By John Q. Hosedrinker 
For those seeking an inside perspective on the oil and gas industry, the FP West: Energy Insider newsletter offers an exclusive glimpse behind the scenes. This subscriber-only publication delves into the operations and developments within the oilpatch. Readers are encouraged to sign up to gain access to this specialized content.
Read the original article here
The notion that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has become an international pariah is a sentiment that resonates deeply, painting a picture of an organization viewed with widespread disapproval and distrust on the global stage. This perception isn’t a sudden development but rather an accumulation of actions and associations that have eroded its standing. It’s as if the organization has inadvertently crafted a reputation, not of a diligent law enforcement body, but of something far more sinister, leading to a chill in how it’s regarded by other nations.
Indeed, the very idea that ICE maintains offices in countries like Canada, a close ally, raises eyebrows and sparks questions about why such arrangements persist and why they aren’t actively dismantled. The presence of these attaché offices, particularly those belonging to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which focus on transnational crime, is a point of contention. While the stated purpose is to facilitate cooperation on issues like human trafficking and drug smuggling, the broader association with ICE’s enforcement actions casts a long shadow. It prompts the uncomfortable thought that perhaps these offices, meant for legitimate transnational cooperation, are simply an extension of an entity that is no longer widely accepted.
The international reaction to ICE’s activities has escalated to a point where comparisons are being drawn to historical figures and events that evoke widespread revulsion. The term “wannabe gestapo” is tossed around, a potent accusation that links ICE to a regime synonymous with oppression and brutality. This comparison, while inflammatory, speaks to a deep-seated concern that the agency’s methods and perceived overreach have crossed a line, leading to a similar level of international condemnation that such historical entities faced. It’s a harsh judgment, but one that reflects the intensity of negative sentiment.
This sense of ICE being an international pariah is intertwined with a broader perception of the United States itself. The sentiment isn’t confined to just one agency; it extends to the nation’s global standing. When one part of a nation’s apparatus garners such negative international attention, it inevitably reflects on the whole. The actions attributed to ICE, whether perceived as “murders and kidnapping” or the creation of “concentration camps,” have contributed to an image of the U.S. as an international pariah, a nation whose actions are no longer viewed with respect but with apprehension and disapproval.
The very effectiveness of ICE’s mission, at least in the eyes of many, is questioned when viewed through this lens of international condemnation. The idea of terrorists being treated as pariahs is a widely accepted concept, but the argument is that ICE isn’t fulfilling this role adequately. Instead, the focus has shifted to ICE itself becoming the pariah, suggesting a fundamental disconnect between its intended purpose and its perceived reality. This raises the uncomfortable possibility that the organization’s operations have become so problematic that they overshadow any positive contributions.
This widespread disapproval has led to calls for drastic action, with some advocating for the complete abolition of ICE. The sentiment is that the agency has become an “American travesty,” a source of shame for the nation. The lack of action from legislative bodies, characterized as “gutless wonders,” only amplifies the frustration, suggesting a system that is unwilling or unable to address what many see as a grave injustice and a stain on the nation’s reputation.
The consequences for individuals associated with ICE are also a subject of intense discussion. There’s a strong belief that ICE agents will be “haunted for life,” facing personal repercussions like divorce, family estrangement, and unemployability. This paints a grim picture of a future where being an ICE agent is a mark of shame, akin to being on a sex offender registry, but perhaps even more damning, leading to a societal ostracization. The hope is that these individuals will “never know peace and quiet again,” a sentiment that reflects a desire for accountability and retribution.
The comparison to a sex offender registry, while stark, highlights the depth of opprobrium directed towards ICE. It’s a desire for a permanent mark of disapproval, a public record of actions deemed unacceptable. This sentiment is further fueled by the idea that ICE agents might be treated like other pariahs, perhaps even being banned from entry to “normal countries.” The implications of such a global ostracization are profound, suggesting a future where their professional and personal lives are irrevocably impacted by their association with the agency.
The initial intention behind ICE, stemming from the “customs” and import tax facilitation, is often contrasted with its current operational reality. The existence of ICE offices in places like Canada, while explained as being for transnational crime investigation by the HSI branch, is viewed with suspicion. The distinction between HSI and the deportation branch is acknowledged, but for many, the entire agency carries the baggage of its enforcement actions. This leads to the desire for countries to take a firm stance, perhaps even declaring ICE attachés “persona non grata,” a diplomatic tool that signals extreme disapproval.
Ultimately, the consensus emerging is that ICE has undeniably become an international pariah. This isn’t just a matter of policy disagreement; it’s a widespread perception of an organization whose actions have led to its global condemnation. The hope is that this pariah status will lead to meaningful change, whether through abolition, strict accountability, or a fundamental shift in how such agencies operate on both domestic and international fronts. The current trajectory, however, suggests a long and difficult road ahead for an agency that has, for many, lost its way and its international standing.