Blog

<figure id="figure-8aazxz2qplmjd98516"><img id="8aazxz2qplmjd98516" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/19PjB1MqIomV7O247kyAscnCPE4FabaHZ5suTJpn92naSDavvsjsbiJEF1hJnPm9.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="Christian Nationalists used to have another name." data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/><figcaption class="body-normal text-gray-500 mt-2">Christian Nationalists used to have another name.</figcaption></figure>Introduction: Beyond the Headlines The term “Christian Nationalism” is an ever-present feature in contemporary political discourse, particularly in the United States. It is easy to assume we understand it as a simple blend of religious belief and patriotism. As a political and historical phenomenon, however, its origins, core motivations, and surprising global reach are far more complex and widely misunderstood than the daily headlines suggest. This analysis moves beyond caricature to explore five of the most impactful and counter-intuitive truths about Christian Nationalism, grounded in historical and sociological sources. By examining its extremist roots, its fraught relationship with American founding principles, and its modern psychological drivers, we can achieve a deeper, more nuanced understanding of this powerful and polarizing ideology. Its Modern American Roots Aren't in a Revival, But in 1940s Fascism Many assume the term "Christian Nationalism" emerged from a theological seminary or a grassroots religious revival. The historical record reveals a much starker origin. The term was coined and popularized in the United States not by a theologian, but by Gerald Lyman Kenneth Smith, a political organizer active in the 1930s and 40s. Smith, founder of the "Christian Nationalist Crusade" and the "Christian Nationalist Party," was no mainstream religious figure. Historical sources identify him as a "fascist, a rabid antisemite and anti-communist." His crusade was animated by a conspiratorial worldview; he preached that Communism was a "Jewish plot" and that communists nefariously used Black people as "their pawns to try to overthrow white Christian American civilization." This origin is profoundly significant. It frames the movement not as a benign spiritual or patriotic endeavor, but as an ideology historically rooted in explicitly hateful, racist, and authoritarian politics. This foundational fear of “the other”—whether Jewish, Black, or communist—serves as a historical precedent for the modern cultural anxieties that now fuel the movement. Christian Nationalism was founded upon antisemitism, anti-communism and the upkeep of a white Christian ethnostate. It is rooted in hate and relies on discrimination by design. — Rhys Long, Americans United America's Founders Deliberately Chose Not to Create an Official "Christian Nation" A central claim of Christian Nationalism is that the United States was founded to be an explicitly Christian nation. An examination of the nation's legal and constitutional framework, however, reveals the opposite. On a formal level, the country was established as a secular republic. The evidence is written directly into the nation's founding documents. Article 6 of the Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for holding public office. The First Amendment goes further, guaranteeing that the government will not establish a state church—a definitive break from the European model. Thomas Jefferson famously reinforced this with his concept of a "wall of separation" between church and state. This legal secularism, however, existed alongside a culture that was inescapably Christian. Even skeptical founders like Benjamin Franklin used biblical imagery, at one point proposing the new national seal depict Moses parting the Red Sea. This tension harbors a profound, tragic irony. As historian Catherine Brekus notes, revolutionary patriots invoked the Exodus story—a narrative of liberation from slavery—"at the same time that they were literally holding slaves." This foundational hypocrisy reveals the deep and unresolved conflicts at the heart of America's identity. It is precisely because Christian dominance was a cultural norm rather than a constitutional guarantee that its perceived erosion today feels so existentially threatening to the movement's adherents. I often get asked, you know, was the United States founded as a Christian nation? On a formal level, the answer is absolutely no. The founders provided for separation of church and state. — Catherine Brekus, Harvard Divinity School It's Fueled More by Status Anxiety Than Piety While theological conviction is part of the movement, sociological analysis suggests a more powerful modern driver is a profound sense of "status anxiety"—a fear of losing cultural dominance. Experts point to the 1990s as a period of "peak conservative Christian dominance" in American culture, a time when Christian bookstores were ubiquitous and contemporary Christian music was an ambient presence in public life. Since then, that influence has steadily eroded, marked by the rise of the religiously unaffiliated, often called the "Nones." This demographic sea change is stark: in the early 1990s, approximately 90% of the U.S. population identified as Christian, a figure that has since fallen to around 66%. For many, this has catalyzed a political identity crisis, creating a feeling of cultural displacement and a fear that a certain way of life is being lost forever. This potent blend of nostalgia and fear helps explain how the movement's message can find purchase across demographic lines that might otherwise seem surprising. I think the key to note is that episodes of Christian Nationalism in American history... tend to correspond with feelings of anxiety and are ultimately rooted in cultural fear that some status or place or significance is being lost and might never return. — Paul Matzko, Cato Institute It Isn't an Exclusively White Movement The term is often presented as "white Christian Nationalism," and for good reason, as its most prominent expressions are often tied to white identity politics. Polling, however, reveals a more complex picture, showing that sympathy for its core tenets is not confined to one racial group. This surprising statistic reveals a complex dynamic. Scholar Bradley Onishi explains that while people of color might be welcome in such communities, their distinct cultural expressions are often implicitly erased. A quinceañera, for instance, might be dismissed as a "Mexican thing" rather than a "Christian thing," ensuring the movement's culture remains, as Onishi notes, "coded and contoured in a kind of white American... context." This dynamic allows for a multi-racial appeal while simultaneously reinforcing a white-coded cultural default. This ability to adapt its appeal by coding identity is not limited to domestic contexts; it is also central to its expansion abroad. According to one study, about 20% of white Americans sympathize with these beliefs, as do around 20% of Black Americans. — NPR's "A History of Christian Nationalism" It's Going Global While deeply rooted in American history, Christian Nationalism is not an exclusively American phenomenon. Its rhetoric and tactics are being actively exported and adapted in other Western nations, most notably in the United Kingdom. In Britain, far-right groups like Britain First and UKIP have increasingly adopted Christian symbolism, not for theological purposes, but as a tool for cultural warfare in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant campaigns. American organizations like Turning Point have established UK offshoots, helping to import this style of activism. Rallies led by figures such as Tommy Robinson have featured supporters waving crosses and chanting "Christ is King" to confront Muslim speakers. In this context, Christianity is being stripped of its theological substance and "repurposed as a racialised marker of Britishness." This serves to exclude immigrants, Muslims, and anyone else deemed "un-British," demonstrating the ideology's potent adaptability as a global political tool. Born in the United States and steeped in white supremacist theology, it has begun to seep into British political discourse, often under the guise of “defending Christian values.” — Searchlight Conclusion: A Story of Identity and Power Christian Nationalism, therefore, is not merely a collection of surprising facts but a cohesive political ideology that functions as a powerful tool for identity and power. Its explicitly racist and antisemitic origins provide a historical blueprint for exploiting the unresolved, hypocritical tensions in America's secular founding. It weaponizes the potent catalyst of modern status anxiety over demographic change, channeling that fear into a political force with a surprisingly broad, though culturally policed, demographic appeal. Now, this uniquely American formula is proving adaptable, finding fertile ground in its expanding global footprint. As this fusion of faith and national identity continues to shape politics, the critical question we must all ask is not just what it means for the state, but what it means for the faith it claims to represent? &nbsp;

