immigration

Understanding the MAGA Platform

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AMERICA FIRST POLICIES

“MAGA” — shorthand for Make America Great Again — isn’t a single policy platform so much as a cluster of political goals and instincts that coalesced around Donald Trump. If you strip away the slogans, a few core aims show up consistently.

1. Economic nationalism
A central goal is to prioritize domestic industry over global integration. That means tariffs, skepticism of free trade agreements, and efforts to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The theory is simple: protect American jobs even if it disrupts global supply chains. This disruption often leads to higher prices.

2. Restrictionist immigration policy
MAGA emphasizes tighter border control, reduced legal immigration in some cases, and aggressive enforcement (ICE enforcement policies). The underlying argument is that sovereignty and labor market stability depend on controlling who enters the country.

3. Strong executive power
There’s a clear preference for a more assertive presidency.  Using executive authority to push policy when Congress stalls is the strategy. Supporters see this as necessary to overcome gridlock. Critics see it as a threat to institutional checks and balances. The ultimate goal is authoritarian rule.

4. Cultural conservatism
MAGA places heavy emphasis on traditional national identity, patriotism, and resistance to social change. This often includes opposition to what supporters’ call “elite” or “woke” cultural norms in media, education, and government.  

5. Skepticism of institutions
A defining feature is distrust of established institutions. This includes federal agencies to mainstream media to international alliances. Organizations like NATO are sometimes framed as burdens unless they clearly serve U.S. interests.

6. “America First” foreign policy
Less focus on multiple country deals, more emphasis on bilateral deals and reducing long-term foreign entanglements. Although in practice this has been uneven, especially when strategic or economic interests are at stake.

7.  White Male Hierarchy

As policy evolves, people of color and women occupy a contested place within the worldview associated with Make America Great Again. Supporters argue the movement is fundamentally race- and gender-neutral. It simply emphasizes nationalism, economic opportunity, and traditional values over identity-based politics.  They point to growing (though still very limited) support among some Latino and Black voters and strong backing from many conservative women. But  its policy priorities and cultural framing—on immigration, voting access, reproductive rights, and opposition to diversity initiatives—tend to disproportionately affect people of color and constrain women’s autonomy.  This view elevates a narrower vision of national identity that aligns more closely with traditional white male hierarchies. The result is a tension at the core of the movement: it seeks broad-based populist appeal yet often advances policies and narratives that many women and minority communities experience as exclusionary and discriminatory.

The Reality Check
These goals don’t always fit neatly together. For example, economic nationalism can raise prices for consumers, and limiting immigration can strain industries that rely on labor. Likewise, skepticism of institutions can energize supporters but also weaken the very systems that keep government accountable.  Exclusion of women and people of color will often be the norm particularly in voting.

So MAGA isn’t just a policy agenda. It’s a worldview: one that prioritizes national sovereignty, cultural cohesion, and centralized political will. This view diminishes or eliminates our long-standing democratic norms and global systems.

The Real Cost of “America First”

“America First” sounds simple, even intuitive. But as Make America Great Again becomes policy, its effects are anything but simple. They show up not in speeches, but in grocery aisles, rent payments, hospital bills, and classrooms across places like Virginia.

Start with the basics: food and housing. Restricting immigration and imposing tariffs—policies central to the MAGA agenda—are meant to protect American workers. But they also reduce the labor supply in agriculture and construction while raising the cost of materials. The result is predictable: groceries inch upward, housing becomes more expensive to build, and rents follow. These aren’t abstract tradeoffs; they are weekly hits to household budgets.

Wages tell a more complicated story. Some workers, particularly in manufacturing or sectors facing labor shortages, may see modest gains. But for many Americans, those gains are swallowed by rising costs. Tariffs invite retaliation, squeezing export industries. Small businesses absorb higher input costs. The promise of economic nationalism collides with the reality of a deeply interconnected global economy, where pulling one lever rarely moves just one outcome.

