Muslim World Report

How Flimsy Gang Labels Fuel Injustice in ICE Practices

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 1, 2025 10:29 AM | 8 min read | 1516 words

TL;DR: ICE’s vague criteria for labeling individuals as gang members lead to severe injustices, wrongful detentions, and human rights violations. This blog post explores the broader implications for Central America, the importance of reforming these practices, and the potential outcomes of public and judicial actions.

The Situation

Recent revelations about the practices of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in El Salvador unveil a disturbing and insidious reality: the arbitrary and often Kafkaesque criteria by which individuals are classified as gang members or labeled ‘Alien Enemies.’ As underscored by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (2020), a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, the guidelines used by ICE are alarmingly vague and subjective.

Individuals can find themselves misclassified as gang members for reasons such as:

  • Possessing tattoos
  • Wearing clothing associated with certain gangs

These stereotypes are deeply rooted in societal biases rather than legitimate evidence of criminal behavior. This misclassification fosters systemic injustice and perpetuates the cycle of violence and fear that plagues communities in Central America.

These troubling practices have profound implications, including:

  • Criminalizing vast segments of the population based on flimsy evidence
  • Exporting a model of repression that resonates far beyond U.S. borders
  • Reinforcing a narrative of imperial overreach

This aligns with historical patterns of U.S. intervention in Latin America, where policies often exacerbate social instability instead of promoting peace and security (Zayas & Bradlee, 2014). The designation of individuals as threats based on nebulous criteria leads to wrongful detentions and cultivates a climate of fear that destabilizes communities and erodes trust (Zetter, 2007; De Genova, 2002).

The ethical concerns surrounding these practices cannot be overstated. They lay bare the intersection of immigration enforcement and racial profiling, with marginalized communities bearing the brunt of punitive policies. This raises pressing questions about the U.S. government’s dual responsibility to:

  • Secure its borders
  • Uphold human rights and due process

The contemporary immigration landscape is reminiscent of earlier eras of mass incarceration when marginalized groups were disproportionately targeted under the guise of national security (Soss & Weaver, 2017). As calls for judicial intervention intensify, it becomes abundantly clear that the status quo is untenable.

The ramifications of these policies echo far beyond the borders of the United States, straining relations with Central American countries and contributing to a global narrative of imperial overreach. In an age increasingly attuned to issues of social justice, the imperative to challenge these damaging practices has never been clearer. As Patrick Wolfe (2006) notes, these systems are designed to eliminate the native, targeting populations deemed undesirable in a broader geopolitical calculus.

What if ICE practices become the norm across the Americas?

If the vague criteria for labeling gang affiliation espoused by ICE became standard operating procedure throughout the Americas, we could witness an unprecedented surge in human rights violations. Such practices would lead to:

  • A landscape where civil liberties are curtailed under the banner of crime prevention
  • Vulnerable communities living in a climate of fear that results in displacement, stigmatization, and further marginalization
  • Governments adopting similar repressive measures, reinforcing the dangerous narrative that certain populations are inherently criminal

The implications for regional security would be dire. Communities that ought to serve as support systems could devolve into hostile environments, as neighbors turn against one another to avoid scrutiny from authorities. In contexts already marked by high levels of violence, such policies could exacerbate tensions, leading to increased gang recruitment and a vicious cycle of violence. Overall, this normalization could destabilize entire regions, inviting further intervention from foreign powers under the guise of restoring order (Choudaha & Chang, 2012).

What if judicial intervention successfully challenges ICE practices?

Should the judiciary rise to the occasion and challenge the dubious practices of ICE, the outcomes could be transformative. A ruling against ICE’s current criteria could establish a legal precedent that:

  • Protects individuals from wrongful labeling
  • Restores faith in the judiciary as a guardian of civil rights

Such a ruling could ignite a broader civil rights movement aimed at reforming immigration policies that disproportionately target marginalized communities, emphasizing principles of justice and proportionality (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

A favorable judicial outcome could also embolden other countries to critique and reform their own immigration enforcement practices, spurring increased international scrutiny of U.S. policies. The challenge to ICE could awaken a political consciousness in both the U.S. and Central America, prompting deeper discussions on justice, human rights, and the militarization of immigration policies (Glick Schiller et al., 1995).

What if public outcry leads to policy reforms within ICE?

