Government and nonprofit organization analysis

Ethical Review of ICE

This final report will be a review of the non-profit or governmental agency of the author's choosing. The report will explore the two higher-end topics of ethics and social justice. When it comes to those two topics, there is one agency that just stands out as a great agency or entity to focus on and that is the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Agency, which is part of the broader Department of Homeland Security. The subject of immigration, the status of undocumented migrants and the overall actions (or inactions) of ICE have been a subject of much discussion. There have been presidential orders, courts reversing or blocking those orders, proposed bills in Congress, campaign trail rhetoric and a lot of divergence between what the stated law happens to be and what is actually happening instead. There is also a lot of social banter about all of the above. Further, the agency in question is facing a lot of retention, job satisfaction and other similar issues that must be identified and analyzed.

Background

The basic landscape of ICE and the ground it covers, both politically and in reality, is pretty broad. ICE is charged with controlling the borders, enforcing the laws relating to entering the country legally, enforcing the laws about staying longer than is authorized by a visa and raids on businesses when it comes to all of the above. For example, if a restaurant is raided due to having undocumented migrants working in the kitchen, it is usually ICE that would be the ones doing the raid. The basic premise behind ICE and the laws that they are generally enforcing is that people who are not citizens of the United States can only be here with the knowledge and permission of the United States government and they must leave the country when their period of authorized presence has expired. While that sounds simple enough, it is actually a lot more complicated than that. When it comes to land-based borders, the United States has two neighbors. Those two countries are Canada and Mexico. Canada is actually in pretty good shape financially and socially. When Canadians come to visit the United States, it can be work, pleasure or both. However, there is little controversy or quibbling about their presence as they are typically here legally and they typically go home when they are required to go home. However, Mexico is a different story. To be honest, one could expand the conversation about the southern border to include Central America and even perhaps South America, to a lesser extent. Much of the countries and areas of Central and South America, albeit with some notable exceptions, are hotbeds of drug cartels, crime and corruption. Pollution is commonly out of control, graft and bribery is often the same way and unemployment rates are typically rather high. This leads many people in Mexico and other countries south of the United States to try and get into the United States any which way they can so as to gain employment (legal or not) and get money for themselves or their families (Morris, 2013).

Due to the fairly porous nature of the United States border, these illegal immigrants are typically able to cross into the United States fairly easily and in a repeated fashion. Even people that have felon status and that are expunged from the country multiple times are somehow able to keep coming back over and over again. Indeed, most of the people that are coming across are honest and decent people. They are unable to make a decent living in their home country so they come to the United States to try and find a better life or at least make some income before they return home or are caught by the United States authorities and sent home involuntarily (Gomez, 1993).

When it comes to social justice and ethics, there are absolutely two (if not more) sides to the proverbial coin. While it may be easy to say that the rule of law should hold true and that anyone coming across the border illegally or staying past their allowed time should be deported, it is not remotely that simple. One major reason for this is that ICE does not have the manpower or resources to deport the twelve million or so undocumented migrants that are projected to currently be in the United States. Second, while Mexico is not on part with what Cuba used to be or what North Korea or Iran is now, it and countries like it are quite rough for the people when they live there. Further, a lot of the undocumented migrants who have made it here and that have been here for some time either already have family here or they create ones upon their arrival. Even if the latter is deemed as controversial and perhaps deemed as a wedge to stay in the United States despite lack of legal status, there is an optics problems when it comes to breaking up families because a father is being deported and a son or daughter is left behind (Stevenson, 2013).

In a nutshell, the United States has continually allowed the border to be porous, they have continually granted automatic citizenship status for those that are born here even if the parents of the child are not present legally in the United States and the people that are coming here are absolutely coming here due to horrible conditions such as rampant poverty, lack of proper infrastructure, gang/drug cartel violence and so on. Further, the root cause of the problem is not the making of the United States government or can the United States government really do anything about the fact that the governments and societies of Mexico and similar countries are so poorly managed. Perhaps all of this is why there is a clear disconnect between what the laws of the land happen to say and what ICE is actually doing. One sterling example of this would be the government reaction to the recent border surge that occurred along the Mexican border whereby thousands of immigrants came across the border. Many of those that came across were sent to residential camps while some others were released. Quite recently, one of the camps was ruled as having deplorable conditions and that it was not acceptable for the people to be housed there. However, the chances that those people will be deported is quite small because the overall number of deporting of these and other illegal immigrants has been quite low. This is despite the fact that four out of five of the immigrants who have come recently did not attend immigration-related hearings as they were supposed to, assuming the hearings are not delayed (Barrett, 2015).