Healthcare reveals an even sharper edge. Efforts to cut federal spending often target programs like Medicaid, shifting the burden to states and individuals. In practice, that means fewer covered families, more strain on rural hospitals, and higher out-of-pocket costs. For working- and middle-class Americans, the safety net doesn’t disappear overnight, it frays, slowly but steadily, until a single illness becomes a financial crisis.

Then there are the less visible, but equally consequential, shifts. In education, cultural priorities reshape curricula, restrict classroom discussions, and turn local school boards into ideological battlegrounds. In governance, an expanded reliance on executive power—hallmark of leadership under Donald Trump—means policies arrive quickly but rarely last. Regulations swing with each administration. Businesses hesitate. Families struggle to plan. Stability, the quiet foundation of economic security, erodes.

Supporters of this approach argue that tradeoffs are necessary—that higher prices or reduced services are the cost of reclaiming sovereignty, strengthening borders, and restoring cultural cohesion. Nations do make choices about identity and independence. But the question is not whether there are tradeoffs. It is who bears them, and when.

Right now, the burden falls disproportionately on ordinary Americans, and it arrives immediately—in higher bills, tighter services, and greater uncertainty. The promised benefits, by contrast, are longer-term and less certain. That imbalance is the core tension of the MAGA agenda: it asks households to absorb short-term pain for gains that may or may not materialize down the road. All the while, wealthy individuals enjoy huge tax breaks.

Public policy is ultimately a matter of priorities. If the goal is to strengthen American families, then success should be measured not by slogans or geopolitical posture, but by whether those families can afford their lives, access care, educate their children, and plan for the future with confidence. On that test, the results of “America First” are far more complicated—and far more costly—than its name suggests.  The hope is that it will end and our democracy will survive much like Hungary!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

(Heathercoxrichardson@substack.com April 19 post regarding the start of the American Revolution)

Understanding the Price of War on American Budgets

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS?

The United States has entered another Middle East war with speed, force—and a striking lack of honesty about what it will cost. It is a terrible way to divert attention!

Not just in lives overseas, but in policy choices here at home.

But wars like this do not stay “over there.” They come back—in budgets, in alliances, and in the quiet trade-offs that reshape domestic priorities long after the headlines fade.

A Blank Check Meets a Tight Budget

Washington is already preparing to spend tens—if not hundreds—of billions to sustain military operations against Iran. That money will not magically appear.

It never does.

At the exact moment lawmakers are debating cuts to social programs, including pressure on Medicaid and other safety-net spending, this war opens a fiscal floodgate. The same political voices arguing that the country “cannot afford” healthcare expansion or poverty reduction somehow find limitless flexibility when it comes to war.

That contradiction isn’t new—but it is becoming harder to ignore. Listen people!! Do we want healthcare, education and poverty reduction or do we want WAR?

Every missile fired, every deployment extended, is a policy choice. And those choices are being made alongside proposals to constrain domestic investment in housing, healthcare, and economic stability.

You can call it national security. But it is also resource allocation. And right now, the balance is shifting—again—away from Americans at home.

Inflation, Energy, and the Hidden Tax of War

If Congress doesn’t make you feel the cost directly, the economy will.

As tensions disrupt oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, global energy markets tighten. Prices rise. Supply chains strain.

For American families, that translates quickly:

  • Rising grocery bills
  • Increased borrowing costs
  • Higher Gas Prices

This is the hidden tax of war—one that doesn’t require a vote in Congress but lands just as forcefully in household budgets.

And it comes at a moment when affordability is already one of the central economic pressures in American life.

Executive Power, War Powers, and Accountability

There is also a constitutional cost.

The decision to engage in large-scale military action has once again stretched the limits of executive authority. Congress, constitutionally tasked with declaring war, has largely been sidelined.

This is not just a procedural concern. It is a democratic one.

When wars begin without clear authorization or sustained debate, accountability erodes. Objectives remain vague. Timelines blur. And the public is left reacting to events rather than shaping them.

If this conflict expands—and history suggests it might—the absence of clear legislative grounding will become more than a footnote. It will be a fault line. And we will have yet another mess.

