By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ICE’s hiring practices have come under scrutiny after an independent journalist applied for a position and was offered the job without a background check. The journalist, Laura Jedeed, detailed her experience of being hired as a deportation officer despite never completing the necessary paperwork. Jedeed’s account reveals a concerning lack of scrutiny in ICE’s recruitment process, raising serious questions about the agency’s ability to vet potential agents. She expressed worries that individuals with violent backgrounds could be hired, and the agency is not keeping track of who is behind the masks.
Read the original article here
Journalist Tests ICE Recruitment; Surprised to Find Herself Hired with No Background Check
The story of Laura Jedeed, the independent journalist and U.S. military veteran, is a stunning illustration of potential flaws within ICE’s hiring practices. It seems she was hired as a deportation officer after a mere six-minute interview at a job fair, a process that apparently bypassed crucial steps like a thorough background check. Considering the many open criticisms that she’s voiced about the organization, one might assume her application wouldn’t even warrant a second glance. The fact that she not only received an offer but also seemed to progress through the application process without proper scrutiny raises serious questions about the agency’s due diligence.
The core of the issue is the lack of proper vetting. Laura, a very public critic of the Trump administration and its immigration policies, was offered the position. She’s an easily “googleable person” with an unusual name. Yet, she received a tentative offer. Crucially, she admits to never completing essential paperwork, including background check applications or affidavits. She took a drug test, expecting to fail, only to later find herself listed as having been hired, the drug test seemingly disregarded and the background check magically marked as completed. It’s a jaw-dropping scenario that points to a potential hiring system that’s either severely dysfunctional or deliberately lax.
The implications of this are significant. It begs the question: Who *is* ICE hiring? The article implies that they might not know, and perhaps don’t care. The narrative suggests that those willing to work for ICE might not meet the standards of someone who would pass a background check. This is concerning, especially given the sensitive nature of the work and the power these officers wield. The lack of stringent checks, the potential for unqualified individuals to be in positions of authority, is a dangerous situation.
The responses included are interesting in themselves. Some commenters suggest that if background checks were rigorously enforced, the number of hires would plummet. Others openly consider the possibility of undermining the system from within, envisioning a scenario where individuals with opposing views might infiltrate the agency. The fact that the application process may be vulnerable to such actions speaks volumes about the current state of affairs.
There’s a suggestion that the types of people who apply for these roles are exactly who one would imagine them to be, often falling short of standard requirements. The fact that ICE employees have been arrested for sex offenses, like soliciting minors, adds another layer of public concern. Such cases fuel the notion that existing background checks may not be rigorous.
The case of the journalist becoming an agent without the appropriate checks, and without even completing the onboarding process, raises valid questions about security and transparency. The narrative suggests a breakdown in basic procedures, leaving open the possibility of allowing unsuitable individuals to fill these important roles.
The comments included make you wonder whether this is some kind of deliberate strategy. There’s a clear undertone of wanting to disrupt the system, to introduce chaos and potentially dismantle it. The irony is, by revealing these apparent shortcomings, the journalist may have inadvertently pointed to the very weaknesses that could be exploited. This could be by activists, by journalists like herself, and by anyone else with the desire to make the current system ineffective.
The entire episode underscores the necessity of a rigorous and transparent hiring process within law enforcement agencies, especially one as controversial as ICE. It suggests that if things can move this quickly and easily, that it might be time for real and substantial reform.