ICE, ICE, baby

For the first time since Donald Trump was re-elected as President of the United States, polling has shown that support for abolishing ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement, the federal organisation tasked with carrying out Trump’s election promise of “mass deportations”) has exceeded opposition to its abolition. This comes after an ICE officer killed a woman in Minneapolis, who, depending on one’s political narrative, was either killed whilst attempting to murder the officer, or murdered by the officer as she drove away.

Protests and disruptions of ICE operations — including some violent and deadly examples — have been a feature throughout Trump’s presidency, diverting resources and frustrating ICE’s ability to carry out detentions. This only looks set to increase following the extra antipathy the organisation has gained for the killing in Minneapolis, with growing numbers of activists now spending their days following and loudly bringing attention to suspected ICE agents so as to thwart their operations. ICE’s increasing unpopularity amongst the American electorate, a plurality of which voted for a candidate on a ticket of “mass deportations”, shows that what may gain popularity as a slogan or as a neutrally-toned polling question can rapidly lose support once the reality of its implementation becomes clear and the human suffering it necessarily causes becomes real, not abstract.

The fortunes of ICE across the pond offer a valuable and relevant lesson for politicians here in Britain. Reform have committed to deporting 600,000 people were they to be elected, and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s immigration plans have already been dubbed as “establishing a British version of Ice”. These commitments suggest an ICE-like force will likely be formed in Britain after the next election, assuming voting intentions remain steady and the parties follow through on their policy promises (never, alas, a given). It is therefore worth reflecting on how, in light of the situation in America, certain pitfalls can be avoided, and an altogether more successful approach to meeting deportation commitments can be met.

The most visible issue currently hindering ICE is the public resistance to their operations, especially the physical altercations with officers as they attempt to carry out their role. This is a phenomenon already present in Britain: hundreds of activists in Glasgow blocked immigration officers in a day-long stand-off until the detained migrants were freed; a large crowd in Peckham blocked police until a Nigerian overstayer was freed; activists have even stormed Stansted Airport to stop a deportation flight to Africa. Just as in America, there is a section of the British population which is deeply committed to stopping anyone from being forcibly removed from the country. These activists are often organised and coordinated, receiving support from various NGOs and charities, and even tacit if not overt praise and encouragement from politicians.

It is a political reality that throughout the West a significant proportion of those on the left feel no obligation to respect the outcomes of elections. A party standing unambiguously on a given policy and subsequently winning a plurality of votes is not seen as legitimating the implementation of that policy; democratic consent is not treated as the greatest virtue. Instead, a litany of (self-)justifications will be given by activists as to why the government enacting its democratic mandate is wrong, and why they have the right to unilaterally attempt to block it. Be they vague appeals to “human rights”, claims that it contravenes “basic morality”, or objections that the government did not win a plurality of votes in that given area, left-wing activists will see no issue with attempting to block removals, regardless of the expressed wishes of the majority of the public.

Before any scalable program for removals is implemented, it is therefore necessary to incapacitate the anti-democratic agitators who will take it upon themselves to physically block and frustrate the process. This ought to be done immediately and pre-emptively, through the introduction of legislation that specifically criminalises interference in removal operations, such as by assaulting officers, vandalising their vehicles, blocking roads, and so on. The government will face strong tests of its will once it starts removals, and scenes such as those seen in Glasgow and Peckham will initially be replayed during raids. It is vitally important that those anti-democratic agitators — framed in those terms — are not emboldened by early victories and government stand downs. Instead, those who break the law by interfering in removal operations must be arrested, regardless of their numbers, swiftly prosecuted, and imprisoned if their law-breaking persists.

The government must therefore be prepared to imprison hundreds or possibly thousands of agitators who refuse to abide by the law

Thus far, blocking removal operations has been a costless affair for activists beyond their time and energy. For a government to fulfil its mandate on removals, this must change. The imposition of a criminal record, with all the difficulties it leads to, will be sufficient to deter many activists from engaging in such operations. For those more intensely committed to the cause, many of whom will be genuinely convinced that they are engaging in a righteous stand against the modern-day Gestapo, only prison will successfully thwart their continued attempts to block removals.

The government must therefore be prepared to imprison hundreds or possibly thousands of agitators who refuse to abide by the law. When doing so, it must reiterate that a small cadre of left-wing activists and agitators do not have a self-appointed moral veto on the actions that the government was elected to carry out. Lazy comparisons to Putin’s despotism — or, inevitably, Hitler — will be levelled, especially by a media class who will be sympathetic to the agitators. Those imprisoned will likely engage in all sorts of stunts to try and garner public sympathies and dethrone the government, but as with the alleged hunger strikes of jailed Palestine Action activists, these actions will reverberate strongly within left-wing circles but be largely ignored or treated with indifference by the public at-large.

Dismissing comparisons to history’s most tyrannical regimes would be made far easier by ensuring that the tone of the government is bland and almost reticent regarding its program of removals, rather than aping the performative cruelty and unsubtle white nationalism currently found in America. Instead, removing someone with no right to be in Britain should be treated as an unfortunate but necessary role of any responsible government — which, indeed, it is — and not a way to get a kick out of tormenting foreigners. All right-minded people accept that parental discipline is needed when a child misbehaves but are rightly wary of any parent who seems actively gleeful at the prospect of meting out a punishment on their child. And so it is with law enforcement — people will by and large accept that force against transgressors is a necessary requisite for maintaining a functioning society, but not if it is excessive or gratuitously cruel. 

Raids should preferably be carried out away from public view, or ideally not carried out at all

Being an unarmed society, there is no need in Britain for immigration officers to carry the paramilitary apparel or weaponry common of their US counterparts, nor should they be covering their faces. Ultimately, there will be cases where physical force is needed to remove people who are willing to fight — literally — to stay in Britain even without the right to do so. Videos of such encounters can often harm public legitimacy, as the use of any kind of physical force, no matter if justified, brings out instinctual opposition, as the many videos of people crying “leave him alone” or “let him go” as police restrain someone later found with a machete attest to. Therefore raids should preferably be carried out away from public view, or ideally not carried out at all; the most cost-effective and publicly conscionable way to remove people is if they do so of their own accord. Where possible, that ought to be the priority.

The difficulties and growing unpopularity facing ICE ought not be taken as fatal to the idea of largescale deportations of those with no right to remain in Britain. Instead, it provides useful lessons for how to navigate what will undoubtedly be one of the most difficult and controversial elements of any government of the right. As with many issues, the greatest test will not be technical, but one of will power. To succeed, the government must be willing to face down a set of radicalised, self-righteous and anti-democratic agitators, as well as a hysterical media. If too squeamish about dealing with this issue head-on and immediately, it will set itself up for constant turmoil, frustration, and ultimately the loss of public support. Otherwise, it has every possibility of doing what no British government has done so far this century: deliver what the public want on immigration.