NATO and the Strain on Alliances

Then there is the question of allies.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was built on the idea of collective defense and shared strategic purpose. But this war is testing that unity.

Some NATO members have offered support. Others are wary, concerned about escalation, legality, and the long-term consequences of another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.

That hesitation matters.

Because alliances are not just about military capability; they are about trust. When major actions are taken without broad alignment, that trust frays. And once frayed, it is difficult to rebuild.

At a time when global stability depends on coordinated responses—to Russia, to China, to economic shocks—a divided NATO is a strategic liability.

A Government of Trade-Offs

This is the part leaders rarely say out loud:

Government is a system of trade-offs.

You cannot simultaneously argue that:

  • The deficit demands restraint at home
  • Social programs must be cut or capped
  • And war spending should expand without limit

Those positions are not fiscally coherent. They are politically convenient.

The reality is simpler and harder: prioritizing war means deprioritizing something else. And historically, that “something else” has often been domestic investment in the very systems that make economic stability possible.

The Pattern Repeats

From the Vietnam War to the Iraq War, the United States has followed a familiar pattern: enter quickly, escalate decisively, and only later confront the full scope of the consequences.

What makes this moment different is not the pattern—but the context.

The country is more economically divided. Politically polarized. Institutionally strained.

And yet, once again, it is committing to a conflict that demands long-term focus, resources, and unity—without clearly securing any of them first.

The Question That Still Has No Answer

What is the endgame?

Not the immediate objective of weakening Iran. The actual outcome that defines success.

Without that answer, everything else—military gains, political messaging, even alliance management—rests on unstable ground.

And without that clarity, the risk is not just that the war expands abroad.

It’s that its consequences deepen at home—reshaping budgets, alliances, and democratic accountability in ways that will last far longer than the conflict itself. It is up to us dear friends to facilitate change now!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Cruelty Is the Point

/ tom0261888 / 1 Comment


TRUMP’S AMERICA HAS TURNED ITS BACK ON ITS OWN PEOPLE

Let’s stop pretending the rift between Democrats and Republicans is normal partisan disagreement. What defines the presidency of Donald Trump—and now defines the movement still driving Republican policy—is not just conservatism. It is a governing ethic built on indifference to suffering. At times, there is open hostility toward the most vulnerable Americans. This is not about trimming budgets or tightening rules. It is about who matters—and who doesn’t.

Health Care on The Cutting Board

Consider the catastrophic response to COVID-19. At the very moment Americans needed steady leadership, they got denial and political theater. The virus was minimized, experts were sidelined, and basic public health became a culture war battleground. This wasn’t just incompetence—it was a choice to value political optics over human life. And it came at a staggering cost.

That same disregard shows up clearly in health care today. The long-running Republican obsession with dismantling the Affordable Care Act was never paired with a serious replacement that protected coverage. The message to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions is simple: you’re on your own.

Now, the next phase of that agenda is even more blunt—cutting Medicaid. Let’s be clear about what that means. Medicaid is not “waste” or “inefficiency.” It is cancer treatment for a low-income parent. And, there is nursing home care for an aging senior. Therapy for a child with disabilities is also involved. Slashing it to fund tax cuts or reduce deficits is not fiscal discipline—it is a moral choice to take from those who have the least because they have the least power to fight back.

A Tax Cut For Trump’s Friends

And those tax cuts? We’ve seen this movie before. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivered windfalls to corporations and the wealthy while offering temporary, modest relief to working families. Now, under the branding of a “Big Beautiful Tax Bill” for 2025, the same playbook is back: sell it as populism, structure it for the top. The slogan changes; the outcome doesn’t. Wealth concentrates. Everyone else gets crumbs—and a press release.

You and I have to change this.

Suffering as a Strategy

Then there is the cruelty that shocked the world: family separation at the border. Children were taken from their parents, held in detention, sometimes without clear paths to reunification. This was not a bureaucratic accident. It was policy—defended, extended, and justified as deterrence. The idea was simple and chilling: the consequences (suffering) became so painful that fewer people came. That is not strength. That is state-sanctioned cruelty. Is this the America you love and know?

