ICE Deportations: Order or Overreach?

We will be at Southeast Regional Library in Room C

About the Group: This is a friendly Socratic Café where we explore big ideas through open conversation. No philosophy background is needed, just curiosity, respect, and a willingness to share and listen.

1) Theme 1: The Government

a. When public opinion leans toward stricter enforcement, does the government have an independent responsibility to set moral limits, or is it more democratic to follow what voters ask for—even if that means tougher policies?

i. “Most Americans support a path to legal status for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, but they also back stronger border security and the deportation of noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.”
ii. “Roughly one-third of U.S. adults (32%) say all immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, while 16% say none should be deported. About half (51%) say at least some should face deportation.”
*iii. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/americans-views-of-deportations/*

b. Certain immigration policies clearly benefit citizens while placing most of the burden on non‑citizens, is it ever legitimate for a government to prioritize its own citizens’ interests, and if so, where should the line be?

i. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act sharply restricted access to federal benefits (Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, TANF, etc.) for most noncitizens, while keeping them available for citizens.
*ii. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-public-benefits-us*
*iii. https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3734/text*

2) Theme 2: The ICE Agents

a. If an ICE agent finds a particular deportation personally troubling but is operating within an agency whose policies and priorities they do not control, where does the primary moral responsibility lie: with the individual agent, or with the institutional culture and leadership that designed and ordered the enforcement in the first place?

b. When ICE agents carry out raids wearing masks or minimizing personal identifiers, to what extent is this a reasonable way for individual agents to protect themselves and their families from doxing, harassment, or threats—and how can we balance that concern for their safety with the public’s interest in transparency and accountability?

i. According to DHS data summarized in recent news reports, assaults against ICE officers have increased by roughly 1,000–1,300% and death threats by about 8,000%
*ii. https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/rise-in-ice-monitoring-doxxing-due-to-dangerous-rhetoric-federal-officials-say-death-threats-surge-trump-administration-law-enforcement*
iii. Judge blocks California's ban on federal agents wearing masks but requires badges be clearly seen
*iv. https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/judge-blocks-californias-ban-federal-agents-wearing-masks-130009301*

3) Theme 3: The Undocumented Immigrants

a. If someone has lived in the U.S. without legal immigration status for many years and built strong family and community ties, how should we think about what ought to be done with them now—especially compared with people abroad who have waited and followed legal immigration channels?

b. Without placing moral blame on undocumented immigrants themselves, how can large‑scale undocumented immigration undermine the purposes of immigration laws—such as maintaining a fair, orderly system and protecting social trust—and what does that imply about the importance of enforcing those laws?

i. “Employers take advantage of the climate of fear this creates to prevent workers from reporting workplace abuses. Workers who find the courage to speak up can be retaliated against in ways that can set the deportation process in motion.”
*ii. https://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-labor-standards-enforcement/*

4) Theme 4: The Protesters

a. If non‑violent civil disobedience, such as blocking a vehicle or delaying an operation, both prevents a particular deportation and increases safety risks for everyone involved (including the person facing removal), should it be seen as a justified tactic or as an irresponsible one in a system based on the rule of law?

b. If certain protest strategies risk creating a public backlash—either strengthening support for stricter enforcement or weakening support for the cause—does a movement have a responsibility to moderate its tactics, or is that kind of backlash an acceptable cost of principled protest?

i. (Clarification: This question highlights a common concern among pro enforcement people that disruptive or high visibility protests can backfire by pushing the broader public toward “law and order” politics and stronger enforcement, so it asks whether movements should temper their tactics to avoid strengthening support for the very policies they oppose.)