5 Surprising Truths About Christian Nationalism You Might Not KnowNew Post

<figure id="figure-8b8fzwnrimj903z66"><img id="8b8fzwnrimj903z66" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/2fIsWygAGamOCvSRfarXudDf5WR4VQUpvypZpWePlMqkuxEvTAdWm5lbJtoFxRaB.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a constant fixture in the news, yet the complex machinery of its daily operations often remains hidden from public view. Beyond the political debates, a system of court rulings, internal memos, and local agreements is fundamentally altering the agency's power. These seemingly disconnected events are not isolated incidents; they reveal a systemic shift of authority toward an executive agency that is operating with decreasing oversight from the courts, Congress, and the public. This analysis illuminates the systemic realities of immigration enforcement. Drawing from recent legal challenges, investigative reporting, and internal government documents, it explores four of the most surprising and impactful facts about how ICE truly operates. Together, they demonstrate a troubling erosion of the traditional checks and balances designed to constrain executive power, creating new and startling realities for citizens and non-citizens alike. "Apparent Ethnicity" Can Be a "Relevant Factor" for an Immigration Stop In a controversial decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ICE officers can use "apparent ethnicity" as one of several factors to establish the "reasonable suspicion" needed to briefly detain an individual for questioning about their immigration status. The ruling came not from a fully argued case but from the court's 'interim docket,' often called the 'shadow docket,' which is reserved for emergency matters and typically involves abbreviated legal reasoning. This gives legal cover to a practice that critics argue amounts to racial profiling. In explaining the majority's reasoning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that: "apparent ethnicity" could count as a "relevant factor" when considered alongside factors such as speaking Spanish and gathering in certain locations to find work in specific jobs. This standard was met with a fierce rebuke from within the court itself. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a passionate dissent condemning the decision and highlighting the deep constitutional controversy that continues to surround the use of ethnicity in law enforcement stops. While the Supreme Court has broadened the legal justifications for a stop, another set of rules—or lack thereof—governs the conduct of agents during the stop itself, creating a separate layer of fear and ambiguity. Masks and No-IDs are Permitted, Creating a Climate of Fear A shocking loophole in federal law means that there appears to be no statute or regulation that requires ICE agents to show their faces or provide official identification when conducting stops and arrests. Agents are only required to state that they are government officers, a standard that has created a climate of fear and confusion. This policy creates a harrowing scenario where armed individuals in an unmarked SUV can detain people in broad daylight, leaving the public and even other law enforcement agencies unable to distinguish between a legitimate federal operation and a criminal abduction. The danger is not hypothetical. The FBI has issued alerts warning that criminals impersonating ICE agents have committed serious crimes, including kidnappings and sexual assaults, by exploiting this very ambiguity. For International Students, Legal Status Can Now Be Terminated Instantly An internal ICE memo revealed a significant expansion of the agency's power over international students. According to the new guidance, a "U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation" is now sufficient grounds for the immediate termination of a foreign-born student's legal status in the United States. This reverses longstanding policy that guaranteed students the right to a hearing or other forms of due process to challenge accusations before their legal status was revoked. The counter-intuitive nature of this change was highlighted by immigration attorney Steven Brown, who noted: "[The new policy goes] against at least 15 years of SEVP guidance" This is a stark example of how significant policy changes, affecting thousands, can be enacted through administrative fiat, bypassing the public debate and legislative scrutiny that would typically accompany such a fundamental shift in due process. This expansion of power through internal policy memos is mirrored at the local level, where secretive agreements create the physical infrastructure for detention with minimal public input. The Largest Detention Center in the Northeast Was Approved Behind Closed Doors In Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, county commissioners quietly approved contracts to open what will be the largest immigrant detention center in the Northeast United States. The agreement, valued at over $263 million for the county over five years, was met with immediate criticism from residents who said the decision was made behind closed doors. The lack of transparency prompted the Pennsylvania ACLU to file a lawsuit, alleging that the commissioners violated the state's Sunshine Act, or Open Meetings Law, by failing to provide adequate public notice. Further controversy surrounds the private prison operator contracted to run the facility, the GEO Group, Inc. A federal jury recently ordered the company to pay nearly $17.3 million in back-pay to detainees at another facility for a work program that paid them just $1.00 a day. The proposed Clearfield facility includes the exact same work program. The inclusion of this exact work program in the new facility suggests that profitable but legally dubious practices are being replicated, often before previous legal challenges are even fully resolved, entrenching them in new long-term contracts. A System of Failing Checks Taken together, these four realities reveal a concerning pattern. From a Supreme Court ruling that permits the use of ethnicity in enforcement stops to an internal memo that summarily revokes legal status, the standard checks on executive power are being bypassed or are proving ineffective. At the local level, secretive deals made outside of public view are creating massive new infrastructures for detention with little to no community input. The overarching theme is a systemic failure of oversight. When the courts appear to expand controversial powers and Congress fails to legislate clear limits, the mechanisms designed to ensure accountability are weakened. If traditional oversight mechanisms from the judiciary and legislature are failing, the impetus for reform falls directly on the public to make it an electoral priority.

