Talk:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Archive 4

The current word count of this article is 9,978 words, which is a length at which that the article size guideline recommends that articles "Probably should be divided or trimmed". More than one-third of the word count (3,416 words) is included in just the Second Trump administration subsection, and just under one-fourth (2,352 words) is included in the Protests and criticism and 2026 killings of American citizens secondary subsections within the Second Trump administration subsection. Much of the content in the Second Trump administration subsection is about a distinct sub-topic, namely policing tactics (i.e. use of force, surveillance, alleged militarization). Also, editors at a requested move for the Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration article have expressed concern about eliminating the Deaths section of that article. As such, I propose splitting the Protests and criticism and 2026 killings of American citizens subsections and related content into a separate ICE policing tactics during the second Trump administration article, and merging rest of the non-excerpted content into the Deportation in the second Trump administration article, the ICE recruitment during the second Trump administration article, the Protests against mass deportation during the second Trump administration article, and the proposed Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article, and other appropriate articles per the summary style's guideline for levels of detail and the content forks guideline recommendations for limiting redundancy and spinoff article summary sections. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment The same editor at the other discussion suggested that the proposed title should be Immigration policing tactics during the second Trump administration rather than ICE policing tactics during the second Trump administration, which I agree with. Also, I would recommend merging this Immigration raids section from the Immigration raids section from the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration into the Immigration policing tactics during the second Trump administration since that section's content (which includes subsections on administrative warrants, facial recognition technology, and sanctuary jurisdictions) is more clearly related immigration law enforcement and tactics rather than immigration detention. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Never wanted ICE to be split. This is a VERY bad idea. Bryce M (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a policy-based argument per the consensus policy's requirements for discussions, and is a statement that could be indicative of ownership behavior. More importantly, an excerpt of the lead section of the new article can be retained in this article as a spinoff article summary section under the content forks guideline. Additionally, it would be better if there was a separate article so that immigration law enforcement tactics used during the second Trump administration (particularly use of lethal force) could have fuller coverage on Wikipedia than this article has space for under the article size guideline. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Never wanted ICE to be split. Also, considering how your comment is worded, I guess I would say that this is a Wikipedia talk page discussion about splitting an article, not a hearing before a United States congressional committee on a bill to separate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement into separate government agencies. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that but look at how much he wants it to be split and how much the article actually needs to be split. Just read the article 3 times like me and you'll understand ~2026-12141-69 (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Partial Oppose So the word count guideline isn't a policy, but general recommendation. The guideline also notes that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". As it stands, I don't think we need to split the article up to the extent proposed, but I do think the "ERO detention centers" section can be split off into a separate "ICE Detention facility controversies" article and then summarized here with one of two paragraphs. I don't think one-off controversies about feeding pork to Muslims back in the early 2000s is relevant to the page as it is, and would be better documented on a separate page about this topic where more detail can be added about conditions in detention. Also, I think creating a general "policing" article is too broad in scope and not specific enough, as just about everything ICE does can arguably be considered "policing" and thus removed from this page. BootsED (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think creating a general "policing" article is too broad in scope and not specific enough, as just about everything ICE does can arguably be considered "policing" and thus removed from this page. What's being proposed is not a general immigration policing article, just an article on immigration policing tactics and during the second Trump administration. That should be sufficiently narrow.

So the word count guideline isn't a policy, but general recommendation. The guideline also notes that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". As it stands, I don't think we need to split the article up to the extent proposed, but I do think the "ERO detention centers" section can be split off into a separate "ICE Detention facility controversies" article and then summarized here with one of two paragraphs. I don't believe anyone here has said that the word count guideline is a policy, and I have consistently noted that it is a guideline at a discussion on the article size guideline's talk page. The section you suggest splitting instead is 1,163 words long, which is far less than the sections being proposed for a split and presents less of a due weight issue than the sections being proposed for a split do. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, making the split would enable the Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration article to be retitled in line with the naming conventions for articles about similar topics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn't mean to suggest you were saying it was a policy, I just wanted to clarify and reiterate the point it was a guideline for people who read this and may not be familiar with it.

There are many articles longer than the current one about similar topics, I just don't think we need such a drastic split at this point. If we split out the ERO section that would bring the word count down to about 8,000, still well within guidelines. I'm not opposed to your edits, I just don't think we are at the point yet where we need to split off that much. I also want to consider WP:COMMONNAME and what people are going to search for. People are going to look up ICE, not "Immigration policing tactics during the second Trump administration".

If you want to make an article about policing tactics, I wouldn't be opposed. There is a lot of detail about such a topic that isn't mentioned here. As time goes on, perhaps sections here could be added to that page. I just don't think it needs to be at this point. BootsED (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Titling the article as ICE policing tactics in the second Trump administration would be imprecise under the precision criterion of the article titles policy per the content included in the Immigration raids section of the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article that would be merged into the new article. The policing tactics covered in that section are not limited to ICE.