An Idiot as Secretary of Health

Now layer on the growing influence of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who is shaping the broader right-wing conversation on public health. Undermining trust in vaccines after a once-in-a-century pandemic is not “healthy skepticism.” Kennedy’s long-standing skepticism of vaccines and his promotion of debunked claims threatens to erode public trust in one of the most effective tools in modern medicine.  It is reckless. It puts lives at risk—again, disproportionately among those with the fewest resources and least access to care. When ideology overrides science, it is ordinary people who pay the price. I am getting my vaccines. What about you?

Republican Leadership Wants Power at Any Cost

Defenders of Donald Trump and today’s Republican agenda fall back on one argument: the economy. But what kind of economic vision cuts Medicaid, undermines health coverage, and redistributes wealth upward while calling itself “pro-worker”? What kind of leadership watches a pandemic unfold and chooses spin over safety? Growth that leaves people sicker, poorer, and more vulnerable is not success—it is failure dressed up in statistics.

This is the core truth: empathy is not incidental to governance. It is the dividing line. And on that line, Trumpism—and the Republican Party that has embraced it—has made its choice. Not for working families. Not for the sick. Not for children. Not for the older Americans.

For power.

And until voters confront that reality head-on, the cost will keep being paid by the same people who always pay it in American politics: those with the least voice, the least leverage, and the most to lose.

KEY TAKEWAYS
Trump’s presidency reflects indifference toward vulnerable Americans, focusing on power instead of empathy.

The GOP’s failure in healthcare, particularly with an absurd vaccine policy, showcases a disregard for human life and public health.

Cuts to Medicaid are not fiscal discipline but are a moral choice impacting low-income families and individuals.

Tax cuts favoring the wealthy and corporations while providing minimal relief to working families, perpetuating inequality.

Republican leadership prioritizes control over the well-being of the sick, children, and older Americans, deepening societal suffering.

This is cruel!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

HOW MANY DEATHS WILL IT TAKE

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

UNTIL ICE JUST MELTS AWAY?

A protestor in Minneapolis, one of thousands demanding that ICE end its violent occupation of the city and its abuse of immigrants and people of color, carried a simple message: Americans in 2026 still believe in the nation’s founding principles of equality and the rule of law. That belief—not chaos, not extremism—is what now fills the streets.

What is happening in Minneapolis is not a rebellion against law. It is a rebellion against lawlessness by the federal government.

When federal immigration agents shoot and kill residents during opaque enforcement operations—and then shield themselves behind jurisdictional fog, immunity doctrines, and bureaucratic delay—the problem is not protest. The problem is power without accountability, exercised by agencies overseen by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and defended by a Justice Department now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti did not spark unrest because Americans suddenly became radicalized. They sparked unrest because they laid bare a system in which armed federal agents operate inside U.S. cities with fewer checks than local police, weaker transparency requirements, and near-automatic protection from meaningful consequence. Minneapolis did not radicalize the country. ICE did—under leadership that has explicitly framed immigration enforcement as a show of force rather than a civil function bound by constitutional restraint.

The public response has been swift and unmistakable. Thousands marched through sub-zero streets not merely to grieve but to insist that constitutional rights do not end at the border—or at the badge of a federal agency. Protesters invoked the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and the most basic democratic demand: if the government kills, the government must answer.

So far, that answer has been partial at best.

Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of Justice has opened a federal civil-rights investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti. That decision matters. It signals that the use of deadly force by federal agents is not automatically immune from scrutiny. But it also exposes a troubling inconsistency: no comparable investigation has been opened into the killing of Renée Good. Two deaths. One investigation. One silence.

That selectivity is not merely procedural. It is political.

Bondi’s DOJ has emphasized federal authority and jurisdictional limits while declining to explain why one killing triggers civil-rights review and another does not. At the same time, DHS—answerable to Secretary Noem—has resisted broader transparency, forcing courts to intervene simply to ensure that evidence is preserved. Accountability has not been embraced; it has been extracted under pressure.

