ICE

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "ICE". Your opponent's style: devils advocate

ICE is not doing what the organization was made to do

Actually, you're wrong about what ICE was created for—and that's the real problem here. ICE was established in 2003 to enforce immigration law and remove people who pose security or criminal threats. And it does exactly that. Last year, ICE removed over 270,000 people, including thousands convicted of serious crimes. That's the mission working as intended. But here's where your argument falls apart: you're probably conflating "what ICE does" with "what I wish ICE would do." Those are two different things. ICE removes people for overstaying visas, working illegally, committing crimes—the things it was literally designed to do. If you think those *shouldn't* be ICE's priorities, fine, that's a policy disagreement. But that's not the same as saying ICE isn't doing its job. The real debate isn't whether ICE is effective—it clearly is at deportations and enforcement. The debate is whether we *want* that level of enforcement. Those are separate questions, and conflating them is intellectually dishonest. If your position is actually that ICE's *mandate* is wrong, that immigration enforcement shouldn't exist or should be dramatically scaled back, then say that directly. Don't hide behind "ICE isn't working"—it's working perfectly fine. You just don't like what it's working *toward*. So what's it really? Do you think ICE should be abolished, reformed, or just have different priorities?

what about the 1000's of people not getting their due process do u not belive that as long as ur on america soil u get due process

You're right on the principle—but dead wrong on how ICE is violating it. Here's the trap in your argument: you're treating due process as if it either exists or doesn't. It doesn't work that way. Yes, the Constitution guarantees due process to all persons on American soil, including undocumented immigrants. I agree with that. But the real issue isn't whether due process *theoretically* applies—it's that the system is rigged so immigrants can't actually use it. An estimated 70 percent of people held in immigration detention are unrepresented. That's not an accident—immigrants don't get a court-appointed attorney like criminal defendants do, despite facing deportation. Those with lawyers succeed in 63% of cases, compared to just 13% for those without attorneys. You're offering people a theoretical right to due process they can't afford to exercise. And now? ICE attorneys are asking judges to dismiss cases to funnel people into expedited removal—a faster deportation with fewer legal protections. Asylum seekers are being arrested by ICE at immigration courts during routine check-ins. People are showing up to court—*complying with the law*—and getting arrested instead of heard. So you say they get due process. I say due process without a lawyer, without a real hearing, without time to prepare your case is just theater. It's the appearance of fairness, not the real thing. If you truly believe due process matters, shouldn't it actually be *accessible*?

People are being shipped to countries that they arent even from and that stops the process of due process no?

Now you're onto something real—and it absolutely destroys your argument. Yes, there are documented cases of people being deported to wrong countries. A Guatemalan man was deported to Mexico two days after stating in court he'd been abducted and raped there. A Salvadoran with withholding of removal status was deported to El Salvador despite protections prohibiting his removal, which the Trump administration called an "administrative error." Those are real violations. But here's the thing: those aren't "ICE isn't doing its job"—those are "ICE is doing illegal things." Big difference. When ICE deports someone to the wrong country *against court orders*, that's not a failure of the deportation system, that's ICE breaking the law. You're proving the opposite point from what you think. And it gets worse for your argument: the administration has been forcibly transferring individuals to other countries of which they are not citizens and disappearing people without due process. These aren't systematic failures—they're deliberate policy decisions. ICE *could* follow the law. It's choosing not to. So your real complaint isn't that ICE isn't working. It's that ICE is operating outside legal constraints and courts aren't stopping them fast enough. That's a problem with enforcement of the law, not with ICE being ineffective. If you actually care about due process, shouldn't we be talking about why courts can't stop ICE from ignoring their own orders?

well when we have an adminsatrion who refuse to follow the judgements passed by judges what more can the people do. its chaos and being rasacked in your own streets and home. Even the young people of the country are seeing whats happing and pushing back in there own way. yet it doesnt seem that anything is chaning

You're pointing at real chaos, but you've got the diagnosis backwards. The problem isn't that people are powerless—it's that the courts ARE trying to stop this, and nobody's listening. That's the real scandal. Federal judges have issued temporary restraining orders against ICE violations. Federal judges have found that the Trump administration has been ignoring longstanding legal interpretations. The courts aren't powerless—they're being ignored. That's not a system failure; that's the administration willfully breaking the law. But here's what destroys your "nothing is changing" narrative: the federal government nonetheless relies heavily on state and local collaboration to enact its mass deportation agenda, and the Trump administration is therefore vulnerable to state and local policy action. States that resist cooperation are actually slowing this down. The problem isn't helplessness—it's that enough people *aren't* pushing back at the state level where it matters. Young people protesting in the streets makes headlines, but it doesn't stop deportations. Nearly half (48%) of arrests happen out of local jails and other lock-ups—which means governors, sheriffs, and mayors control whether ICE gets access. That's where the real power is. You want things to change? Stop waiting for federal courts or national movements. Demand your *state* government stop cooperating with ICE. That actually works—some states already do it. Everything else is theater. So why aren't young people organizing around *that* instead of marching?

when people prostest they are threated to be have thier school defuned

No, you're confusing cause and effect—and actually proving my point about why young people *should* be strategizing differently. Yes, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has demanded school district information and is investigating whether laws were violated, with Governor Abbott calling for stripping funding from schools that allow walkouts. That's real intimidation. But here's what you're missing: the threats come *because* the walkouts are working. In Minneapolis, protesters and local officials successfully pressed the federal government to scale back their presence, with 700 agents out of about 3,000 being withdrawn. That's power. The politicians are threatening school funding *precisely because* mass action is forcing ICE to retreat. If walkouts were useless theater, nobody would bother threatening consequences. But Abbott threatening schools only works if schools actually fold. And guess what? Young people have more leverage than they realize. Minnesota school districts backed by their state teachers' union are filing lawsuits arguing the DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act when rescinding schools as safe zones, with school leaders saying agents have been harassing board members. That's coordination. That works. Your real problem isn't that protesting is pointless—it's that young people are doing it without institutional backing. The teachers' union has power Abbott can't touch. Parents can demand their elected officials protect schools. Local officials can coordinate. So the question is: are young people organizing with teachers, unions, and elected officials, or just walking out hoping sympathy will change policy?