Supporting ICE in Minneapolis presents ‘either-or’ choice for conservatives | Opinion
Consider the following example: I am offered a new job containing more responsibility and longer hours. As part of my choosing whether to accept, suppose I feel pressed to choose between taking the job and my commitments to my family. Suppose further that, after some deliberation, I find I can meet both my family’s needs and the demands of the new position. I take it and yet remain a committed family man. Call such a choice a “both-and” choice.
Of course, not all choices are like this: Sometimes the choices that we make require sacrifice, forsaking one path by choosing another. Let us call such choices “either-or” choices. American conservatives, I argue, face an either-or choice with respect to their support of ICE in Minneapolis. Conservatives may like to think that they can support ICE while remaining wedded to conservative principles: that the choice to support ICE is both-and. But as we shall see, ICE in Minneapolis pushes American conservatism beyond the brink: either support ICE or heed conservative principles. You cannot do both.
Take the commitment to small government. Conservatives believe that small government is beneficial for two reasons: (1) it is fiscally responsible and (2) it protects the freedoms of the people. However, in the Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans committed $75 billion to the expansion of ICE, and there are now over 3,000 agents currently in Minneapolis. Among the many other things occurring there, about which more in a moment, agents are permitted to enter private properties without a judicial warrant. This is a clear breach of the freedoms that small government protects. Thus, conservatives must choose: either denounce small government or denounce ICE.
Moreover, many conservatives defend “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution, reading it according to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Fortunately, few constitutional amendments have founding intentions as well-known as the Fourth Amendment. This is a legal principle that dates to England in the 1600s and, as the website Constitution Annotated says, grew directly from the experience of governmental overreach in the colonial period. The Fathers, concerned that a strong government would abuse its power, placed this provision in the Constitution. Since the “administrative warrants” of ICE bear a chilling similarity to the “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” of the colonial period, this decision obviously flouts the aims of the Founding Fathers. Thus, conservatives must choose: either denounce originalism or denounce ICE.
Adjacent to this principle is the conservative rallying cry of “don’t tread on me,” which no longer holds in the wake of the ICE insurgence. But let us shift our focus to the intrinsic value of life. Conservatism frequently relies on the principle that all life is inherently valuable, which is why many conservatives also oppose abortion. But the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti make it plain that ICE does not value life intrinsically. Law enforcement that values life uses violence as a last resort: police officers are trained to de-escalate the potential of violence. Nevertheless, videos make plain that ICE agents in both circumstances made no attempt to de-escalate. Thus, even if Good and Pretti acted out of turn or had threatened ICE agents, one cannot reason from that and the inherent value of life to the view that they were justly killed. Thus, conservatives must choose: either denounce the intrinsic value of life or denounce ICE.
Finally, let us consider gun rights. Conservatives’ strong interpretation of the Second Amendment allows private individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Among other things, this means that carrying a gun does not, itself, pose a legal threat to law enforcement. And yet United States Attorney Bill Essayli contradicted that very claim while attempting to justify ICE’s killing of Alex Pretti. Essayli’s comments represent such a misunderstanding that the NRA called Essayli’s post “dangerous and wrong.” Thus, conservatives must choose: either denounce gun rights or denounce ICE.
Josh Wretzel, Ph. D. is a faculty member in the philosophy department at Penn State and a resident of State College.