The Hidden Rules Shaping Immigration Enforcement

<figure id="figure-p4yf2y4mxmj627e5o"><img id="p4yf2y4mxmj627e5o" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/cQPF8JA68qbmRpUJezyaO4HMSZCIj0MboirE24L4zTmzGUR8550p2J6m1MlJxYVJ.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/cQPF8JA68qbmRpUJezyaO4HMSZCIj0MboirE24L4zTmzGUR8550p2J6m1MlJxYVJ.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Introduction: Hook the Reader The headlines are a constant source of anxiety for communities across America: workplace raids, surprise inspections, and aggressive enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As policies have shifted towards more frequent and widespread operations, from agricultural fields to urban businesses, a climate of fear and confusion has taken hold. Many families and business owners feel powerless, uncertain of their rights in the face of federal agents.While many articles cover the basics, they often miss the counter-intuitive and impactful realities of modern immigration enforcement. Understanding these less-obvious truths is not just an academic exercise; it is a critical component of protecting yourself, your business, and your community. The difference between knowing and not knowing your rights can determine whether a situation escalates or is managed with dignity and legal standing.This guide delves into four surprising realities of ICE enforcement. It moves beyond the headlines to reveal the specific rules, tactics, and vulnerabilities that define these encounters. By understanding these truths, you can better prepare for and navigate the complexities of an enforcement environment that touches everyone, regardless of their immigration status.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Your Front Door Is a Powerful Shield—If You Know the Rules One of the most significant and dangerous misconceptions about immigration enforcement revolves around warrants. Many people believe that if an agent claiming to be law enforcement knocks, they must open the door. This is not true, and understanding the difference between two types of documents is your first and most powerful line of defense. The key is to distinguish between a judicial warrant, which is signed by a judge and grants legal authority to enter private areas, and an administrative warrant (often on Form I-200 or I-205), which is issued by ICE itself and does not grant this authority without your consent.The practical, actionable advice is simple but crucial: do not open your door. Instead, ask the agents to slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to a window for inspection. Carefully verify that it is signed by a judge (not an ICE official) and that it lists the correct name and address. Be aware that agents are permitted to lie and may use a deceptive pretext to gain entry, such as pretending to be local police investigating a crime in your neighborhood. Your consent to let them in forfeits your most important constitutional protection against an unauthorized search. This distinction isn't a legal technicality; it is a fundamental check on executive power at the household level, reaffirming that your home is a constitutionally protected space."Immigration agents cannot enter private areas of your workplace without a valid judicial warrant or your consent. Administrative warrants (Form I-200 or I-205) do not grant this authority."2. ICE's Intelligence Comes From Surprising—and Sometimes Personal—Places It's a common assumption that ICE enforcement actions are the result of large-scale, impersonal investigations. The reality is often far more local and personal. In an interview with NPR, ICE Special Agent in Charge Rebecca González-Ramos revealed that her office acts on tips from the public. These tips are not always from concerned citizens; many are "revenge tips" from disgruntled neighbors, ex-spouses, or even business competitors seeking to gain an edge.This reliance on personal grievances is compounded by an expansion of data sharing that blurs the lines between civil life and immigration enforcement. ICE has gained access to personal information from state Departments of Motor Vehicles, as it did in Puerto Rico, and from the federal government, which began sharing the personal information of nearly 79 million Medicaid enrollees with immigration authorities. This data sharing is so formalized that the agreement specifies ICE agents can only review the database during standard business hours, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., as if it were any other administrative task.The implication is chilling: routine civic acts like getting a driver's license or applying for a family member's healthcare are now being weaponized as intelligence streams for deportation operations. This effectively turns our civil infrastructure into a tool of state surveillance, eroding the trust between individuals and the government agencies meant to serve them.3. Legal Status Isn't a Bulletproof Vest A pervasive and dangerous myth is that only undocumented individuals are at risk during an enforcement action. The facts show that even those with lawful immigration status, including green card holders, can be detained or targeted for deportation. These incidents highlight that an encounter with ICE can be a high-stakes event for any non-citizen.The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and green card holder arrested under an obscure 1950s-era law despite having no criminal charges, is a powerful example. And he is not alone. This tactic has been used against other students with lawful status, including Ranjani Srinivasan, Badar Khan Suri, and Yunseo Chung, indicating a broader willingness to target non-citizens regardless of their legal standing. This means that during a worksite raid or if stopped for questioning on the street as part of an operation, a green card holder who left their wallet at home can be detained and transported to a facility simply for verification. This policy creates a permanent state of vulnerability for all non-citizens, blurring the legal lines that are supposed to provide security and due process.This reality underscores a critical point: it is essential for all non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, to carry their valid immigration documents with them at all times.4. You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But You Must Verbally Claim It The right to remain silent is a fundamental constitutional protection that applies to everyone in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. However, unlike what is often portrayed in movies, this right is not automatic. Simply staying quiet is not enough; you must explicitly and verbally state that you are exercising this right.If you are stopped or questioned by an ICE agent, you must clearly state your intention. A simple but powerful phrase is all that is needed: "I wish to remain silent and would like to speak with a lawyer." Once you have invoked this right, you should not answer any further questions about your immigration status, where you were born, or how you entered the country. Crucially, while you are exercising your right to be silent, you must not run, physically resist, or obstruct the agents in any way, as this can lead to criminal charges. Actively claiming your Fifth Amendment right is not an act of defiance but a defense of a core constitutional principle that protects every person from self-incrimination."Anything you tell an agent or officer can be used against you in immigration proceedings."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------A Final Thought The landscape of immigration enforcement is complex and often intimidating, governed by rules that are not always intuitive. The four truths outlined here reveal that the most effective tools for navigating this environment are not defiance or fear, but knowledge and preparation. Understanding the limits of an administrative warrant, the sources of ICE's intelligence, the risks faced even by legal residents, and the proper way to invoke your constitutional rights transforms a person from a passive target into an informed individual. This knowledge empowers you to protect not only yourself but also your family, your employees, and your community.In an environment of increasing surveillance and enforcement, what is the role of the ordinary citizen in upholding the constitutional rights that protect everyone?

