ICE’s mission is to enforce immigration laws, primarily against noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the United States. However, mistaken detentions of U.S. citizens have occurred due to database errors, misidentification, or investigative mistakes. Civil liberties organizations have documented cases in which citizens were arrested and detained by ICE before their citizenship status was properly verified. In addition, the controversial force during enforcement operations has been resulting in disappearances, significant injuries and death, which raises serious civil rights concerns.

Recent developments involving ICE and U.S. citizen deaths have intensified public scrutiny and fueled the perception that aggressive immigration enforcement poses a threat to American families. ICE and related agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection, are currently operating at heightened levels, especially under recent enforcement initiatives like Operation Metro Surge, which has dramatically escalated immigration enforcement operations in U.S. cities.

Federal law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, are authorized to carry firearms and use force. However, lethal force is best practiced as a last resort, justified only when there is an imminent threat to life. Concerns arise when the use of force appears disproportionate to the threat presented or when accountability mechanisms are insufficient. Since January 2020, the United States has experienced an influx in politically charged violence, often emerging from confrontations involving far-right activists, left-wing activists, White supremacist or anti-government activists. These volatile dynamics increase the risk of violent encounters and have, in multiple instances, resulted in harm to uninvolved bystanders. According to video evidence, eyewitness accounts, and reporting by human rights organizations, several recurring concerns appear in these incidents:

• Force used was excessive relative to the threat posed.

• Officers sometimes lacked body cameras, limiting transparency, accountability and correction.

• Oversight and accountability mechanisms were weakened by the absence of independent review of deadly encounters.

Since January 2020, the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism reports that Americans have endured dozens of killings motivated by left-wing, right-wing, white supremacist, and anti-government ideologies. In January 2026, several high-profile incidents involving federal immigration agents (i.e., ICE, Border Patrol and DHS officers) have led to the harm and deaths of the American family. High-profile cases during this period have intensified public debate about violence, political narratives, and accountability.

• On August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse arrived to a protest illegally with an AR-15 rife, and was later demeaned a hero and found not guilty on five counts of murdered “rioters,” “bad guys who deserved to die."

• On December 4, 2024, CEO of UnitedHealthcare medical insurance Brian Thompson was shot and killed by Luigi Mangione, allegedly motivated by anger at the U.S. healthcare system. On September 10, 2025, the right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by Tyler Robinson, allegedly motivated by Kirk’s strong conservative ideals for society.

• On January 7, 2026, 37-year-old Renée Good was shot and kill by an ICE agent as she attempted to flee in her vehicle from an escalated ICE altercation. Authorities claimed self-defense, while video and eye witnesses dispute that narrative.

• On January 24, 2026, 37-year-old ICU nurse, Alex Pretti was fatally shot by federal agents during an escalated physical altercation after joining protests. Officials have given conflicting accounts about what happened on the ground.

Public anger and a sense of betrayal are widespread. This reaction is understandable when people witness what they perceive as avoidable deaths and the apparent devaluation of human life via public murder. You are not imagining the pattern of Kyle Rittenhouse, Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, Renée Good, Alex Pretti, and many more. And you are not crazy for calling it out. I’m not going to try to “reframe” this or soften it with polished language, because that’s exactly what you’re sick of. Many feel that similar incidents are framed differently depending the political alignment officials and media are mandated to apply; even when video evidence or eyewitness testimony challenges those official narratives. This inconsistency fuels the belief that outcomes are shaped as much by power and framing as by facts. So let’s be clear,

• When the state powers kill people and controls the narrative without transparent accountability, that is wrong.

• When political alignment determines who is presumed hero or aggressor, that is wrong.

• When law enforcement narratives are accepted by default and dissent is treated as a threat, that is wrong.

• When neutrality is used to sanitize or minimize abrupt, violent loss of life, that is wrong.

• When members of the American family are killed and then posthumously smeared and discredited, that is wrong.

For those of us who have experienced the “them side” of any traumatic experience, whether through marginalization, financial insecurity, bully, family conflict, public scrutiny, domestic or sexual violence … “neutrality” can feel indistinguishable from complicity.

What the American family is reacting to is not merely bad wording, but power protecting itself. Institutions rarely declare aloud that they silence opposition; instead, this occurs through framing: labeling individuals as “aggressors” or “threats,” extending selective sympathy, relying on phrases such as “officials say,” and repeating these narratives until they become accepted truth. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a well-documented feature of propaganda, particularly in democratic systems that must maintain the appearance of legality? What type of person and what type of life experiencing are we creating here? These are real tragedies unfolding in real time. A strong and great America requires shared moral clarity, even when consensus is difficult. At minimum, there must be agreement on several non-negotiable foundational principles:

• Human life matters, as reflected in natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, due process protections of the 5th Amendment, and limits on punishment.

• State power must be accountable through checks and balances, separation of powers, Federalism, democratic oversight, impeachment mechanisms, regular elections, enumerated powers.

• Dissent is not a crime, and First Amendment freedoms are essential to a free society.

Our Founding Fathers clearly believed in these three principles, encoded them structurally and legally, but did not fully live up to them. Today, recommitment is necessary to prevent further social fragmentation and moral erosion. The willingness to say “this is wrong”—whether within oneself, one’s community, or one’s government—is a civic strength that WE need for all of OUR shared ways of being. Honestly, the language in this is article was also intentionally chosen for a purpose, and that purpose is to solidify a shared identity across party lines: clarity, courage and responsibility. Extremist narratives, from all sides, distort public discourse and corrode the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, pushing communities toward fear and violence. This moment demands a reclaiming of dignity and of the meaning of “American,” and accepting that not everyone will come with you.

We will not excuse killings just because they are wrapped in legal language or aligned with political faction. Full stop. We mandate oversight for Homeland Security as essential. We cut funding and authority based on constitutional and human rights violations. We dismantle aggressive enforcement environments that undermine civil liberties. Law and order must apply equally to all—protecting peaceful protesters, communities, and public servants alike—while rejecting intentional political polarization that fuels violence on every side.