Also, the word count of the article is now 10,194 words with the second Trump administration subsection at 3,632 words, and it now includes a "Presence at polling locations" secondary subsection. If a separate immigration policing tactics article were to be created without including the second Trump administration content from this article, its scope would still overlap to a degree where a section move would be appropriate due to overlap. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon closer examination of the Training section (325 words), the Surveillance and data collection technology subsection (780 words), and the Identity-concealing masks subsection (84 words), I see even more content that is arguably giving undue weight to the agency during the second Trump administration rather than its entire history and entirely overlaps with the content from the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article (and is more detailed in the latter). I think provides further justification that for a separate article on immigration policing during the second Trump administration, but perhaps without a focus specifically on tactics.

I mean, the January 20, 2025 version of the article was already 6,023 words, and there appears to have been a few section moves into separate articles and section splits into separate articles already (e.g. Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g), Abolish ICE). Additionally, since this article is neither a featured article nor a good article, unless there is a prior discussion on this talk page or in its archives that decided to keep this article longer than 9,000 words, I would argue that there is no explicit consensus for this article to be longer than 99% of Wikipedia articles per the article size guideline.

This would also counsel for splitting off not just the sections I have proposed splitting, but also the ERO detention centers section since it is currently 1,163 words—which is a longer word count than 80% of Wikipedia articles per the article size guideline and would result in this article being shortened back to around 6,000 words. Given the diversity of subjects that we have articles about that are related to immigration to the United States, I would argue that such diversity would further emphasize creating both an ERO detentions centers article and an immigration policing in the second Trump administration article per the consistency criterion of the article titles policy since there are immigration to the United States articles related to specific presidential administrations, and since are as many or fewer broad-concept articles about categories of immigration detention centers in the United States. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't currently have the bandwidth to catch up on all the details discussed here, so take this with a grain of salt, but as a passerby I'll briefly leave my two cents in case it's of any use.

Moderate support for the split proposal. My perception is that people come to this article either to actually learn about ICE as a whole (its structure, history, emblem, etc) or to learn about what ICE is doing during Trump 2. What ICE is doing during Trump 2 is a significant and independent historical event, takes up a disproportionate amount of the article with respect to the rest of it, and in my view deserves its own article. The main pushback would be if what ICE did during Trump 2 is the primary historical event defining the organization, thus making the current amount of space it takes up WP:DUE on this article, which there's certainly an argument for. But I think everything would be much cleaner if we simply split and left a redirect at the top of the page so people can easily navigate to Trump 2 details from this article and vice versa. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A simple search on Google trends will show an astronomical increase in searches for ICE beginning in 2025 during the second Trump administration as can be seen here. So the fact that an article about ICE will have a larger amount of information about it during this time period makes perfect sense and is wholly due based on the amount of sources out there about it. BootsED (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's totally reasonable, and I see your point. I think a "see also" tag at the top of the page would alleviate this concern to an extent, but still a fair point that ICE is relevant because of Trump 2 and therefore Trump 2 should be described in detail on ICE's main page.

So the two positions are roughly migrate most info Trump 2-related to a new page and keep it all here.

Maybe what would be best is a middle-ground: migrating information to a new page and excerpting multiple sections from it on this page. That way, we would not be limited by this page's word count and could expand Trump 2 content liberally. But it would also allow us to include, in depth, Trump 2 ICE happenings on this page, addressing your concern. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to someone creating this separate page, and I agree there can be a separate article about what ICE in doing in Trump 2. I'm simply opposed to removing information from this page to fill out that separate page at this time. I believe this page is already summary-level and directly related to ICE per the amount of coverage on this topic. If the section was split off, there would 100% have to be an abridged summary here, but I'm not sure how much more abridged you can get than what is here currently.

Another concern of mine is that by removing this information about ICE in Trump 2, that content will be "buried" on a lesser-viewed page and effectively hidden from most readers who are looking for it. Again, I'm not opposed to another page, I'm just concerned about making information harder for readers to find. If this page was at 15k I would definitely agree to this, but it's just not there yet. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:CANYOUREADTHIS says At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. WP:TOOBIG corroborates this. So I think this article, being at exactly the 10k word limit, is at the threshold of being considered, in Wiki policy, "too big".

I agree with your concern about content being buried on a lesser-viewed page and making information harder for readers to find, but I think if we put templates all over this page to direct users to the other page this would help. I also created the sidebar used on this page, and I would replace ICE's hyperlink on the sidebar with that of the new page to attract additional viewership. And using lots of excerpts will ensure people can still read the most important parts of Trump 2 ICE without leaving this page.

If we keep this page too long then lots of readers may be intimidated and may not even make it to the Trump 2 section to begin with. I also think people are more likely to add information to an article when it isn't long, so creating a page specifically for Trump 2 ICE will make editors feel more welcome making additions about ICE during Trump 2.