On top of all of the above, efforts to crack down on immigration and the security of the border have been met with a number of catcalls about the civil rights of the undocumented migrants, the breaking up of families, the living conditions that they exist in while they are in the United States, the talk of "bring us your huddled" masses in American lore and so forth. Essentially, there is a dichotomous paradigm where some people are catering to or even pandering to those that cross illegal while others want it brought to a halt. ICE is caught in the middle as what the law says is not really what is being enforced and there is also a lot of question as to what the laws should be and how they should indeed be enforced when they are written. Of course, there have been efforts to pass legislation in recent years and decades to deal with the mass of undocumented migrants that are here but nothing of substance has happened since the 1980's when Reagan and others granted amnesty to a number of undocumented migrants. However, the fact that the law and what is actually being put into practice in the field for ICE is so different is obviously creating ethical and procedural nightmares for ICE officials. It is true that the ethical question and the talk of social justice should be answered. However, there should also be a match between what is on the books from a law standpoint and what is actually done and that is simply not the case a lot of the time nowadays (Hall & Sutton, 2003).

Explanation of Ethical Issues

When it comes to ethics, there are two basic questions that challenge ICE, how the organization is led and the laws that ostensibly are supposed to underpin what they do and why. The first major issue is that there is indeed a humanitarian concern when it comes to people from Central and South America. It is certainly not on the level of Africa, by any means. However, the amount of poverty, crime and corruption that are tearing apart Mexico and other nearby countries is certainly of large concern and there is only so much that the United States can do directly to address that problem. Instead, ICE and the rest of the United States government has to figure out how to react to the problem as it exists (Cade, 2013).

Given all that, many say that there should be a wide amount of latitude and discretion made available to the ICE bigwigs when it comes to what they do. However, this runs against the current of many people that say it is not ethical or legal to just ignore the law a majority or most of the time. Doing so is along the lines of what was discussed in the work of Alexander and Richmond and is what is known as cider house rules. Acting in ambivalence and against the rules of the outside or broader world may make sense to some when it comes to immigration enforcement but this is simply not the case (Alexander & Richmond, 2007). Even so, many point out that the United States is one of the most (if not THE most) powerful and wealthy country in the world and thus should (or must) help people in whatever ways they can. At the same time, there are plenty of people that are legally in the United States (most of them citizens) that live in fairly to very poor conditions and many argue that they should come first when it comes to assistance. Further, there is the concession that many offer that the United States cannot be the savior for all that are suffering and hurting and this is especially true when it comes to people that are outside of the United States. Also, it is asserted that even undocumented migrants have due process rights in the United States (Cade, 2013)

The second major ethical issue is instilling a collection of regulations and laws that makes sense, that is actually workable and that can be enforced without a lot of meddling from ICE executives and other managers. A certain amount of discretion should always be present just because there are outliers that should not be treated like the larger group. For a real-world example, one could cite Elian Gonzalez. Of course, he is the young boy that came to the United States via the water and his mother died en route from their native Cuba. His father remained back home in Cuba itself. Fortunately for Elian, there were relatives of his in the state of Florida. However, his father obviously wanted his boy returned. The latter ran counter to United States policy at the time because Cuba was basically one of those countries were people were granted asylum if they could make it to dry land. However, Elian was eventually returned to his father in Cuba even though that is not what would normally happen. Although he had family in Florida, his father technically should have control over him since the mother was dead. However, the armed raid by federal agents that occurred to extract Elian from the home he was in was a bit of an eyesore and public relations headache (Contreras & Skipp, 2000).

The above encapsulates the major issue. The laws on the books are not being enforced and this is because ICE and other federal agencies are actively telling their people not to do so. Further, there are a ton of people that assert that the non-enforcement of these regulations is indeed the right thing to do and that the laws should be changed. Further, there are those that say that the illegal aliens currently in the United States should be legalized and be given a chance at citizenship should they meet certain conditions. There are a lot of people on board with doing one last mass legalization of illegals (it has happened twice before in the last half century) but many assert that the border being porous is going to create a mad dash so that people not currently in the country can perhaps get legalized. Further, many people are actively taking advantage of the "citizenship upon birth in the United States" loophole to keep their children (as well as themselves) in the United States. Lastly, if the border is not truly secured and a comprehensive solution is not found, mass legalization will become necessary yet again ten to twenty years down the road (Motomura, 2010).

There is a solution that is ethical and teeming with social justice. However, the politicians in power need to have the courage to put it into place. That is the job of the Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate. As such, there is not a lot that ICE can do about that. What will need to happen for ICE to do its job effectively is a securing of the border and a setting of standards that will actually be followed. Because the Department of Homeland Security (and its child agencies like ICE) are controlled by people appointed by the President, the laws need to be very specific about what ICE should do, what they should not do and so forth. The leaders of ICE, upon enactment of any comprehensive immigration reform, need to follow the laws to the letter unless there is an overarching reason why that should not happen in a given situation. While politicians might be apt to pander and insist that the laws must not be enforced, the laws written must prevent or at least mitigate the changes of this happening because doing otherwise is lawlessness and this just creates bigger issues like the one that is being spread and created right now (Hinojosa-Ojeda, 2012).