The legal deck is stacked. Criminal prosecutions of federal officers face extraordinarily high barriers. Prosecutors must prove not only that deadly force was excessive, but that it was willfully unlawful. The Supremacy Clause allows federal agents to claim immunity from state prosecution so long as they assert they were acting within their official duties. In practice, that doctrine has become a near-automatic shield, transforming federal authority into federal insulation.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has demanded cooperation and accountability, while Minneapolis officials have questioned why their city is being subjected to a level of federal force more commonly associated with counterterrorism than civil immigration enforcement. Members of Congress, including Representative Pramila Jayapal and other House Judiciary Committee Democrats, are now pressing Bondi’s Justice Department to explain its selective approach to civil-rights enforcement.

Even some Republicans have voiced concern, warning that unchecked federal policing undermines public trust. That bipartisan unease underscores a central truth: this is no longer simply a debate about immigration policy. It is a debate about democratic control over armed federal power.

Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, have filed lawsuits alleging racial profiling, warrantless stops, and unconstitutional conduct by ICE and Border Patrol agents operating in Minneapolis. Yet recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing claims mean that even when constitutional violations occur, victims’ families may be left without meaningful recourse. Accountability, once again, is delayed—if it arrives at all.

This accountability crisis did not arise in a vacuum. It has been engineered, in part, by a Supreme Court that has steadily narrowed the ability of ordinary people to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations. In decisions written or joined by justices such as Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts, the Court has aggressively restricted claims, effectively telling victims of federal abuse that even clear violations of rights may have no remedy in court. The message has been unmistakable: federal officers can violate constitutional protections, but the courthouse doors may be closed. That judicial retreat from accountability now plays out on the streets of Minneapolis, where families are told to trust internal investigations instead of independent courts. A Constitution without enforceable remedies is not a shield, it is a suggestion. And when the Supreme Court treats accountability as optional, federal agencies learn to do the same.

Critics argue that protests like those in Minneapolis undermine order. The opposite is true. What undermines order is an enforcement regime that treats constitutional safeguards as optional, deploys militarized agents into civilian neighborhoods, and responds to public outrage with selective investigation and legal maneuvering.

The protesters are not rejecting American ideals. They are insisting that those ideals apply to everyone, including ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, the agents he commands, and the Justice Department that decides when federal power will be restrained and when it will not.

This moment exposes a deeper truth: ICE has become an agency structurally insulated from democratic accountability. It operates across jurisdictions, blurs the line between civil enforcement and criminal policing, and relies on legal doctrines that make oversight rare and consequences rarer still. No democracy can sustain an enforcement apparatus that answers upward to political leadership but never outward to the public.

If citizens of the United States are serious about equality before the law, then accountability cannot depend on discretion exercised behind closed doors at DOJ. It must be automatic, independent, and uniform. That means mandatory federal review of all fatal uses of force by federal agents, full cooperation with state investigations, enforceable transparency standards, and consequences not just for individual officers—but for leadership failures at DHS and DOJ alike.

Minneapolis is not rejecting America. It is reminding the country what America claims to be.

In 2026, the demand echoing through the streets is not radical. It is foundational: no agency, no badge, no attorney general stands above the law. Equality without enforcement is a slogan. The rule of law without accountability is a lie. And the people of Minneapolis are no longer willing to accept either. Abolish DHS!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith@gmail.com

SURVIVAL IS NOT A THEORY

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment



IT IS A FACT OF EVERYDAY LIFE

Survival is not a theory (Rev Jen Raffensperger- Unitarian Universalist Church of Roanoke). It is not an abstract concept relegated to think-tank reports or academic debates. It is lived in real time by mothers dropping their kids off at school, by workers juggling multiple jobs to pay rent, and by communities watching federal agents descend into their streets with overwhelming force. In Minneapolis this winter, this basic truth was laid bare with tragic clarity.


When an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot 37-year-old Renée Good during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis on January 7, the incident sent shock waves through the city. Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, was killed near Portland Avenue South amid a surge of federal agents deployed to carry out immigration actions—part of a larger campaign known locally as “Operation Metro Surge.”