4 Surprising Truths About ICE Enforcement in AmericaNew Post

<figure id="figure-hg6votxdzkmj4k01yb"><img id="hg6votxdzkmj4k01yb" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/16CfTU2EkSDGg3ofrzIqRhUPyjM90c85BWr8rbSPm0Gc39fTQoNSIcbnpM9n1ToO.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>Introduction: Cutting Through the Noise U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one of the most polarizing and misunderstood government agencies in America. Between sensationalized headlines and fiery political rhetoric, it can be nearly impossible to grasp how the agency actually functions. However, beyond the noise, a very different picture emerges from government documents, internal training manuals, watchdog reports, and investigative journalism. This article cuts through the rhetoric to reveal five of the most surprising and impactful facts about how ICE actually operates today, grounded in verifiable sources. 1. That "Police" Officer at Your Door Might Be ICE One of the most common and officially encouraged tactics used by ICE agents is identifying themselves simply as "police" to gain entry into private homes and businesses, especially when they lack the legal authority to force their way in. This practice is not random; it is a calculated and systemic methodology written into the agency's own training manuals. The key to understanding this tactic is the difference between two types of warrants: • Judicial Warrant: This is a warrant signed by a judge. It grants law enforcement the authority to enter the private areas of a home or business specified in the warrant. • Administrative Warrant: This document (often a Form I-200 or I-205) is issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security. It does not grant agents the authority to enter a private residence or non-public area of a business without consent. Because agents often operate with only administrative warrants, which provide no legal power of entry, they rely on obtaining consent. The "police" ruse is critical to this strategy, leveraging the public’s trust in local law enforcement to get people to open their doors. In 2020, a lawsuit challenging this "knock and talk" practice resulted in a federal court ruling against it, yet the tactic persists as an institutionalized technique. This misrepresentation has a corrosive effect, eroding the trust between immigrant communities and the local police departments they might otherwise turn to for help. 2. The "Worst of the Worst" Narrative Is Contradicted by Their Own Data The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consistently messages that ICE targets "the worst of the worst," focusing its resources on apprehending dangerous criminals like "child pedophiles, drug traffickers, and burglars." This narrative paints a picture of an agency laser-focused on public safety. This gap between public messaging and on-the-ground reality echoes the deception used at the doorstep. The government's own data tells a different story. As of September 2025, immigrants with no criminal record have become the single largest group in ICE detention. According to official figures, there are 16,523 detainees with no criminal history, compared to 15,725 who have a criminal record and 13,767 with pending charges. This shift reveals a fundamental change in priorities, where meeting politically motivated arrest quotas has taken precedence over the publicly stated mission of targeting dangerous criminals. To hit these numbers, agents are encouraged to make "collateral arrests"—detaining any undocumented individuals they happen to encounter during an operation, even if those people were not the original targets and have no criminal history. The discrepancy between ICE's public messaging and its operational reality reveals an agency driven by metrics over its stated mission. 3. ICE Is a High-Tech Surveillance Agency Fueled by Your Data While the public image of ICE often involves raids and boots-on-the-ground enforcement, a core and rapidly growing part of its mission is a vast, technologically advanced surveillance apparatus that draws on enormous reserves of public and private data. • Data Brokers: ICE uses commercial data brokers like LexisNexis to access enormous databases of personal information. In one seven-month period, the agency performed over 1.2 million searches—a volume that far exceeds what would be necessary for checking only for "serious criminal backgrounds." • Mass Surveillance Software: The agency uses Palantir's "Investigative Case Management" (ICM) system to aggregate data from numerous sources and build detailed, searchable profiles of immigrants. This software allows agents to filter people by immigration status, physical characteristics, and location data to streamline deportation operations. • Cellphone Tracking: ICE deploys cell-site simulators, often known as "Stingrays," inside specialized vehicles. These devices mimic cell towers, tricking nearby phones into connecting to them and revealing their location. Watchdog reports have found that agents often use this technology without obtaining the proper judicial warrants. • Social Media Monitoring: The agency has sought to hire contractors to monitor social media not just for direct threats, but also for "negative sentiment." This plan could flag constitutionally protected criticism of the agency, pulling law-abiding individuals into a threat-monitoring dragnet. Taken together, these tools—from commercial data brokers to warrantless cell phone tracking—transform ICE from a traditional enforcement agency into a modern surveillance apparatus capable of building detailed digital dossiers on millions of people with minimal judicial oversight. In an ironic act of counter-surveillance, artist and researcher Sam Lavigne turned these same data-scraping techniques back on the agency. He wrote a program that scraped the professional networking site LinkedIn to create and publish a database of 1,595 ICE employees. Explaining his rationale, Lavigne noted the subversive power of this reversal. "I find it helpful to remember that as much as internet companies use data to spy on and exploit their users, we can at times reverse the story, and leverage those very same online platforms as a means to investigate or even undermine entrenched power structures." 4. Agents Wear Masks for a Reason—But It Creates a Dangerous Reality In recent years, it has become common for ICE agents to conduct arrests while wearing masks, dressed in plainclothes, and using unmarked vehicles that sometimes lack license plates. The official justification, according to ICE's acting director Todd Lyons, is to protect agents and their families from doxxing and a claimed "830 percent increase in assaults." While he is "not a proponent of the masks," he has stated he will allow them as a tool to keep his personnel safe. However, this practice has dangerous consequences. It blurs the line between legitimate law enforcement and criminality, making it nearly impossible for the public to verify if the armed individuals they are encountering are truly federal agents. This has created a terrifying opportunity for criminals, and there are multiple documented cases of predators impersonating ICE agents to commit horrific crimes, including kidnapping and sexual assault. The lack of clear identification makes accountability nearly impossible and sows deep mistrust. As Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated in response to the practice: "I don’t think you have a right to have a mask and snatch people off the street." 5. A Rush to Hire Has Allowed Unvetted Recruits to Enter Training In the administration's push to hire 10,000 new officers by the end of the year, ICE's accelerated hiring process has been dangerously compromised, according to current and former Homeland Security officials who spoke to NBC News. This failure of internal standards directly compounds the accountability problems created by masked agents operating in the field. The officials revealed that over 200 new recruits showed up for training before being fully vetted. It was only after their arrival that the agency determined they had "failed drug tests, had disqualifying criminal backgrounds, or had not met the physical or academic requirements to serve." The vetting process, which historically took up to a year to complete, has been compressed to as little as two weeks. This rush to meet hiring goals has created a situation where individuals with criminal histories of their own are being placed into a powerful law enforcement training program. The public safety implications of putting unvetted individuals into roles with the authority to carry a weapon and detain people are profound. Conclusion: A Question of Accountability The reality of modern ICE operations is far more complex and troubling than public statements suggest. These five truths are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a consistent operational pattern. This pattern is defined by a reliance on deception to circumvent legal limits, a vast surveillance network that operates with little oversight, enforcement tactics that obscure identity and evade accountability, and a compromised hiring process that erodes internal standards. These are the hallmarks of an agency whose rapid expansion in power, technology, and mission has dangerously outpaced its transparency and accountability mechanisms. As these practices continue, the fundamental question remains: In a democracy, who polices the police?

