By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a legislative package aimed at restricting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations within the state. One bill proposes to ban ICE agents who served between September 1, 2025, and January 20, 2029, from holding future public jobs in New Jersey, citing concerns over alleged civil rights violations and aggressive enforcement tactics. This measure, alongside proposals for a 50% tax on private detention facility gross receipts to fund an Immigrant Protection Fund and criminal penalties for blocking law enforcement access to crime scenes, seeks to protect residents and ensure accountability. These bills are a direct response to perceived escalating and intimidating ICE enforcement, including operations near borders, in unmarked vehicles, and at workplaces and schools.
Read the original article here
New Jersey is reportedly considering a significant policy shift that could lead to the lifelong banning of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from holding public jobs within the state. This proposed measure, if enacted, would represent a strong stance on accountability and a reflection of the sentiments expressed by many regarding the conduct of ICE agents. The idea is rooted in the belief that individuals who have engaged in certain actions while employed by ICE should face lasting consequences for their professional careers in public service.
There’s a palpable sense that ICE has become a magnet for those who might abuse their power or disregard individual rights. Many commenters feel that the agency attracts a specific type of law enforcement officer, one who might be inclined to “shit on people’s rights.” This perception fuels the argument for robust accountability, with the notion that such measures are essential for maintaining a healthy society. The sentiment of “good” when discussing potential bans on ICE agents suggests a widespread approval of holding them responsible for their actions.
The comparison of ICE agents to “SS wannabes” is a particularly harsh indictment, highlighting a deep-seated distrust and disapproval of the agency’s methods and perceived ideology. This extreme comparison underscores the intensity of feelings surrounding the issue, painting a picture of agents as figures who embrace a destructive or oppressive path. The desire to see these individuals barred from any form of public service stems from a fear that their past actions would disqualify them from roles requiring impartiality and respect for civil liberties.
Furthermore, the idea that ICE agents willingly worked for an administration perceived as problematic, even being described as working for a “pedophile and convicted criminal,” adds another layer to the rationale behind the proposed ban. This perspective suggests that association with such figures, and by extension, the actions taken under that administration, should disqualify individuals from future public trust. The expectation that these individuals might receive pardons upon leaving office only strengthens the resolve to implement preventative measures like job bans, ensuring they can’t simply escape consequences.
The reluctance of certain individuals to hire ICE agents, or even do business with those who do, signifies a broader societal reaction. It suggests that the perceived misdeeds of ICE agents are not isolated incidents but rather indicative of a character trait that many would find unacceptable in any professional capacity, especially in roles that serve the public. This personal boycott mentality amplifies the impact of the potential ban, creating a ripple effect beyond just official government employment.
There’s a strong undercurrent of belief that many ICE agents, by virtue of their chosen profession and alleged actions, may lack the transferable skills for a wide range of civilian careers. The idea that their professional experience might be limited to specific, often physically demanding or entry-level manual labor jobs, reflects a sentiment that their current roles do not cultivate broader competencies. This perspective implicitly suggests that the proposed ban would not necessarily cripple their earning potential in all sectors, but rather restrict their access to roles that require a different ethical compass.
The call for other states to follow New Jersey’s lead is a clear indication that this is not seen as an isolated state-level issue but a national concern. States like Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and California are specifically mentioned as potential candidates to adopt similar policies, demonstrating a desire to create a wider movement against perceived ICE misconduct. This aspiration for widespread adoption underscores the belief that the problem is systemic and requires a coordinated response across multiple jurisdictions.
The enthusiastic support for New Jersey’s initiative, with phrases like “Fucking good” and “Glad to hear it,” highlights the positive reception this proposal has received. The strong sense of pride in New Jersey’s potential action suggests a feeling of empowerment and vindication for those who have been critical of ICE. This enthusiasm fuels the hope that such measures can indeed be implemented and serve as a model for others.
