crucial process completed raises some serious questions. How many are we talking about? How is this even possible?
Some comments brought up the idea of a 50-60% failure rate on backgrounds for police, which can take up to a year to complete. Considering the volume of recruits, it’s not hard to imagine why vetting might be rushed or skipped. Maybe the rush to fill positions trumps the need for thoroughness. Could it be a reflection of lowered standards? Or perhaps a lack of resources?
It’s hard to ignore the potential consequences here. If vetting isn’t done correctly, you could end up with people in positions of power who shouldn’t be there. We’re talking about individuals with access to weapons, the authority to detain and deport people, and all the power that comes with those things. This could mean increased instances of abuse, even more so if certain people are hired specifically to fulfill a darker agenda.
There’s the question of the kind of people being recruited, too. Some might see it as an opportunity to hire those who were not able to secure positions in other law enforcement agencies. Others might have suspicions about how the vetting process could be weaponized and used to weed out anyone who is critical of the agency or government.
The comments also reflect how easy it is to find fault with the process when it doesn’t work. The idea of “academic standards” being mentioned makes it seem like there are no standards at all, which is the exact opposite of what you’d expect.
One point that caught my attention was the idea that ICE might be attracting individuals who couldn’t cut it in other fields, like law enforcement or the military. The implication is that ICE may not be getting the best of the best, but instead, maybe they’re grabbing whatever they can get. This raises concerns about the quality of the people being hired and their ability to do the job safely and responsibly.
The tone of some of the comments is definitely sarcastic and cynical, but those are also indicators of real concerns about what ICE is doing, and the impact of the lack of standards. The mocking tone also underscores the general distrust people have for the agency and their overall goals. It’s easy to see why someone would be suspicious when recruitment seems to be focused on finding people who are willing to “terrorize” others.
The idea of the “dregs” going to ICE and improving the quality of the police force is a dark bit of humor. The idea that ICE is attracting the less desirable applicants, and other professions may benefit. It’s hard to imagine, but it does serve as a sort of commentary on the current situation,
And how about the training itself? The comments suggest that if vetting is lacking, training is also insufficient, and that the only goal is to terrorize people. This points to a deeper issue of systemic corruption.
In the end, it really boils down to this: what kind of people are we allowing to wield power and make decisions that impact the lives of others? If someone is showing up to training without being properly vetted, it’s a red flag. It tells you there might be underlying issues in the agency. It’s a sign that things are broken.