Talk:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The article is, in many places, poorly cited and in my opinion clearly trying to paint a positive picture of ICE. As an example, under the heading "HSI Domestic Operations" we find what almost reads like a hagiography: an extended list of achievements: so-and-so much fentanyl seized, so-and-so many poor, innocent children saved from sex traffickers. The entire section basically only cites one source per paragraph, and these sources include the official HSI website and an article from 2006 about a man arrested for CSAM possession.

I have no place to dispute the facts, but "highlight reel" is hardly an appropriate tone for an article on a police agency. Imagine if the article on the Stasi opened by listing the number of pedophiles they arrested over their lifetime (not saying ICE is the Stasi, but they share in common that they are heavily scrutinized state agencies and the former has at the very least been accused of once in a while testing the limits of the rule of law, much like the latter).

In fact, criticism of ICE has been quarantined to a frankly ridiculously small final section (compared to the size of the rest of the article) that is not even titled "criticism", which is the informally adopted standard heading for bringing up controversies. Serious allegations of sexual abuse and forced sterilization are hidden away under the hardly eye catching "ERO detention centers" heading,

The detention of Mahmoud Khalil, arguably one of ICE's largest controversies, is not mentioned anywhere. His name shows up nowhere in the article, and the same is true for a variety of other recent major events. In my opinion, some of these deserve not only large sections with their own headings, but deserve to be brought up in the lede, or at least before the first subheading.

I have no evidence of malicious editing but I am also a bit surprised that this article is completely unprotected. Is this something worth bringing up to admins? Får ej ge blod (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added a tag regarding the excessive use of primary sources in this article. You are correct that several large sections of this article are only based on one or two references from ICE itself. BootsED (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the article lacks neutrality, but the main reason seems to be that people haven't really taken the time to update it with the events of the 2nd Trump administration which seem to have really damaged ICE's reputation. If you want to update it you can, while trying to remain well-sourced and factual. Alenoach (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION and WP:DUEWEIGHT Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

note: there WAS a section headed 'Criticisms' (said section is still linked to from the 'Abolish ICE' article). I suspect there is some adversarial/partisan editing going on here.

also The 2025 protests section needs additional / sourced content and updating. Dano67 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on neutrality and poor sourcing. I would add that a lot of what is under criticism could be reorganized so it's not one giant paragraph (or two small sentences) and could be expanded. And there should be more neutral reporting of recent events (since 2017) in the "History" section. I'd suggest dividing the History section into eras (the history is short enough that going by each presidential tenure would work) and describing what ICE did under each president. Lastly, I'd suggest folding in or duplicating most of the the "ERO" section into "History". If readers just wanted a history, they should get the overview of everything, and not have to know to dive into the ERO section. Gegenpresser (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Just my two cents, while I agree the pre-Trump version of the page wasn't neural as it was trying to paint ICE in a positive light, since the recent updates its still not neutral, only now it's nearly all negative. There should be more neutral reporting, for example, while the criticism of ICE's tactics and the way they're doing things is valid and should be pointed out, I don't see any mention of the fact that there are a lot of people who support their overall goal of deporting undocumented aliens and increasing border security in an effort to stem the tide of illicit methamphetamine, fentanyl, xylazine and other drugs Mexican cartels are bringing across the border. Or the theories that ICE's increased use of excessive force and intimidation is at least partly due to the violence and harassment against ICE agents from day one of Trump's administration. I agree that this article definitely needs extended-confirmation protection and re-written by an admin...then again the page about Trump is extended protected and clearly has a lot of bias in it. Efeesh (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no mention of 4th and 5th amendment violations, the recent court cases, or the agencies refusal to uphold SCOTUS orders. SydCarlisle (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

MKs detention not important 2603:7000:E200:1305:EC20:A87E:31AD:32F6 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have edited the lead to actually recount what ICE is up to these days, as opposed to the pre-Trump era.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's well-written, but putting it directly in the first paragraph may not be ideal, and there is some redundancy with the current last paragraph of the lead:

"ICE has been involved in multiple controversies over its existence, with significant increases in criticism during the first and especially the second administration of Donald Trump. Following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025, ICE became the largest and most well-funded federal law enforcement agency in U.S. history. Its aggressive enforcement actions, controversial publicity campaigns, and militarization resulted in significant drops of public support and raised concerns over a lack of accountability and civil rights violations."