Beyond job bans, some voices advocate for even more severe consequences, with suggestions of prison time for ICE agents. This extreme sentiment, while not directly part of the proposed job ban, reflects the depth of anger and frustration felt by those who believe the actions of ICE agents warrant criminal prosecution. It frames the job ban as a more lenient, but still necessary, step in a broader pursuit of justice.
The concept of “hiring standards” is frequently invoked as a justification for the ban. The argument is made that it is entirely reasonable to have criteria for who is entrusted with public service. Employing individuals who are perceived as having deliberately operated outside the legal framework of their own federal institution is seen as fundamentally flawed and a breach of public trust. This framing elevates the issue from a matter of political disagreement to one of basic professional integrity and adherence to law.
The proposal to ban ICE agents from *any* public service job, except for menial tasks like beautification and highway cleanup, indicates a desire for complete exclusion from roles where they might exercise authority or wield influence. This suggests a belief that their past actions render them unsuitable for any position that involves significant responsibility or public interaction, thereby necessitating their relegation to the most basic forms of labor. The suggestion of making them “persona non grata” further emphasizes a desire for their complete ostracization from public life.
The idea of making ICE agents experience the consequences of their actions, such as being denied rights and protections, is a form of poetic justice for some. The sentiment that if they deny others these fundamental aspects of citizenship, they should experience their absence themselves, albeit “for free,” highlights a desire for empathy and understanding through direct experience. This perspective views the proposed ban as a mechanism for them to confront the impact of their professional conduct.
The suggestion to send ICE agents back to “shithole red states” and keep them out of New Jersey reflects a strong regional and ideological divide. It frames the issue not just as a matter of individual conduct but as a clash between differing political values and visions for society. This territorial sentiment underscores the desire to protect specific communities from perceived harmful elements.
The unqualified support for consequences, with a resounding “YES!!” and “Thank you, New Jersey!”, demonstrates a powerful affirmation of the proposed policy. This level of agreement suggests that the ban is viewed as a just and necessary response to the perceived wrongs committed by ICE agents. The emphasis on New Jersey’s perceived toughness and willingness to hold grudges further contextualizes the proposal as a characteristic expression of the state’s identity.
The idea that other states should follow suit, perhaps even suggesting Florida or Idaho as places for ICE agents to be sent, continues the theme of regional animosity and the desire to see other states adopt similar accountability measures. This highlights a belief that the issue is widespread and requires a nationwide approach to effective resolution.
A significant point is raised about federal action, with the suggestion that Democrats in Congress should promise to implement a similar ban at the federal level. This proposal aims to create a clear pathway for the federal government to hold ICE agents accountable, should they gain the necessary political power. It offers a concrete, albeit ambitious, plan for dismantling ICE and preventing its agents from serving in federal roles in the future.
The rationale behind such a federal promise is multi-faceted: it costs nothing to make the promise, demonstrates seriousness in combating ICE, provides a tangible plan for future action, and offers current ICE agents an incentive to leave the agency if they wish to pursue future government careers. This strategy aims to exert pressure on the agency from within and signal a clear direction for future policy.
The sentiment that the proposed ban is “not nearly enough” suggests that some believe the consequences for ICE agents should be far more severe. The call for a comprehensive database of ICE agents, including their personal information, highlights a desire for a level of scrutiny and accountability that goes far beyond a simple job ban. This reflects a deep-seated belief that these individuals should be permanently marked for their actions.
The question of the Supreme Court’s potential involvement is raised, implying a potential legal challenge to such a ban. However, the dismissive “Yeah. It’s pointless” suggests a lack of faith in the court’s ability or willingness to overturn such a measure, or perhaps a resignation to the idea that legal avenues might be futile in achieving the desired outcome.
