… and in fairness, the whole immigration business is all fu. If someone shows up, has no criminal record, and no obvious communicable disease, give them a card and let them go about their business.
Totally with you on the end state: if someone shows up, clears basic criminal‑record and public‑health checks, they should get a card and get on with their life.
The catch is that a century of plenary‑power nonsense has been used to bolt a huge, exception‑based administrative and enforcement machine on top of that simple idea—raids, detention, performance metrics, and overlapping ICE/CBP fiefdoms.
If we want “screen, card, and go” to be real, we can’t just tack it onto the current architecture; we have to unwind the plenary‑power excuse and dismantle the apparatus that’s been built to treat migration as a permanent security crisis instead of a governance problem.
Yes. I agree with the structural/incentive analysis, but it’s not just ICE, remember the latest executioner was a CBP agent and (although I guess as of a few minutes ago he’s now being pulled back) CBP chief Bovino was deliberately sent out to “head” various ICE regions because they weren’t “tough enough.” So, there’s that.
Very good observation Maggie. The bottom line here is that the perverse incentives are constant throughout the entire immigration enforcement apparatus, and the reasons why are *structural*, not just “bad culture” in one agency.
You’ve got a metrics-and-quota logic that rewards arrests, removals, and “shows of force” across ICE and CBP, commanders like Bovino being moved around specifically to dial up “toughness,” and new bonus schemes and 287(g)-style partnerships that literally pay out for higher locate and arrest rates.
Once you wire the entire system around volume, speed, and political theater, it doesn’t really matter which patch on the vest pulled the trigger in Minneapolis—the machinery is built to keep producing the same kind of outcomes.
… and in fairness, the whole immigration business is all fu. If someone shows up, has no criminal record, and no obvious communicable disease, give them a card and let them go about their business.
Totally with you on the end state: if someone shows up, clears basic criminal‑record and public‑health checks, they should get a card and get on with their life.
The catch is that a century of plenary‑power nonsense has been used to bolt a huge, exception‑based administrative and enforcement machine on top of that simple idea—raids, detention, performance metrics, and overlapping ICE/CBP fiefdoms.
If we want “screen, card, and go” to be real, we can’t just tack it onto the current architecture; we have to unwind the plenary‑power excuse and dismantle the apparatus that’s been built to treat migration as a permanent security crisis instead of a governance problem.
I get that completely, but a girl can dream, right?
Amen, Maggie. Amen.
Yes. I agree with the structural/incentive analysis, but it’s not just ICE, remember the latest executioner was a CBP agent and (although I guess as of a few minutes ago he’s now being pulled back) CBP chief Bovino was deliberately sent out to “head” various ICE regions because they weren’t “tough enough.” So, there’s that.
Very good observation Maggie. The bottom line here is that the perverse incentives are constant throughout the entire immigration enforcement apparatus, and the reasons why are *structural*, not just “bad culture” in one agency.
You’ve got a metrics-and-quota logic that rewards arrests, removals, and “shows of force” across ICE and CBP, commanders like Bovino being moved around specifically to dial up “toughness,” and new bonus schemes and 287(g)-style partnerships that literally pay out for higher locate and arrest rates.
Once you wire the entire system around volume, speed, and political theater, it doesn’t really matter which patch on the vest pulled the trigger in Minneapolis—the machinery is built to keep producing the same kind of outcomes.
Agreed.