Local leaders and civil rights advocates have raised alarm over the heavy-handed approach. Video and eyewitness accounts contradicted initial federal claims that Good posed an imminent threat, with many describing her as trying to move away from agents when she was shot multiple times. Protests erupted, challenging not just the specific use of force, but the broader role of ICE in communities already burdened by economic insecurity and racial inequity.


This tragedy in Minneapolis illustrates a painful reality: enforcement policies that treat immigration, poverty, and policing as separate challenges ultimately compound trauma for the more vulnerable populations. In neighborhoods where wages lag behind the cost of living and opportunities are scarce, survival is not something people theorize about—it’s something they struggle for every day. Yet when federal and local authorities respond to desperation and informal economies with tactical deployments and steel-toed enforcement, they risk turning survival itself into a criminal act.

ICE’s increased presence in Minneapolis did not happen in a vacuum. Advocates have criticized tactics ranging from expansive surge deployments to controversial detentions of children and parents, raising fears that enforcement has become punitive rather than protective. Another American was killed in Minneapolis, Alex Pretti. ICE agents shot him after wrestling him to the ground.


Policing poverty with force only deepens mistrust. When federal agents operate alongside local police without clear oversight or accountability, the message is chilling: struggle for survival at your own risk. Families scrambling to make ends meet see school attendance drop amid fear of raids. Community members hesitate to seek help, fearful that any interaction with law enforcement could escalate into something worse. And when incidents like Good’s and Pretti’s killing occur, local authorities and residents are left demanding transparency while federal agencies retreat behind outright lies and claims of immunity and jurisdiction.


Survival cannot be secured through deterrence or deterrence by force. Treating migration and poverty as problems to be policed rather than conditions to be addressed only shifts the burden onto people least equipped to bear it. Minneapolis—still scarred by past trauma and divisions—now grapples with the consequences of a system that has chosen militarized enforcement over humane policy.


What Minneapolis needs—and what every community struggling under poverty and immigration stress deserves—is investment in human infrastructure: housing, livable wages, healthcare, schools, and legal pathways that respect dignity. It means disentangling community safety from punitive policing models and rejecting the notion that survival must be negotiated through fear. Courageous cities and countries that have tackled poverty with social programs rather than handcuffs have seen crime and instability decrease, not increase.


Survival is not a theory. It is the most basic affirmation of human dignity. Any society that treats it as optional or negotiable, that responds to hardship with militarized force, has already failed the people it professes to serve. Our response to tragedy—whether in Minneapolis or communities nationwide—must be rooted in justice, accountability, and a recognition that people’s lives are not collateral in a political strategy.


T. Michael Smith
wwwtmichaelsmith.com

ICE Is A Threat To The American Way

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Reform or Abolition Is the Only Path to Preserving Our Democracy

In a healthy democracy, law enforcement exists to serve the public, protect rights, and operate under clear constraints. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE—fails that test. While often defended as a necessary tool of sovereignty and rule of law, ICE as it currently operates undermines core democratic principles: due process, accountability, equal protection, and civilian trust in government.

This is not an argument against immigration law itself. Democracies have the right to regulate borders. But how those laws are enforced matters. ICE has evolved into an agency defined less by lawful administration than by deterrence through fear and violence—and that is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance.

ICE was created in the aftermath of 9/11, folded into the new Department of Homeland Security during a moment of national trauma. That origin story matters. ICE inherited the logic of emergency powers: expansive discretion, secrecy, and an assumption that certain populations posed inherent threats. Two decades later, those assumptions remain embedded in the agency’s culture, even as the national emergency has long passed.

A Politicized Enforcer: Kristi Noem and ICE

Under the current administration, led by President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE has become even more politicized and aggressive. Noem has publicly defended immigration enforcement actions that resulted in the fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen, framing the incident as justified and even characterizing it in militarized terms without independent investigation. Her department’s posture has shifted toward confronting domestic critics and expanding federal law enforcement deployments in cities like Minneapolis in the face of protests. This combative stance erodes public trust and signals that ICE’s neutral enforcement of law is but a tool of political theater and coercion, weaponized against dissent. The Trump administration is trying hard to project dictatorial strength and power, but the narrative is slipping away from it.

