ICE's 'Problem' Is Not HOW It Acts, But WHY It Exists
📰 THE STORY: The Hill argues that the problem with ICE's conduct, specifically in Minneapolis with alleged racial profiling, isn't what ICE does (detain and deport non-citizens) but 'how' it does it – suggesting issues with tactics rather than the agency's brutal mission itself. It frames concerns as merely about avoiding 'community outrage' and 'legal challenges.' 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING
YOU: Historical Context: The very concept of a federal agency dedicated to mass deportation gained significant power AFTER the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when national security became a convenient pretext for expanding surveillance and control over immigrant communities. Before 9/11, INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) had a dual role that included services; ICE was spun off as a purely
enforcement arm, militarizing immigration. Double Standard: While the US media debates the 'techniques' of ICE in Minneapolis, it largely ignores or sanitizes the far more egregious human rights abuses committed by US-backed regimes globally against their own populations, which often drive migration in the first place. For instance, the 'humanitarian crisis' at the border is rarely linked to US
economic policies and interventions in Latin America, such as the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company, which destabilized the region for decades and continues to fuel displacement. US sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba create immense suffering, yet people fleeing these conditions are criminalized, not seen as victims of foreign policy. Follow the Money: The detention and