5 Shocking Truths About Modern ICE OperationsNew Post

<figure id="figure-6urplppg5mj24xcml"><img id="6urplppg5mj24xcml" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/2JYVrs6PEyLpTLkREIQ45k94XlxqwskaIt9D9kwZFujTIJRMeY58tnysjhp0HvcZ.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>Kristi Noem, ICE, and the Gaslighting of Trump Supporters Trump supporters were sold a simple promise: enforce the law, deport dangerous criminals, restore order. Kristi Noem has repeated that frame as the Trump administration’s Homeland Security Secretary, often presenting immigration enforcement as a clean moral divide between “good guys” and “bad guys.” The problem is that the reality of what DHS and ICE are doing does not match the story they are telling their own base.That mismatch is where gaslighting starts. Gaslighting is not just “spin.” It is the steady insistence that what you are seeing is not happening, or that you should ignore clear contradictions because the people in charge say so.The clearest example: “We have not deported veterans” On December 11, 2025, Noem testified at a House hearing and said DHS had not deported U.S. military veterans. Rep. Seth Magaziner immediately confronted her with the case of Sae Joon Park, a U.S. Army veteran who was deported to Korea. Reporting on the hearing describes Noem making the claim and then being challenged in real time with Park’s story. That is not a policy disagreement. It is a flat contradiction of a verifiable fact.If you are a Trump supporter who believes in honoring veterans, you should not have to beg the Secretary of Homeland Security to acknowledge that a deported veteran exists. Yet that is exactly what played out. The government line was “it did not happen,” and then evidence was presented that it did.This is gaslighting because it demands loyalty to the narrative over loyalty to truth. It also signals something worse: if DHS leadership will deny a high profile case in a televised hearing, what do you think happens in low profile cases where there is no camera and no member of Congress pushing back?“Criminals only” messaging while widening the target zone At the same time DHS has pushed a law and order story, the administration removed guardrails that were designed to keep enforcement away from sensitive places. On January 20, 2025, DHS rescinded the Biden era “protected areas” guidance that had limited immigration enforcement actions in or near locations like schools, hospitals and places of worship. DHS and allied messaging framed this as common sense and warned that “criminals” should not be able to “hide” in schools and churches.Here is the trick. A rule change that allows enforcement in or near churches, schools and hospitals does not only affect “criminals.” It affects everyone who needs to go to church, take a child to school, or see a doctor. It creates fear in ordinary life and it pressures entire communities, including people with legal status, mixed status families and even U.S. citizens who live in those communities.When leaders sell this change as simply “catching criminals,” they are asking supporters to accept a comforting label that does not match the consequences. That is gaslighting through euphemism.The “self deportation” campaign is sold as strength DHS has also launched a major “self deportation” push using the CBP Home app, including nationwide ads announced by DHS and additional public messaging about voluntary departure programs. USCIS has also promoted “Project Homecoming” as a self deportation pathway using the CBP Home app.There is nothing inherently wrong with encouraging voluntary departure if it is truly voluntary, lawful and transparent. The issue is how it is framed to the public. Supporters are encouraged to view this as a powerful enforcement victory, as if the government is removing people through classic deportation operations, when much of the effort is persuasion and pressure.A Migration Policy Institute analysis has discussed how the administration’s “self deportation” approach works, including policy moves and messaging that try to incentivize departures. That is important because it highlights what is really happening: a strategy built as much on optics and coercive pressure as on targeted law enforcement.If you are told “we are restoring order by removing dangerous people,” but the system’s big lever is an app and ad campaign to drive departures, you are being