Suppose the current revelations about ICE’s practices ignite a wave of public outcry that results in significant policy reforms within the agency. In this scenario, ICE might be compelled to:

  • Institute transparent standards for evaluating gang affiliation
  • Ensure individuals are not labeled based solely on subjective interpretations but rather on measurable and actionable evidence (Rodriguez, 2018)

This shift could improve the lives of countless individuals facing wrongful detention and persecution due to arbitrary classifications.

Policy reforms could also create opportunities for community-focused initiatives aimed at preventing violence and supporting at-risk youth. Such initiatives would foster a culture in which individuals are viewed as potential contributors to society rather than threats. Increased funding for social programs in El Salvador and other Central American countries, aimed at addressing the root causes of gang violence—such as poverty, lack of education, and limited economic opportunities—could ameliorate the conditions that drive migration.

If ICE responds constructively to public pressure, it could catalyze a shift in the broader conversation about immigration in the U.S., moving away from punitive measures toward comprehensive reform that respects human rights (Gibney, 2005). Such a trajectory might inspire other nations to reconsider their immigration policies, thereby reshaping the global narrative around migration and security.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of the alarming revelations about ICE practices, all stakeholders—including policymakers, advocacy groups, and affected communities—must engage in strategic maneuvers aimed at fostering meaningful change.

For U.S. policymakers:

  • Reform must become a priority. The administration should initiate a comprehensive review of ICE practices, particularly focusing on the criteria for designating individuals as gang members or ‘Alien Enemies.’
  • Legislative action is crucial; Congress should hold hearings to investigate these practices and consider reforms that prioritize human rights.
  • Collaboration with Central American governments to establish clear guidelines and support systems for returning citizens is essential to ensure they are not subjected to unjust scrutiny based on dubious criteria (Brotherton & Kretsedemas, 2008).

Advocacy groups should:

  • Amplify their efforts to educate the public about the implications of ICE’s practices on communities across the Americas.
  • Raise awareness through campaigns, social media, and community outreach to galvanize public support for reform.
  • Partner with local organizations in the U.S. and Central America to strengthen advocacy efforts and create a united front against unjust immigration practices (Kurtz & Schrank, 2007).

Affected communities should:

  • Organize grassroots movements aimed at demanding accountability from ICE.
  • Empower individuals to share their stories, humanizing the impact of these policies, fostering greater empathy, and understanding among the general populace.
  • Engage in local and national dialogues about immigration to help shift the narrative from criminalization to community building and support.

Lastly, the judiciary has a critical role in this landscape. Courts must remain vigilant in reviewing ICE’s practices to ensure that policies reflect constitutional protections. Judicial intervention could uphold individual rights and reaffirm the government’s responsibility to act justly and transparently, setting a precedent that could resonate across the legal landscape concerning immigration and human rights.

References

  • Brotherton, D. C., & Kretsedemas, P. (2008). Keeping Out the Other: A Comparative Study of the Immigration Policy of the United States and Canada. NY: University Press.
  • Choudaha, R., & Chang, L. (2012). Navigating the New Normal: The Impact of Globalization on Migration and Border Control Policies. Immigration Studies, 24(2), 287-303.
  • De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant ‘Illegality’ and Deportability in Everyday Life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419-447.
  • Gibney, M. (2005). The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc, C. (1995). From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1), 48-63.
  • Kurtz, L., & Schrank, H. (2007). Immigration and the Politics of the Media: The Case of the U.S. Immigration Enforcement Policies. Media, Culture & Society, 29(6), 930-946.
  • Rodriguez, K. (2018). The Power of Policy Change: Transnationalism and Migration Reform. International Migration Review, 52(4), 1042-1075.
  • Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical Race Methodology: A Transformative Research Paradigm. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 5-21.
  • Soss, J., & Weaver, R. K. (2017). Police Are Our Government: Politics, Political Science, and the Policing of Race and Class in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 15(3), 743-759.
  • Taghavi, K., Méndez, A., & Ramirez, J. (2008). Repression and Resistance: The Interconnections Between Immigration and Criminal Justice. Mexican Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 23-45.
  • Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387-409.
  • Zayas, A., & Bradlee, F. (2014). The Impact of U.S. Immigration Policies on Central American Migration. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
  • Zetter, R. (2007). More Than Refugees: The Impact of Immigration on Host Communities. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(4), 583-608.
← Prev Next →