The sarcastic “Oh know! Anyways….” reflects a dismissive attitude towards any potential negative repercussions for ICE agents, underscoring the prevailing sentiment that they deserve whatever consequences they face. The phrasing “people who have jobs, guns and are killing people” highlights a perception of ICE agents as dangerous and unaccountable figures within a government that is seen as out of control. The question of whether such a ban is a deterrent is posed, with the implication that it might not be, given the perceived power and impunity of the individuals in question.
The idea that “Trump and the cronies are shaking” suggests a belief that these measures are a direct response to a specific political administration and that its supporters are now facing repercussions. However, the assertion that “Public jobs? They should be in jail” reiterates the desire for much harsher penalties, viewing the job ban as insufficient.
The comparison of banning ICE agents from public jobs to banning them from owning unicorns is a rhetorical device used to emphasize the perceived lack of legitimate career paths available to them. It implies that their professional options are already severely limited and that this ban merely formalizes that reality.
The point that “We can’t allow Minnesota, or any other “sanctuary” to set national immigration policy. And we can’t surrender Constitutional principles to enforce the law” introduces a counter-argument that frames the proposed ban as an overreach and a violation of established legal principles. This perspective emphasizes the importance of consistent national policy and adherence to constitutional rights, even for those who have potentially violated them.
However, the retort “Well, it’s New Jersey. Don’t fuck around with people in New Jersey. They’ll hold a grudge forever” highlights a strong regional identity and a reputation for tenacity. It suggests that New Jersey’s actions are characteristic of its residents’ willingness to stand their ground and enforce their values, even if it means taking unconventional or aggressive measures.
The explanation for why ICE might be less active in New Jersey, suggesting they perceive the state as a more hostile environment compared to places like Minnesota, speaks to the power of social and political pressure. The idea that intimidation only works when one side is passive underscores the belief that a strong, unified opposition can deter aggressive actions.
The affirmation of “Hell yeah, good for youse” and the hope that Massachusetts will enact similar measures reinforce the desire for a broader movement. The sentiment of “Keep Jersey Strong!” further solidifies the idea of the state as a bulwark against perceived injustices.
The notion that ICE agents feel more threatened in New Jersey and are thus keeping a lower profile directly supports the idea that public disapproval and the threat of consequences can indeed influence behavior. This illustrates the tangible impact of societal pressure.
The concept of shame and dishonor is presented as a powerful, yet underestimated, force. The belief that individuals should live with the consequences of their decisions for the rest of their lives, and that they won’t be so “prideful” when facing potential future trials, suggests a hope that societal stigma can be a potent form of punishment. The reference to “neo-nurembourg style trials” indicates a deep-seated concern about fascism and the potential for future reckoning.
The pragmatic observation that any hiring manager not aligned with a particular political ideology would likely choose another candidate implies that the ban might be less about official policy and more about informal social and political barriers to employment. This suggests that even without a formal ban, ICE agents might face significant obstacles in the job market.
The clarification that such measures are necessary “especially before you can do anything about ICE itself” highlights the incremental approach to reform. It acknowledges that a full dismantling of the agency might not be immediately possible, making job bans a crucial interim step. The explanation of what a “sanctuary city” means and the denial that it relates to national immigration policy serves to clarify a common misunderstanding and reinforce the idea that the focus is on local protection, not broader policy changes.
The assertion of kindness coupled with a fierce defense of neighbors encapsulates a particular ethos: “We are kind, but not nice. We give a shit about our neighbors and we’re gonna be loud and nasty as hell in their defense.” This statement powerfully articulates the motivation behind supporting such a ban – a deep commitment to community and a willingness to fight aggressively for its protection.
The humorous but pointed remark about New Jersey residents holding a “strong FAFO For Life” (Fuck Around And Find Out) encapsulates the state’s reputation for being unforgiving to those who cross them. This sentiment, echoed with the comparison to New York, suggests a shared regional understanding of the consequences of provoking the local populace. The concluding observations about New Jersey residents being caring, if gruff, people further paints a picture of a community that, while perhaps outwardly tough, possesses a strong sense of solidarity and a protective instinct.