sold a picture that is cleaner and tougher than the underlying mechanism.Money for the show: ICE gets its own fleet Another reality check is cost and scale. Reporting in December 2025 described DHS signing a contract worth nearly $140 million to purchase six Boeing 737 aircraft for deportations so the agency can operate its own fleet. That is a major institutional step. It signals that deportation logistics are being built into a more permanent, owned capability, not a temporary surge.Supporters are told this is simply the government doing what it should have done long ago. Maybe. But conservatives used to worry about permanent federal capacity being built in ways that are hard to unwind and easy to misuse. A dedicated deportation fleet is not just enforcement. It is a structural bet on ongoing mass removals, year after year.What the gaslighting does to Trump supporters This is the part that matters. The point is not to win a partisan argument. The point is to call out how Trump supporters are being handled.When Noem denies something that can be verified, supporters are trained to distrust evidence and to treat loyalty as the highest virtue. When DHS widens enforcement zones while insisting it is just about “criminals,” supporters are encouraged to dismiss obvious collateral damage as fake news. When voluntary departure programs are framed as tough enforcement, supporters are nudged to applaud optics instead of demanding clean data.That is not respect. That is manipulation!Consequences that are predictable and already visible<ul><li>Veterans get treated as disposable. The Park case shows what “we support the troops” looks like when it collides with a rigid enforcement posture and political messaging.</li><li>Kids and families feel the fear. Removing protected areas guidance pushes enforcement into spaces where families live normal life, including schools, churches and healthcare settings. </li><li>Trust in institutions erodes further. When leadership statements collapse under basic scrutiny, people stop trusting testimony, agencies, courts and eventually each other. </li><li>Taxpayers fund permanent capacity. Building an owned fleet and expanding infrastructure turns what could be a bounded enforcement policy into a long term machine. </li><li>Law and order becomes a brand, not a principle. Traditional law and order includes restraint, truthfulness and due process. Messaging that denies reality corrodes the very idea. The standard Trump supporters should demand. If you support enforcement, demand it be honest. Demand clear statements that match facts. Demand policies that are narrow, targeted and accountable. Demand that leadership stop using “criminals” as a blanket label to justify everything. Demand that the government respect veterans, respect citizens and respect the difference between enforcement and spectacle.</li></ul>Trump supporters are not children. They do not need bedtime stories. They need the truth, even when it is messy, and especially when it is coming from their own side.&nbsp; Footnotes - People.com, “Kristi Noem Testifies DHS Hasn't Deported Any Veterans. Seconds Later, a Kicked-Out War Hero Calls into the Hearing” (Dec 11, 2025). (People.com) - CBS News, “Noem confronted by House Democrats, including about allegedly removing veterans from U.S.” (Dec 11, 2025). (CBS News) NAFSA, “DHS Rescinds Biden ‘Protected Areas’ Enforcement Policy” (Feb 10, 2025). (NAFSA) - DHS news release, “Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending Abuse” (Jan 21, 2025). (Department of Homeland Security) - Holland &amp; Knight, “Rescission of the DHS Protected Areas Policy: Implications” (Jan 28, 2025). (Holland &amp; Knight) - The Journalist’s Resource, “ICE and hospitals: What the removal of the ‘protected areas’ policy means for hospitals” (May 21, 2025). (The Journalist's Resource) - DHS news release, “DHS Releases New Nationwide Ads to Encourage Self-Deportation” (Jul 29, 2025). (Department of Homeland Security) U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “CBP Home Mobile Application” (Jun 10, 2025). (Customs and Border Protection) - USCIS, “Project Homecoming” (Jul 9, 2025). (USCIS) - Migration Policy Institute, “Can the Trump Administration’s ‘Self-Deportation’…” (Jun 18, 2025). (migrationpolicy.org) - Washington Post, “DHS inks contract to create its own fleet of 737 jets for deportations” (Dec 10, 2025). (washingtonpost.com)

