Moyse: What You Have in Common With ICE

What do we do? 

This phrase has run through my head nonstop since I watched the video of Alex Pretti being gunned down by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis, Minn. From what I’ve read online, I’m not the only one. Operation Metro Surge feels like a violent and profoundly scary turning point. I won’t try to describe the terror it has caused, because I’m sure almost all of you are feeling it, too. 

However, it is with this terror that I also deliver a reminder to members of the left. Although this might be exceptionally controversial right now, I want to point out a resounding commonality I find between many on the left and those who have joined ICE — a visceral desire for economic justice. Identifying this shared goal is the first step towards maintaining the moral fabric of our country and working together towards a better future.

Beneath a lot of the concerning recruiting that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have been propagating, ICE and President Donald Trump’s regime of deportation comes from a deep-seated sense of economic anxiety. The American middle and lower-middle class have suffered severe economic stagnation over the last two to three decades. Too many American households are living paycheck to paycheck. For many, it seems increasingly impossible to transcend the economic caste they were born into. The top 1% of Americans currently own 31.7% of all wealth in the country — roughly equal to the amount the bottom 90% of Americans hold, according to data from the Federal Reserve. 

Many Americans have similar goals but have profoundly different approaches to achieving them, because of both divergent understandings of the world and backgrounds.

Naturally, when economic inequality this sharp emerges, the general public looks for people to blame. The American people have splintered into two primary rhetorical camps. On the left, politicians generally blame incredibly wealthy corporations and plutocrats who have continually fought for tax cuts for the wealthy and a government that is irrationally friendly to a tiny sliver of extremely well-off people. Politicians on the right generally blame mass migration and left-wing globalism. This includes claims from migrants stealing jobs all the way to the extreme rhetoric of “white replacement.”

Yet, academic literature generally finds that immigrants have little or no effect on American’s wages, and that native-born and migrant workers generally compete for different jobs, according to Brookings. So why has this view persisted for so long? Nativist sentiment has spiked every time the United States has had a surge of migration, probably because it’s easy, and people are more prone to express hostility towards unfamiliar groups.

Many leftists would say that this nativism is rooted in the intrinsic racism of right-wingers. While it might be tempting to claim that some citizens of our country are and always will be racist, this classification is both fatalist in its assessment of our society’s problems and profoundly depressing. Yes, it’s true that much of right-wing rhetoric on immigration is patently racist. The reasons for its bigotry, though, deserve more examination, which is something many on the left are refusing to do at this moment. It’s exceptionally frustrating to see mountains of posts on social media labeling all ICE agents with classist tropes and “white trash” stereotypes. Calling all ICE agents high school dropouts and trailer trash is lazy, inaccurate and simply not a strong argument. 

Although it can be incredibly hard at this moment, it’s critical to take a moment to consider that many ICE agents are themselves victims of a modern American economy that only serves the hyper wealthy. Many have bought into violent rhetoric and expressions of power for the same underlying reason many on the left buy into slogans like “eat the rich.” Finally and perhaps most perplexingly, the vast majority likely believe what they are doing is good for the country. Many of them have good intentions and have concluded that joining ICE is the best thing they can do for the country and for their communities.

This conclusion might give some pause. There seems to be something particularly violent and authoritarian about ICE agents’ approach. The fact that some seem willing to use violent force against citizens might make some more reluctant to accept my comparison. I would direct these people towards interdisciplinary studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment and Hannah Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” and what they tell us about how severely power and institutional pressure can affect personality and actions. Although it still may be a disturbing conclusion, it becomes much easier to see how ICE agents are turned from people with good intentions into aggressive masked policemen — especially if you consider our current administration’s rhetoric towards migrants and its lionization of ICE. 

So, what do we do? The first step is to tone down the vitriol. 

Regular readers of my column may be familiar with my style. My rhetoric is often intensely polarizing, so this conclusion is just as counterintuitive to me as it may be for you. It might seem nonsensical to avoid social media posts that call ICE agents pigs and savages, but ultimately these types of posts won’t do any of us any good. 

Instead, I urge you to focus on the systemic and factual criticism of what ICE does, and try to find areas of agreement with people who support what they are doing. Lead by encouraging empathy —  remind supporters of ICE that his crackdown has affected working people just like them. Finding this common ground is the first step in creating a coalition of united Americans who can successfully pursue economic justice.

Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.