But most importantly, when a page reaches the point where split discussions start to be had and there's a 50/50 split between editors about whether it's too long, we should ask the question: will the article realistically keep expanding in the near future? If not, there's a serious case against splitting the article. If so, there's no serious case against splitting the article. And I believe the article can only reasonably be expected to expand, i.e., there is no conceivable scenario in which the article remains the same size throughout the next year. Either ICE keeps killing US citizens and gets more notable, they're deregulated, they're abolished, they're deployed at the 2026 midterm ballots (which MAGA politicians have already publicly supported), or something else notable happens that changes the organization and causes this article to further exceed the 10k word threshold, and when this happens, we will have to split the article. So the question isn't whether the article is suitable to split right now as much as it is whether we should be proactive with splitting right now before the article continues to expand. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, article size is a guideline, not a policy. There is no policy that says when an article reaches 10,000 words, it must be split. The guideline notes that articles around this size may be justified based on the scope of a topic to be longer. I'm not sure where you are getting a "10k word limit" from because that statement isn't in the guideline you mentioned. The guideline really only applies at 15k words if you want an unofficial "word limit", which we are not even close to.

If the ERO Detention center section is split off like I have suggested this would bring the article down to about 7-8k words and still be well within the size guidelines. I believe an agency with as much public attention and influence as ICE justifies a longer article. If there is no opposition to this latter split I am willing to go ahead and split this detention facility section off sooner rather than later. BootsED (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've condensed sections of the page and was able to bring it under 9K words. I can probably condense a few more sections and bring it well under 8K words over time. BootsED (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Does the article need to be condensed? I'm worried you might be removing important information from the article for the sake of preventing a split. Have you been preserving the deleted content? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I moved several bits of info from the ERO section to the more appropriate Immigration detention article linked in that section, so information in that instance was preserved. I also added in more summary-style details about the total number of centers and more recent controversies in a new "conditions in detention" section. I also expanded upon a pre-existing source from the Columbia Law Review that I felt was not utilized or summarized properly before.

In other places I removed information that was duplicated twice to only be mentioned once, or information that failed notability requirements. For example, there was a mention of a bomb threat at an ICE facility in Texas I removed as unlike the other two incidents mentioned in that section, it did not have a separate Wikipedia page and did not result in any casualties or injuries.

Other condensing was mostly me removing extraneous and superfluous words and making things more succinct. I also updated sections with newer information such as in the training section and removed some more evaluative quotes I felt were already covered in other sections. Some material, particularly in the data collection section was a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL or quoted primary sources and had too much detail for an article about ICE. I kept the main crux of concerns but avoiding wording that veered more towards speculation. In total I was able to remove roughly 1K words. BootsED (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok in that case it sounds like you have it under control! I do think though that it's inevitable this article will grow and that when it eventually does, a split will be necessary. Not going to push too hard for that to happen right now, but I do still believe a new article is in order and that it's often justified to split prior to meeting the 10k guideline. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a split will probably be necessary at some point. My main concern though is that the current proposal simply says the entire section should be cut out without mentioning a summary here. So the 2026 killings and other important details regarding ICE's history would be kept off this page, which I don't think is warranted. It would be strange that history of ICE would cover its formation, Obama years, Trump 1 years, Biden years, and then Trump 2 years are not mentioned at all. An even briefer summary would need to be kept here. The current proposal does not propose that. BootsED (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I agree that the current proposal should include a excerpts/a summary from Trump 2 rather than cutting it off completely. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Support, the things that happening with ICE used by Trump administration today I think is enough to split into another page. Newyorker86 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong support. Lots of what's in this article doesn't have much to do with ICE itself but ICE under a single administration. Lots of ICE's history section is just protests. That would do better in a different article or in a controversies section. The LAPD and NYPD, even with their troubled histories do not have much controversy stuff in their history section. Leonard LMT (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Add ICE actions Under Obama due to Obama having ice as well to arrest people and putting kids in cages

https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/president-obama-wants-continue-imprisoning-immigrant-families American Angel1 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you please make a formal edit request for the change you would like made? drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 20:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at this article while doing research on ICE enforcement, and I noticed it focuses mostly on the agency’s structure and official role. One thing that seems like it could be expanded is how ICE activity is discussed in relation to everyday public spaces, like airports and community areas, based on how it’s described in other reliable reporting. Some of that coverage brings up concerns about how visible enforcement can affect public perception, especially when it comes to issues like racial profiling and trust in law enforcement. Would it make sense for this article to briefly mention that broader context, or is that better handled in a separate page focused more on social or community impacts? ~2026-27243-59 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

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. Effects on Students and Families One of the biggest consequences is how immigration enforcement affects 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. 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 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. 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 its outcomes 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. Khendrix06 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 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 to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 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)

The new Scary Movie film features a small scene directly referencing and involving ICE,can that be added to the "In popular culture" section? ~2026-31674-64 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)