In a normal world, this would be a step in the right direction, soon to be followed by the dismissal of Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security, and a stated intent to abolish that entire department.
But this isn't a normal world, and both precedent and fundamentals weigh against anything Donald Trump doing any time soon making a jot of difference.
First, recent precedent suggests that Trump's firings are more performative than substantive. Just after the New Year, Trump had Venezuela's socialist dictator, Nicolas Maduro, extracted from that country and held in New York to face drug charges. Wails of protest from the left and seals clapping their flippers to the right notwithstanding, there has been no regime change.
Instead, it appears that when Trump says we're running Venezuela, he means: Socialists willing to cut a deal with him will stay in power while he pledges taxpayer money and the lives of American soldiers to prop them up while fixing the oil industry his new cronies ruined in the first place, so he can funnel money to a private account in Qatar.
Trump has made no stand for freedom, and appears to have betrayed anyone in Venezuela who didn't get the memo that we're ourselves an aspiring banana republic -- and thought we might overthrow this unfriendly regime.
Second, the very nature of ICE and Trump's war on "illegal" immigration argue that a public firing won't really matter. As Harry Binswanger recently argued:
ICE men are not police officers. Disobeying them is not anarchistic because their function and raison d'etre are to grab people and deport them.Replacing the head of an agency designed to terrorize people will mean an uphill battle for a good person (if one would even accept such a job) and the kind of opportunity we don't want an incipient dictator to have, otherwise.
Yes, given the laws against immigration, their actions could be called "law enforcement" in the abstract, but as we have seen, ICE acts arbitrarily, violently, thuggishly. They do not restrict their actions to criminalized immigrants. Or, more precisely, they, not the law, decide what the scope of their actions are.
The nature of an action follows from the nature of the entity that acts. The nature of ICE as an entity is: arbitrary force. They are thugs. I would never refer to them as "law enforcement."
(My use of "Gestapo" is figurative. Literally, ICE is the transition to that kind of evil agency.) [bold added]
Trump sicced this agency on nonwhite immigrants in the first place and has defended it after its widely-publicized detention of an American citizen who is a veteran and now after it has murdered two American citizens in less than a month.
I can't imagine how anything Trump does now will be for any purpose other than to reduce bad publicity long enough for our easily-distracted news media to forget about it and find a more easily-dismissed (and discreditable) reason to be upset with him.
-- CAV
When it gave them an excuse to grouse about a Republican on late-night, Democrats were all for the equal-time rule.
There is no deal to be made with officials who reject the law itself. And there is no obligation for Trump to meet them halfway.