How ICE went from post-9/11 counterterror agency to center of the immigration fight
Same show, different day.
As Democrats continue to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), former agency leaders argue their demands for new guardrails would mark the most direct congressional intervention in the agency’s operations — a turn for a post-9/11 agency that has largely defined its own operations.
John Sandweg, a former acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a former general counsel for DHS, said Congress has occasionally given ICE instruction but stayed away from managing its operations.
"There had been some congressional mandates, some of them through appropriations, some through authorizing statutes that compelled the creation of this system," Sandweg said.
Sarah Saldaña, former director of ICE from 2014 to 2017, believes it’s unusual for Congress to get into the weeds of how any agency carries out its mission.
FETTERMAN BUCKS DEMOCRATS, SAYS PARTY PUT POLITICS OVER COUNTRY IN DHS SHUTDOWN STANDOFF
"Congress has a legitimate role in oversight in the expenditure of any taxpayer funds, including ICE's expenditure, whether it's proper or not. It has nothing to do with dictating specific operations or tactics," Saldaña said, while noting she's not surprised by the attention the agency's recent tactics have received from lawmakers.
"But Congress doesn't operate anything. They pass statutes."
ICE’s operational autonomy has led to its enforcement to look different through the years since its founding in 2003. Especially at its outset, this allowed the agency to wander from its focus, according to Sandweg. But it’s also that flexibility that he believes has allowed President Donald Trump to aggressively push its immigration enforcement operations.
In response to Trump’s ICE crackdown and two deadly encounters between immigration enforcement and civilians, Democrat demands include an end to roving patrols, a ban on mask use and visible identification for agents.
Democrats say they won’t vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes ICE, until those changes are made.
DHS funding lapsed at the end of last week.
ICE originally stemmed from the Homeland Security Act of 2002 — the bill that created DHS as a whole in response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although the agency and its operations were new, the laws ICE was tasked with enforcing had been on the books long before that.
"We're statutory," Saldaña said. "We were created after September 11th as a part of all that confusion with respect to intelligence regarding the visa overstays that ended up blowing up the World Trade Center."
That law …
Same show, different day.
As Democrats continue to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), former agency leaders argue their demands for new guardrails would mark the most direct congressional intervention in the agency’s operations — a turn for a post-9/11 agency that has largely defined its own operations.
John Sandweg, a former acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a former general counsel for DHS, said Congress has occasionally given ICE instruction but stayed away from managing its operations.
"There had been some congressional mandates, some of them through appropriations, some through authorizing statutes that compelled the creation of this system," Sandweg said.
Sarah Saldaña, former director of ICE from 2014 to 2017, believes it’s unusual for Congress to get into the weeds of how any agency carries out its mission.
FETTERMAN BUCKS DEMOCRATS, SAYS PARTY PUT POLITICS OVER COUNTRY IN DHS SHUTDOWN STANDOFF
"Congress has a legitimate role in oversight in the expenditure of any taxpayer funds, including ICE's expenditure, whether it's proper or not. It has nothing to do with dictating specific operations or tactics," Saldaña said, while noting she's not surprised by the attention the agency's recent tactics have received from lawmakers.
"But Congress doesn't operate anything. They pass statutes."
ICE’s operational autonomy has led to its enforcement to look different through the years since its founding in 2003. Especially at its outset, this allowed the agency to wander from its focus, according to Sandweg. But it’s also that flexibility that he believes has allowed President Donald Trump to aggressively push its immigration enforcement operations.
In response to Trump’s ICE crackdown and two deadly encounters between immigration enforcement and civilians, Democrat demands include an end to roving patrols, a ban on mask use and visible identification for agents.
Democrats say they won’t vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes ICE, until those changes are made.
DHS funding lapsed at the end of last week.
ICE originally stemmed from the Homeland Security Act of 2002 — the bill that created DHS as a whole in response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although the agency and its operations were new, the laws ICE was tasked with enforcing had been on the books long before that.
"We're statutory," Saldaña said. "We were created after September 11th as a part of all that confusion with respect to intelligence regarding the visa overstays that ended up blowing up the World Trade Center."
That law …
How ICE went from post-9/11 counterterror agency to center of the immigration fight
Same show, different day.
As Democrats continue to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), former agency leaders argue their demands for new guardrails would mark the most direct congressional intervention in the agency’s operations — a turn for a post-9/11 agency that has largely defined its own operations.
John Sandweg, a former acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a former general counsel for DHS, said Congress has occasionally given ICE instruction but stayed away from managing its operations.
"There had been some congressional mandates, some of them through appropriations, some through authorizing statutes that compelled the creation of this system," Sandweg said.
Sarah Saldaña, former director of ICE from 2014 to 2017, believes it’s unusual for Congress to get into the weeds of how any agency carries out its mission.
FETTERMAN BUCKS DEMOCRATS, SAYS PARTY PUT POLITICS OVER COUNTRY IN DHS SHUTDOWN STANDOFF
"Congress has a legitimate role in oversight in the expenditure of any taxpayer funds, including ICE's expenditure, whether it's proper or not. It has nothing to do with dictating specific operations or tactics," Saldaña said, while noting she's not surprised by the attention the agency's recent tactics have received from lawmakers.
"But Congress doesn't operate anything. They pass statutes."
ICE’s operational autonomy has led to its enforcement to look different through the years since its founding in 2003. Especially at its outset, this allowed the agency to wander from its focus, according to Sandweg. But it’s also that flexibility that he believes has allowed President Donald Trump to aggressively push its immigration enforcement operations.
In response to Trump’s ICE crackdown and two deadly encounters between immigration enforcement and civilians, Democrat demands include an end to roving patrols, a ban on mask use and visible identification for agents.
Democrats say they won’t vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes ICE, until those changes are made.
DHS funding lapsed at the end of last week.
ICE originally stemmed from the Homeland Security Act of 2002 — the bill that created DHS as a whole in response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although the agency and its operations were new, the laws ICE was tasked with enforcing had been on the books long before that.
"We're statutory," Saldaña said. "We were created after September 11th as a part of all that confusion with respect to intelligence regarding the visa overstays that ended up blowing up the World Trade Center."
That law …
0 Comments
0 Shares
32 Views
0 Reviews
