> If ICE were doing exactly what its mandate says on paper (enforcing immigration law and deporting people who are in the country illegally) would you still say

> If ICE were doing exactly what its mandate says on paper (enforcing immigration law and deporting people who are in the country illegally) would you still say the same thing? They are not doing what the mandate says on the paper. So, the question is moot. If the "paper" said, "ICE is allowed to use arbitrary force and abuse" I would still call them Gestapo, because Gestapo was also legal. > It seems that critics oppose the law itself, but then frame the argument as “ICE is bad because it breaks the law,” rather than acknowledging that the real disagreement is over whether those laws should exist at all. This is bad faith claim. It is possible to disagree about multiple things at the same time. It is possible to disagree about the law. And simultaneously find ICE completely morally depraved and violent, just as their defenders. In fact, one can agree about the law and still think that government force killing people and being violent against opposition is a bad thing. So very openly: I think that stealing from shops should be illegal. I think that police beating people for stealing would be wrong and murdering people who oppose the "beat people who steal" law also wrong.