Kristi Noem, ICE, and the Gaslighting of Trump Supporters

<figure id="figure-7fjg0ht6ocmj250hod"><img id="7fjg0ht6ocmj250hod" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/1bGOBHjNqXCerzpSiyq7AaZtrVGevrw4WyLx962ONVQmvFV0tNN5s4rttAhGlmbI.png" alt="Detention & Defiance: A New Immigration Policy Sparks Nationwide Resistance" title="Detention & Defiance: A New Immigration Policy Sparks Nationwide Resistance" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>Introduction: Beyond the Noise The news cycle is saturated with images of immigration raids, tactical gear, and courthouse protests. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed, to tune out the noise of a story that seems to have no end. But peel back the curtain of political rhetoric, and a different story emerges—one fought not on the border, but in the fine print of legal memos and the defiance of federal judges. This isn't another recap of the latest raid. This is a look beneath the surface at the surprising legal maneuvers, the damning data, and the sophisticated community responses often missed in mainstream reporting. We’re cutting through the political rhetoric to reveal five counter-intuitive and impactful truths about what’s really happening with the immigration crackdown in the United States.1. It All Started With a Quiet Memo That Rewrote Decades of Law The massive expansion of immigration arrests and detention didn’t begin with a presidential decree or a new act of Congress. It started with a quiet bureaucratic directive: the July 8 "Lyons Memo," a document that effectively upended decades of established immigration law. For years, the system operated under a clear distinction. Non-citizens already living inside the U.S. were typically subject to discretionary detention under section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning they were often eligible for a bond hearing and could be released while their case proceeded. The Lyons Memo changed everything by radically reinterpreting a 29-year-old statute, section 235(b). Suddenly, the government’s position was that virtually every non-citizen who had ever entered the country without lawful admission was now subject to "mandatory detention" with no right to a bond hearing—no matter how long they had lived in the U.S., raised families, or contributed to their communities. A federal district court highlighted the absurdity of this new legal interpretation with a simple analogy: "someone who enters a movie theater without purchasing a ticket and then proceeds to sit through the first few minutes of a film would not ordinarily then be described as ‘seeking admission’ to the theater.” This seemingly small administrative change had an enormous impact, exposing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who had been living peacefully in the United States to the immediate threat of arrest and indefinite detention. 2. The Unseen Rebellion: Hundreds of Federal Judges Are Striking Down the Policy While this bureaucratic maneuver was designed to operate in the shadows, it has been met with a resounding and public rebuke from the one branch of government positioned to challenge it: the federal judiciary. This isn’t a case of a few activist judges; it is a widespread, bipartisan judicial revolt. According to a Politico report, at least 225 federal judges have ruled against the policy in over 700 cases. In stark contrast, only eight judges have sided with the administration. This wave of opposition is ideologically diverse, coming from judges appointed by every modern president, including 23 appointed by Trump himself. These are not simple procedural rulings. Judges are writing "thorough, persuasive opinions" explaining why the new policy is unlawful. In one particularly strident decision, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York captured the legal and moral weight of the judicial response: "Requiring the detention of noncitizens like [the petitioner in that case] would be inconsistent with how immigration law in this country long has worked, not to mention the rule of law and basic notions of due process." This trend is a critical, underreported story about the judiciary’s role in holding the executive branch accountable to the law, representing one of the most significant legal pushbacks against the administration’s policies to date. 3. The "Violent Criminal" Narrative Collapses Under Scrutiny Even as the administration's legal authority crumbles in court, its public justification for the crackdown—the targeting of violent criminals—collapses under the weight of its own data. The data paints an undeniable picture. Far from a targeted operation against dangerous felons, the crackdown