NYT Discovers ICE Immunity, Forgets Its Own History
The NY Times breathlessly reports that Trump's administration is steering ICE towards 'absolute immunity.' This framing suggests a deviation from norm, implying a previously well-regulated agency. What they conveniently omit is that accountability for immigration enforcement has always been a mirage, shrouded in qualified immunity and a justice system historically lenient on agents accused of
misconduct—regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. Remember the numerous allegations of abuse, civil rights violations, and even deaths in custody under previous administrations? Those weren't exactly met with vigorous prosecution, were they? One might wonder if the concern about 'absolute immunity' gains media traction only when a 'bad' president like Trump is in office, rather than being a
consistent alarm for systemic issues that predate him. It's almost as if the media decides when certain abuses are newsworthy, depending on who's signing the executive orders. The 'shift' they highlight appears more like a spotlight briefly illuminating an already well-worn path of unaccountability.