By the way, has the disputed neutrality issue been addressed? Can we remove the "POV" tag? Alenoach (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a TDS, everything looks like hate speech. The article is neutral. Except for maybe the part about the "uninvestigated sexual assults" - what's to investigate? Women lie about rape routinely in attempt to avoid arrest and responsibility. ~2026-54914-4 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:Soap

Grow up SydCarlisle (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2026-28820-85 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sections to be Added: I will be adding a new section titled “Public Impact of Immigration Enforcement” and expanding areas related to criticism and public effects, specifically focusing on students and families, community trust, and public perception. Public Impact of Immigration Enforcement Immigration enforcement does not just affect undocumented individuals. It affects students, families, and entire communities, including people who are citizens but still feel the effects through their family members or environment. These consequences are not always obvious at first, but they show up in things like school performance, community trust, and access to opportunities. This connects to Joel Best’s outcomes stage, which focuses on what actually happens after policies are put into place and how they affect people in real life. Effects on Students and Families One of the biggest consequences of immigration enforcement, and a key part of Best’s outcomes stage, is how these policies affect students and families. Even if someone is not directly at risk of deportation, the fear that a parent or family member could be taken away creates a lot of stress. Research shows that this kind of environment makes it harder for students to focus in school and stay on track academically.¹ Some families also start avoiding places like schools or community programs because they do not want to risk any interaction with authorities. That means students lose access to support systems that are supposed to help them succeed. On top of that, family separation can have long term emotional effects, especially for kids, who may feel unstable or uncertain about their future.² This kind of stress does not just affect individual students. When many students in the same school are dealing with these issues, it can impact the overall learning environment. This shows how the outcomes stage goes beyond individual experiences and affects larger systems like schools. Teachers may struggle to support students who are facing these challenges, which can lead to declines in overall classroom performance.¹ Community Trust and Public Safety Another important outcome, and another example of Best’s framework, is how these policies affect trust in communities. Stricter enforcement can make people feel targeted, which leads to less trust in law enforcement. Because of this, people may be less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police. For example, if someone is worried that talking to police could affect their immigration status or a family member, they might choose not to say anything. Research supports this idea. Studies show that when local law enforcement works with immigration enforcement agencies like ICE, people are significantly less likely to trust that police will protect them, their families, or their rights.³ This creates a bigger issue because it affects the whole community. When fewer people report crimes, it makes it harder for law enforcement to do their job, which can make communities less safe overall. Public Opinion and Perception Public opinion also plays a big role in shaping immigration enforcement policies, which connects to how outcomes are influenced by people’s beliefs. Many people believe immigration increases crime, even though research does not support that claim.⁴ Public opinion data shows that Americans are divided on immigration enforcement, with many supporting stricter policies while others believe they are too harsh.⁵ This helps explain why these policies are still debated and supported, even when their outcomes may not match their intended goals. It shows that policy decisions are influenced not just by data, but by perception and public belief. Conclusion Overall, looking at immigration enforcement through Joel Best’s outcomes stage shows that these policies have real and sometimes unintended effects. They impact students, families, and communities in ways that go beyond what is usually talked about. It is not just about the policies themselves, but what they actually do in people’s lives. What stands out is that a lot of these effects are not always considered when policies are created or supported. Things like fear, stress, and lack of trust can build over time and affect entire communities, not just individuals. This shows that immigration enforcement is not just a legal or political issue, but a social issue with long term impacts.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Due to "better source needed" template, change Citation 81 ("ICE Is About to Get More Money Than It Can Spend". jacobin.com. July 3, 2025. Retrieved July 7, 2025.) to (Gambino, Lauren (2025-07-03). "How Trump's bill will supercharge mass deportations by funneling $170bn to Ice". The Guardian. Retrieved 2026-05-24.) whosflorence 01:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: That source does not support the text in the article. Day Creature (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion here, please contribute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)