overwhelmingly sweeps up the non-violent. According to HIAS, over 70% of immigrants in ICE custody have no criminal record at all, and a staggering 93% have never been convicted of a violent crime. Data analyst Austin Kocher confirms this trend, noting that the largest growth in ICE detention is among those with no criminal history. This pattern was laid bare during a Chicago enforcement blitz where, by the government's own risk metrics, 78% of those arrested were classified as "low risk." Similarly, a high-profile raid on two California cannabis farms that netted 361 migrants yielded only four individuals with "extensive" criminal records. The gap between rhetoric and reality isn't a crack; it's a canyon. 4. Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Disappear—It Found a Federal Badge The administration's legal end-run isn't just confined to rewriting statutes; it's also reviving unconstitutional policing tactics on the streets of America's largest cities. In places like New York, ICE is effectively reviving the tactics of the NYPD's controversial "stop-and-frisk" era, but with a crucial difference: a lack of oversight. During a recent raid on Canal Street in Manhattan, agents officially tasked with targeting "counterfeit goods" were witnessed stopping people based on their appearance, accent, and perceived nationality to demand identification. This is precisely the kind of racial profiling that led a federal judge to rule the NYPD's practices unconstitutional in the landmark 2013 case, Floyd v. City of New York. The problem lies in an accountability gap. The Independent Monitor established to oversee NYPD reforms has no jurisdiction over federal agencies like ICE. This means federal agents can conduct street-level stops without any requirements for data collection, public reporting, or independent oversight. As one analysis bluntly put it: “Stop-and-frisk didn’t die; it found a federal badge.” This revival of a discriminatory policing tactic through a "federal door" creates an end-run around constitutional reforms, leaving communities vulnerable to profiling without the checks and balances designed to protect their civil liberties. 5. The Grassroots Shield: Communities Mobilize Sophisticated Defense Networks But as federal power asserts itself on city streets, a different kind of power is rising to meet it: sophisticated, organized community defense. The response to the raids has gone far beyond traditional protests, particularly in cities like Chicago, where a complex ecosystem of resistance has emerged. This grassroots movement employs a range of organized tactics, including rapid response networks and hotlines to instantly verify ICE activity, Migra Watch patrols that document raids and inform residents of their rights, and community alerts like the use of whistles to warn neighbors when agents are present. It also includes powerful mutual aid efforts, such as delivering food and groceries to families who are in hiding and afraid to go outside. This is a broad-based movement where people from all backgrounds are "running toward danger, together" to provide a shield for their communities. Organizer Jocelyn Walsh captured the spirit of the resistance: “The best way to respond to fear and intimidation tactics is to show we’re not afraid. We’re going to keep showing up. We’re going to keep speaking out.” Conclusion: A Fight for the Soul of the Law The current immigration crackdown is not a simple story of law and order. It is a complex battle being waged in courtrooms, debated in public discourse, and fought on city streets. The conflict has revealed surprising tensions: between an executive branch seeking to expand its power and a judiciary pushing back; between official government narratives and the stubborn facts on the ground; and between federal authority and the powerful resilience of local communities. As these legal and street-level battles continue, the quiet re-writing of laws and the loud defense of neighbors raise a fundamental question: What kind of country are we choosing to be, one memo and one community at a time?

5 Surprising Truths About the U.S. Immigration Crackdown

Liberaza

An activist apparel label—part protest gear, part community hub, part online shop—built to empower, inform, and unite everyone who believes in defending democracy and human rights.

Daily Post

5 Surprising Truths About Christian Nationalism You Might...

The Hidden Rules Shaping Immigration Enforcement

4 Surprising Truths About ICE Enforcement in AmericaNew Post

5 Shocking Truths About Modern ICE OperationsNew Post

Kristi Noem, ICE, and the Gaslighting of Trump Supporters

5 Surprising Truths About the U.S. Immigration Crackdown