The Human Cost: Remembering Renee Good

The danger of ICE’s current posture is not abstract. On January 7, 2026, an ICE agent in Minneapolis shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, poet, and U.S. citizen, during an enforcement operation. Good was not being arrested or charged with any criminal offense at the time; video and eyewitness accounts indicate she was driving away when an ICE agent opened fire. This killing has sparked national outrage, widespread protests, and calls for independent investigation and accountability from lawmakers, local officials, and civil rights advocates. Good’s family has urged empathy and justice, emphasizing her role as a devoted mother and community member. In the wake of Good’s murder, the administration sent more agents to Minnesota in what appears to be an attempt to gin up protests that change the subject from Good’s murder and appear to justify ICE’s violence.

Her death is a stark reminder that enforcement without accountability can cost innocent lives—and destroy families. It raises urgent questions about the use of force by a domestic agency that should be focused on lawful, proportionate action, not militarized confrontation. Adding flame to the fire, President Donald J. Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem all defended her killing by calling Renee Good and her wife “domestic terrorists.”

ICE Undermines Democracy, Does Not Uphold It

Democracy depends on due process. Yet ICE operates in a legal system where civil detention can mean prolonged confinement without the full protection guaranteed in criminal court. People can be detained far from home, denied meaningful access to counsel, and deported through fast-track proceedings that prioritize speed over fairness. Legal residents, asylum seekers, and long-term community members are routinely swept into this system. When liberty can be taken without full constitutional safeguards, democracy is already in retreat.

ICE’s defenders often invoke public safety, but this claim collapses under scrutiny. The majority of ICE arrests are not of violent criminals but of people whose primary offense is a civil immigration violation. Meanwhile, evidence consistently shows that immigrant communities—documented or not—commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. The agency’s most visible actions—workplace raids, courthouse arrests, and neighborhood sweeps—do not make communities safer. They make them quieter, more fearful, and less likely to cooperate with police or civic institutions.

Even more troubling is how easily ICE becomes a political instrument. Enforcement priorities swing wildly from one administration to the next, not because the law changes, but because presidential rhetoric does. This volatility reveals a deeper problem: ICE possesses enormous discretionary power with weak democratic oversight. In practice, that discretion allows immigration enforcement to be weaponized for political signaling—who belongs, who is suspect, who should be afraid.

Reform or Abolition: A Democratic Imperative

The public must confront a crucial question: Can ICE be reformed, or must it be abolished and replaced? Meaningful reform would require stripping the agency of its broad enforcement and detention authority, separating civil immigration administration from criminal investigation, and placing every enforcement action under clear judicial oversight. It would mandate full transparency and independent civilian review of uses of force, along with strict limits on civil detention and guaranteed legal representation in immigration proceedings.

But reform risks being superficial if the underlying culture of impunity remains. Abolition advocates argue that the functions ICE now performs—immigration processing, asylum adjudication, workplace compliance—should be transferred to civil, non-coercive agencies that operate with strict adherence to rights protections. Criminal investigations should remain with law enforcement agencies that are accountable, trained, and constrained by constitutional norms.

A democracy that enforces unjust systems unjustly erodes the legitimacy of law itself. Rule of law is not measured by how harshly a government can punish, but by how faithfully it protects rights while administering policy.

ICE, as it exists today, does not strengthen American democracy. It corrodes it. And until the United States is willing to reckon with that truth—through reform or abolition—tragedies like the killing of Renee Good will continue, and with them, the weakening of democratic ideals we claim to uphold.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

HUMAN RIGHTS RECKONING

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

 OLD AND QUIRKY                                                            September 7, 2025

The United States, long viewed as a beacon of hope for immigrants seeking safety and opportunity, faces a moral and legal crisis in its treatment of immigrant children. From detention centers to courtroom battles, the experiences of these vulnerable minors reveal deep flaws in the nation’s immigration system and raise urgent questions about justice, compassion, and accountability.

