Talk:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Disputed neutrality

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)

Are these incidents really section worthy?

"Mexican cartel ambush of HSI special agent Jaime Zapata"

I can kinda see this being somewhat relevant to the history of the agency as it did lead to eventual law changes. Not necessarily full section worthy, but y'know, one can argue for it.

"Colombian cartel kidnapping of HSI special agent", on the other hand, seems to be just one isolated incident. 2803:4600:1116:78C:288D:654C:B6C6:64F7 (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The two stories have coverage, though the first one is a bit sensationalist ("infamous and gruesome") and the second one is entirely based on one source which itself is also a bit dramatic ("So began a 48-hour nightmare in Colombia that kept Ortiz teetering on the edge of death").

Considering that this is a large agency that has existed for quite a while, I don't see why these two stories need inclusion specifically. Cortador (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed 'Gestapo' as a comparable international agency.

I believe that listing the Gestapo under comparable international agencies was vandalism / a political statement. All of the other comparable agencies listed were currently operating border protection / customs forces. If you have reliable sources claiming that ICE as an agency is comparable to the Gestapo, please cite your sources and feel free to revert my edit. Even if some sources compare ICE's tactics under the Trump administration (i.e. disappearings) to the Gestapo's, I don't think they are implying that the agencies' missions or structures are similar. OWA187 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by an IP, which I reverted back. Yes, I do think it's some kind of political statement, and the entire article should probably be protected from IPs. Todot3123 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily saying the comparison should go in this section, but Tim Walz recently made the comparison. It is not entirely fringe. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Tim Walz was a loser and his reference to ICE is obviously another underhanded jab at anything to do with border security, which the Biden administration did all that it could to undermine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Just that tim walz makes a statement does not protect it from being fringe. Tonnes of politicians, including tim walz, have spread fringe theories.

The gestapo is certainly NOT a serious comparison, any logical being can tell you that Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be added back. This is not a fringe view. ICE has countless parallels to the Gestapo EarthDude (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude

The Gestapo and ICE are two very very different agencies, one is more of secret police, ICE is more of dealing with organized crime and illegal immigrants. Again, most people who compare them are either spreading fringe or are just using it as a joke. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thats extremely naive and misinformed. Both agencies have been used to crack down on minorities, and both acted outside judicial oversight and with complete impunity from the law. ICE has arrested, detained, and deported a very high score of people who were naturalized citizens and who had no criminal record, including children. ICE being an American Gestapo under Trump is not a fringe view. EarthDude (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Also, my view is not "misinformed", it's just that again, ICE being called the "Gestapo" is simply a joke or fringe theory, and could count as a violation of MOS:LABEL or WP:POVPUSHING(And wikipedia already has too much of an anti-police bias, we don't need more biased junk)

As of right now, the two agencies are extremely different in role. One deports illegal immigrants(the naturalized citizens are likely just mistaken deportation), one is in charge of kidnapping people. Making these comparisons is blatant WP:FRINGE and MOS:LABEL Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum discussion. I am stating why the comparison between ICE and Gestapo are valid and backed by sources and should be included. Stating facts does not equate to bias. Both are in charge of kidnapping and deporting people. Not adding the comparison would be bias by omission EarthDude (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you are presenting biased and fringe information, all of which are WP:FRINGE. Just that you believe ICE is similar to the gestapo does not mean that is the truth, nor does it mean it is a good idea to add to "international comparisons" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

List of comparable agencies in other countries

Is that list really accurate or even needed? I think most of those agencies are more comparable to U.S. Customs and Border Protection rather than ICE e.g. Frontex is a border control agency. They aren't tasked with removing people from countries - that is done by national agencies of the various EU member states. Likewise, Spain's Customs Surveillance Service only does customs, and this article here barely mentions customs at all outside of ICE's full name. Italy's Guardia di Finanza has very broad responsibilities that include catching tax dodgers and working against organised crime.

There's some overlap between ICE and all these agencies, but most comparisons are a bit of a stretch. I propose to limit the list to non-US agencies that have been compared to ICE by reliable sources, or just scratch it entirely. Cortador (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move on June 8, 2025

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement → United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement – If you look at any other article covering a similar agency in the United States, almost all of them begin with "United States" rather than the abbreviated "U.S." PersonMan922 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Reading Latinx Literature

— Assignment last updated by Joseph Borges (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)