When ICE Becomes the Face of a Wider Legitimacy Crisis
Image by Colin Lloyd.
Why has ICE become a national flashpoint even for people who are not at immediate risk of deportation? The answer isn’t simply immigration policy. It is legitimacy. Under this administration, enforcement has become a public language of governance—highly visible, often forceful, and paired with thinner transparency and weaker restraint.
Start with what ICE says it is. ICE describes its mission as enforcing immigration laws and conducting criminal investigations to preserve national security and public safety. That framing matters because it gives enforcement the moral vocabulary of “safety” and “security.” But in neighborhoods shaped by repeated contact with raids, detention, and surveillance, ICE often means something else: the moment policy turns personal, when federal authority arrives at work, at home, in court, or through a local jail.
That “up close” presence is why ICE becomes a symbol in a way few agencies do. People don’t encounter a trade policy in the street. They rarely feel a tax code in their bones. They do encounter enforcement. And when it is disruptive—rooted in the fear of removal—the politics stop being abstract. For many communities, ICE becomes the most legible face of the state: not a debate, but an arrival.
This is also why the moment can’t be explained by personality alone. President Donald Trump is in office, and the administration has embraced a security-first approach that treats enforcement not as one tool among many, but as a central expression of authority. Still, the backlash is not only about rhetoric or temperament. It is about a governing style—one carried by institutions, procedures, and routine operations, even when headlines move on. In that sense, ICE is not just an agency; it is a method made tangible.
The protests have been widening because immigration enforcement is increasingly hard to separate from the broader policing ecosystem. In many places, the line between “local law enforcement” and “federal immigration enforcement” blurs through information sharing, jail cooperation, and practical coordination. And even when officials insist the systems are separate, everyday life doesn’t always feel that way. People hesitate to report crimes, testify, seek help, or show up to public institutions when routine contact can trigger immigration consequences. That is how an immigration agency becomes a public safety issue—not because immigrants are threats, but because fear corrodes trust.
Race then turns this from a policy dispute into a legitimacy crisis. This does not require slogans to see: when enforcement intensifies, burdens do not fall evenly. Racial profiling, selective scrutiny, and unequal exposure to coercive power shape how communities interpret enforcement—whether they experience it as neutral administration or targeted pressure. Over time, those experiences harden into a shared conclusion: that “law enforcement” can operate as selective pressure, not simply rule application. That is one reason opposition to ICE can widen beyond immigrant communities alone.
Federalism adds another layer of friction. Many cities and states limit cooperation with ICE because they believe aggressive enforcement undermines trust, harms public safety, or diverts resources from local priorities. Whatever one thinks of these policies, the tension is real. Federal decisions generate local consequences, but the officials managing those consequences—mayors, sheriffs, school leaders, service providers—often have limited leverage over the federal choices shaping daily life. When authority is centralized but costs are localized, legitimacy fractures.
Accountability concerns deepen the break. Immigration enforcement relies heavily on detention, and conditions inside detention facilities have faced repeated scrutiny from journalists and rights advocates. When the state’s most coercive functions operate behind fences, under complex contracting arrangements, and with limited public visibility, oversight becomes harder and suspicion grows. You don’t have to assume bad faith to see the result: as transparency thins, distrust accelerates.
Put these forces together—policing overlap, racialized impact, federal-local conflict, and thin accountability—and the widening protests make more sense. People are not forming one neat coalition with one neat message. They don’t need to. What is forming is a convergence: different communities recognizing familiar patterns—selective pressure, low visibility, and weak restraint—inside ICE’s operations, then treating ICE as the clearest place to contest the broader model those patterns represent.
The deeper question, then, is not whether immigration laws should exist. It is what it means for a democracy when enforcement becomes a substitute for consent—when compliance is demanded through visibility and force rather than earned through legitimacy and accountable governance. When an agency becomes a symbol, it is often because people believe the normal channels of influence are failing: elections, hearings, oversight, and community input feel too distant from the machinery that shapes daily life.
Protests against ICE should be read less as a single-issue flare-up and more as a warning about governance itself. When a state increasingly asks for compliance without earning consent, symbols form—and conflict spreads. ICE draws resistance not because it is the only agency that matters, but because it has become one of the clearest sites where power is exercised up close, in public, and with limited restraint. The question that remains is blunt: how long can a democracy run on enforcement as a substitute for legitimacy before people stop believing the system can restrain itself?
The post When ICE Becomes the Face of a Wider Legitimacy Crisis appeared first on CounterPunch.org.