By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reconsidering its plans to deploy ICE agents at Super Bowl LX, contradicting previous messaging. This potential reversal follows a Fox News poll showing significant public disapproval of ICE’s tactics, and a YouGov poll showing plummeting confidence in the agency. The decision may also be influenced by the recent Senate’s failure to pass a funding bill that includes funding for DHS federal immigration officers. While DHS officials have declined to confirm the change, the Super Bowl has become a point of contention with the inclusion of halftime performer Bad Bunny.
Read the original article here
ICE reportedly backs down on its threat to patrol the Super Bowl – well, here’s what seems to be brewing in the conversation around it.
It’s been a hot topic, hasn’t it? The buzz around whether or not ICE would be present at the Super Bowl this year, and the subsequent “backing down” from that plan. The general feeling seems to be a mix of relief, suspicion, and a healthy dose of cynicism. Some folks are thrilled, seeing it as a victory. Others are skeptical, believing that ICE will still be present, just in a more covert way, or that this is just a strategic move to avoid bad publicity. One thing is for sure – nobody seems to trust ICE’s word on the matter. It’s a common thread that ICE’s past actions make it hard to believe their promises.
The tone certainly leans towards viewing ICE’s actions with a wary eye. The sentiment is that ICE isn’t backing down because of some newfound respect for civil liberties or concern for the well-being of the Super Bowl attendees. Instead, it seems the general consensus is that this decision has more to do with optics and public relations, potentially a way to avoid the sort of negative press that could arise from aggressive actions at a high-profile event. There’s also the suggestion that ICE might be trying to avoid a repeat of any incidents that could be caught on camera and broadcast to the world. And let’s be honest, that sort of thing doesn’t exactly help with the public image of an agency.
It seems to be widely believed that ICE has shifted their approach. They’ll try to blend in, with the goal of not attracting attention. This is often mentioned alongside the idea that ICE is not interested in the everyday person, but more so going after what’s seen as the workers behind the scenes. And let’s not forget the financial aspect – the people at the Super Bowl are generally affluent and not the target demographic of the agency. There’s also some chatter about the potential for ICE to be present at other events, particularly the Winter Olympics, which raises questions about where these resources are being directed.
Of course, the whole thing is tied up with political overtones. There’s a strong belief that ICE’s actions are often motivated by political agendas, and this perceived “backing down” could be tied to the current political climate, or a change in the administration. It’s been brought up in the context of the upcoming election, and the suggestion that ICE might be present at polling places, which definitely raises the stakes.
Some people feel ICE’s motivations have nothing to do with protecting citizens. They feel ICE has a political agenda and is lying to the general public. Many people seem to also believe that the Super Bowl could have become a site of protest, and by not being present, ICE is attempting to limit the number of protests and violence.
There is a sense that the NFL might have played a role in this decision. Given the NFL’s concern with its public image and the potential for negative press that might arise from ICE’s presence, it would seem that the NFL and Trump might have struck a deal to come to a compromise. It would be a bad look for the Super Bowl to be disrupted.
In conclusion, the situation is complex. It’s probably safe to assume that ICE will be somewhere nearby. The main feeling seems to be that ICE is not being entirely honest about its intentions, and the motives are more strategic than anything else. This might be a tactical retreat, a maneuver to avoid negative press, or maybe even a shift in tactics, but it’s not likely a sign that ICE has suddenly decided to change its ways.