What Is the Administration Doing too Immigrant Children? 

In the early hours of Sunday August 31, in the middle of a three-day holiday weekend, the Trump administration attempted to take vulnerable children out of government custody and ship them alone to their country of origin, Guatemala.

The administration was planning to move up to 600 children from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where they are held according to law until they can be released to a relative or a guardian living in the U.S. who can take care of them while their case for asylum in the U.S. is being processed.
Unaccompanied migrant children are considered a vulnerable population and are covered by the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. That law gives them enhanced protection and care, making sure they are screened to see if they have been trafficked or are afraid of persecution in the country they come from. Congress has specified that such children can be removed from the country only under special circumstances. Nonetheless, the administration appears to have removed about 76 of those transferred out of the custody of ORR—the only agency with legal authority to hold them—where they were waiting to be released to a relative or guardian.  

Early on Sunday, August 31, advocates for the children filed a suit to prevent the administration from removing them. Shortly after 2:30 in the morning, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan got a phone call about the case, and by 4:00 she had issued an emergency order blocking the removal and scheduled a hearing for 3:00 pm that afternoon. She moved it up to 12:30 pm when she learned that the administration was already moving some children out of the country. By noon Monday, according to the government’s lawyers, all the children were back in ORR custody.

Immigrant children have always been part of America’s story. But the modern era, especially post-9/11, has seen a shift toward securitization and deterrence. Policies like family separation under the Trump administration and overcrowded detention facilities have drawn international condemnation.

Legal Protections vs. Reality

The Flores Agreement of 1997 was a landmark settlement that established minimum standards for the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody. It mandates that children be held in “safe and sanitary” conditions and released “without unnecessary delay” to appropriate sponsors. However, enforcement has been inconsistent. In 2025, a federal judge ordered continued monitoring of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after failures to meet these standards.

Moreover, access to legal representation remains a critical issue. Children with lawyers are far more likely to appear in court and succeed in asylum claims—95% versus just 33% for those without attorneys. Yet, in March 2025, the federal government terminated a contract that provided legal counsel for over 26,000 unaccompanied minors, leaving thousands without support in navigating complex legal systems.

Detention and Its Consequences

Detention facilities, especially those housing families, have come under scrutiny for poor conditions and inadequate medical care. A reopened center in Texas revealed issues like malnutrition, tuberculosis, and insufficient mental health screening. While the Biden administration initially halted family detention in favor of alternatives like electronic monitoring, recent policy shifts have revived large-scale detention efforts.

Children in detention, whether alone or with family, face trauma that can have lifelong consequences. The psychological toll of confinement, uncertainty, and separation from loved ones undermines their development and violates international norms of child welfare.

Humanitarian and Ethical Concerns

Beyond legality, the treatment of immigrant children is a humanitarian issue. These minors often flee violence, poverty, and instability in Central America, arriving at the U.S. border in search of safety. Instead, they encounter bureaucratic hurdles, hostile environments, and prolonged uncertainty.

Critics argue that the U.S. response exacerbates the very crises these children are escaping. Policies that prioritize deterrence over protection risk violate both domestic law and international human rights standards.

Toward Reform: What Needs to Change

To uphold its values and obligations, the United States must:

  • Restore and expand legal representation for all immigrant children.
  • Fully implement and enforce the Flores Agreement, with independent oversight.
  • Invest in community-based alternatives to detention, which are more humane and cost-effective.
  • Ensure trauma-informed care and education for children in custody.
  • Reform asylum procedures to prioritize child welfare and family unity.

Conclusion

As I look back over our history with indigenous people and black people, I shouldn’t be surprised by all of this. I don’t want to think of my country as evil. But I am surprised by the treatment of immigrant children in the United States.  This is not just a policy issue, it is a reflection of national character. As the country grapples with its identity in a globalized world, how it treats its most vulnerable newcomers will speak volumes. Justice demands more than compliance; it calls for compassion, dignity, and the courage to do better.  We can and must do better.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com