However, there are limits to what ICE should do and this includes if the law sanctions a given behavior or some form of it. For example, for times where illegal immigrants are held in camps and posts like is happening right now, the conditions at these camps should be clean, sanitary, temperature-controlled and comfortable. People should not be crammed into the rooms and there should be relative freedom of movement for the people there. Even better, ICE should be part of a system that keeps the stays of illegal immigrants into the country to a bare minimum. If it is figured out right away that someone will be deported, then they should be deported right that minute rather than letting the bureaucracy wheel turn for a couple of weeks or months. Regardless of the policy that is enacted and followed by ICE, the people that are being worked through the system should be treated with dignity and respect. Even if what they are doing is technically a crime, one can hardly blame them for try and come to the United States when one thinks of it from a social justice standpoint. Further, if the border is actually secured and there is a controlled flow of people across the border, the amount of people that would have to be processed in that manner would surely fall Hinojosa-Ojeda, 2012).

Recommendations

The author of this report would offer the following recommendations when it comes to ICE and who controls them:

Get a revised set of standards via an act of Congress what clearly defines what ICE is to do and not to do. Either the rules on the books need to be enforced as written or they need to be changed on humanitarian or policy grounds. Either way, the current ignorance of the regulations in force should not be allowed to continue.

ICE personnel and management should not be inhibited from doing their job as called for by the law and no outside personnel (politicians, etc.) should be doing the same. There should at no point be race-based policies or political pandering that get in the way of ICE doing what it is charged with doing. Doing so can be dangerous. For example, if a known felon is captured by ICE, at no point should that person be freed within the United States. However, it can happen and has happened.

Regardless of the policy in force, the undocumented immigrants should be treated with dignity and respect. They are people just like the ICE personnel are people. ICE should recognize that most of the people that cross the border are just desperate and they are not evil. If there was a legitimate system in place that allowed them to immigrate, work and return in an orderly way, the border situation would not be nearly the mess that it is now

At no point should ICE management or personnel enforce the laws as they see fit -- only as they are written. If the law is bad, then the burden is on Congress to change the law. As noted before, ignorance or ambivalence of what the law says just creates a bigger mess because there is not a unified standard by which the whole paradigm is handled…but that is the way it should be. Just like people should stop at red lights and just like people generally apologize when they bump into someone, there needs to be a defined set of norms and rules and they should be followed. If the rules on the books do not pass social justice muster, the rules have to be changed and those new rules should be followed. Making things up as one goes along may sound noble to some but it makes the system dysfunctional and people's definition of the "right thing to do" will vary based on their worldview, motives and ethics. There needs to be a single ethical standard that drives all ICE activities regardless of the particular situation at hand.

A lot of what is creating the mess for ICE is out of their control and only Congress can fix it. This includes authorizing more secure borders as well as crafting rules and regulations about how to handle illegal migrants when they come to the United States. ICE personnel are very much caught between a rock and a hard place and the means to fix that paradigm is not really in their control. That being said, the laws should be enforced as written and any manager in ICE or DHS that is mandating otherwise is derelict in their duty. Disagreeing with the law as written is one thing but breaking the law or at least ignoring it is another altogether.

Factors Affecting Implementation

Many of the factors that will affect implementation of a broad solution have already been mentioned in part but they will be summarized here with specificity:

Congress/President -- They ultimately control what laws are on the books and thus the laws that ICE should be following

Panderers/Influencers -- These are the people, some ICE/DHS personnel and some not, that try and steer what ICE does and why. Some insist that the laws should be followed to the letter while others say that this would be unethical and/or would lack social justice. There are obviously arguments for both sides that hold at least some water form a logical standpoint.

Border -- So long as the border is easy to cross and infiltrate, ICE's stated mission of controlling said border and immigration in general will not be easy to do

Advocacy/Lobbying Groups -- These are the groups that try to levy influence against Congress and its members. Examples would be Latino groups like La Raza and groups desiring better border control like the Minutemen.

United States Department of Justice -- This agency of the federal government would certainly have a heavy amount of influence given that crossing the border improperly is a crime and a lot of the people that do so are otherwise felons to begin with.

Expected Outcomes

Given the current political climate, not a whole lot will likely change in the coming months. The first good chance of there being a change would be when the 2016 Presidential elections happen. If a Republican wins office and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, there is a good chance that they would be able to pass at least some legislation relating to border control and the purview of ICE. However, just about anything passing through the Senate has to have sixty votes to come to a final vote and the GOP does not have that right now. Further, they probably will not have that after the 2016 elections either. Even so, there is at least a chance that the GOP could get some Democrats to cross the political aisle and there would not be a Presidential veto to worry about if a Republican is in the White House.

As for the agency ICE itself, it would seem that the status quo of selectively enforcing the laws would seem to be given legitimacy by the people running the agency. This should not be allowed to stand but it would seem to be the norm for at least the time being. One thing that a new President could do (Republican or Democrat) is insist that the laws on the books be followed until/unless something new comes along to takes its place. The author of this report expects a Democrat to keep the status quo (in keeping with what Obama's people are doing) and a Republican to take a harder line.