Core policy differences

Obama

Obama’s DHS used formal guidance to prioritize national‑security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers, and de‑prioritize long‑time residents without records. Prosecutorial discretion was a central tool—officers were told some groups should rarely be removed.  DACA Protection gave temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to certain undocumented immigrants brought as children, creating a large class of people explicitly shielded from removal while still leaving others exposed.  Obama oversaw historically high removal numbers, especially early on, often through border‑related removals and cooperation programs like Secure Communities. According to its 2009 report to Congress, Secure Communities aimed to Identify criminal aliens through modernized information sharing, prioritize enforcement to apprehend and remove dangerous criminal aliens, and transform enforcement processes for lasting results.   ICE leadership described it as “the future of immigration enforcement” because it focused resources on the most serious offenders.  Critics argued that “criminal” categories were broad and included minor offenses.

Trump

Trump rolled back categorical protections and framed discretion as non‑limiting—essentially saying any removable noncitizen could be a target. This widened the pool of people at risk, including many without criminal records.  The administration wanted zero tolerance prosecutions for illegal entry, which produced family separation when parents were criminally charged and children treated as unaccompanied.  Travel bans restricted entry from several majority‑Muslim countries.  The policies expanded expedited removal, detention, and local‑police cooperation.  More visible workplace and community raids were conducted.

“Success”

There isn’t a single neutral metric of “success” in immigration policy.  If success equals the sheer number of deportations/removals, roughly 2.75–3 million removals occurred under Obama, versus Trump’s first-term totals that are significantly lower.   Recent data suggest Trump’s later term has a higher daily rate (1,090/day vs. Obama’s 942/day), but that record is still in progress. Even with aggressive tactics, total removals under Trump were lower than Obama’s completed two terms, and a smaller share of deportees had criminal convictions—about 29% versus a much higher share under Obama’s later‑term priorities.

If success equals targeting serious criminals and recent border crossers, Obama’s framework was more selective, with a larger share of deportees having criminal records and enforcement guidance explicitly prioritizing serious offenses.  Trump’s enforcement arrested more people with no criminal record, which some see as less efficient use of resources if the goal is public safety rather than maximum removals. On that metric, Obama’s program is arguably more “successful” at aligning removals with stated public‑safety goals.

If success equals deterrence and symbolic toughness, Trump’s policies, family separation, travel bans, wall rhetoric, and expanded detention, were far more visible and polarizing.  They may have had stronger deterrent or symbolic effects for some audiences, even though the raw deportation numbers were lower. Whether that counts as “success” depends on how much weight is given to deterrence and political signaling versus humanitarian and legal costs.

If success equals humanitarian and rule‑of‑law outcomes, Obama’s record is criticized for high numbers of deportations and for broad “criminal” labels.  However, he also created DACA and later narrowed priorities, which many see as a more balanced approach between enforcement and relief.  Trump’s tactics, especially family separation and broad interior enforcement, drew intense criticism from courts, human‑rights groups, and many allies, suggesting lower “success” if the benchmark includes human rights, due process, and international reputation.

Which Program was more Successful?

By numbers alone (completed terms) Obama’s immigration enforcement was more successful at removing large numbers of people, with the highest total deportations of any president in recent decades.   By targeted enforcement and public‑safety focus, Obama’s priority‑based system (especially after 2014) was more aligned with removing serious offenders and recent crossers, while Trump’s broadened net captured more non‑criminals.  By symbolic toughness and deterrence, Trump’s program is more aggressive in tactics and rhetoric, but not in total removals, and carries a higher level of humanitarian and legal controversies.

So, if you define “success” as high-volume but structured enforcement with some built‑in protections, Obama’s approach comes out ahead. If you define it as maximal toughness and visible punishment, Trump’s program looks “tougher,” though not more effective in raw deportation numbers.

Trump’s high visibility approach was his way of pleasing his MAGA base.  By strict definition Illegal immigrants are criminals. However, illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony.  No one should be deported for a misdemeanor without due process!  Obama’s approach was less publicized from an enforcement perspective but made the news for his DACA program.   Critics did not want any immigrants given a “pass” even if it was temporary.  Under Trump, ICE’s high visibility has created much tension throughout the nation.  Obama’s quite approach produced larger numbers while following due process and the rule of law as applied to immigration. 

Over the past year I have written about immigration, ICE, and other politically charged issues.  I have attempted to keep my opinions to a minimum by looking for the facts.  My life has been shaped by the idea that the truth is only discoverable when you ask questions and look for accurate information.  That’s difficult today where there are so many instant sources, many with less than Walter Cronkite honesty!

The shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents yesterday clearly points out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration.  Watch the videos and look at the stills.  The story fabricated by Noem, Bondi, and Bovino can’t begin to defend the actions of these ICE officers.  It is clear that Pretti was observing and recording the actions of ICE agents. He had his cell phone in his hand.  It is clear that an ICE agent pushed a woman into a snow pile.  It is clear that Pretti was attempting to help her up.  It is also clear that as he helped this woman, an ICE agent dispensed spray at Pretti, followed by additional officers taking him to the ground.  Pretti was doing nothing wrong!  He was shot because an overly excited and poorly trained officer likely informed his peers that there was a gun.  There was a gun.  However, the gun was not visible in his hand as claimed by ICE, but in his holster. 

The shooting of Alex Pretti is the fifth deadly shooting by ICE since January.  The killing of Renee Nicole Good was not the first time that federal officers have killed civilians.  Federal officers have fatally shot at least three other people in the last five months. In September, Silverio Villegas González, a father originally from Mexico who worked as a cook, was killed while reportedly trying to flee from officers in a Chicago suburb (WBEZ). In December, a border patrol agent killed a 31-year-old Mexican citizen while trying to detain him in Rio Grande City, Texas. And on New Year’s Eve, an off-duty ICE agent used his service weapon to shoot a man in Los Angeles, California. Authorities mistakenly said the man had raised a rifle at the officer (CBS News).  Agents have also shot other people. The Trace, the nonprofit news organization covering gun violence, has counted more than a dozen such shootings. In some cases, the victims survived, including a woman who suffered multiple bullet wounds in an incident in Chicago in October (Marshall Project).

My examination of media reports points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates.  In a prior post, I noted that the training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during this Minneapolis confrontation.  While at least some of the officers involved had received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, the training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants– not police tactics.  The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS.  Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training.  DE-ESCALATE THE TENSION in any given situation.  This recent ICE citizen interaction shows ICE escalating the situation, not de-escalating!

To be clear, the entire ICE operation is based on fabricated stories about immigrants.  Immigrants are invading America.  “There are many rapists, killers, and gang members among our immigrants.”  The Trump administration is increasing deportation of these “dangerous” criminals.  The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations. It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants.  Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony.  It is a misdemeanor punishable with no more than a six-month jail term for the first offense.  Citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. They have a right to life!

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions.  Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited by DHS as about 70%), However, independent analyses of ICE and detention data finds that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions, and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Indeed, relative to native-born citizens and legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants have the lowest felony arrest rates across all crime types. In fact, the gaps between native-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are substantial. US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes (National Institute of Health study). Trump used a false narrative to instill fear in his MAGA base. 

Immigration reform has been a topic of debate for decades.  During the end of the Biden administration, a bipartisan immigration reform bill was finally on its way through Congress. The bill, a $118 billion package, was introduced by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona. It included $20.23 billion to strengthen border security and stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics through the border into the United States.  The package gave the secretary of Homeland Security the power to close the border if more than 4,000 encounters with migrants occurred during a period of seven consecutive days. The immigration overhaul also included:  raising the bar for migrants claiming asylum; clarification of the White House’s use of parole authority to grant temporary protections to migrants; and no longer allowing migrants to live in the U.S. while waiting for their case to be heard by an immigration judge. It didn’t get passed because candidate Trump wanted the immigration issue to remain as a campaign issue (Associated Press, February 2024).

It is also worth noting that under President Obama deportation figures were the highest of any president.  During his tenure, 2.7 to 3 million people were deported.  The daily average ranged from a high of 1,000 to a low of 800.  All of this was accomplished without a surge in ICE arrests.  In contrast, to date, Trump’s ICE is averaging 810 arrests per day with pending deportation.  Most of these individuals are being held in detention centers on a misdemeanor charge.

Why do we need an ICE force that is now 22,000 strong and growing? This number is double that of the 10,000 officers in the organization under past administrations.    Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion. But ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, at $85 billion. And why does the operating budget include bonuses for arrests?  Do we really want this type of federal immigration enforcement?  Do we support ICE officers who receive only 47 hours of training?

Minneapolis and prior ICE operations in Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other cities are a harbinger of possible things to come.  There was no crisis that required the surge in ICE operations!  This was perhaps only a political ploy.  While most MAGAs likely support this move, the majority of Americans are appalled.  A recent FOX News report found that only 35% of those polled support ICE actions in Minneapolis. When thousands of demonstrators take to the streets to protect the immigrants in their communities, that should tell us that there is something wrong with the administration’s policies.  Americans must make their voices heard when the protection that the Trump administration says it is providing becomes a greater threat than the fabricated problem! 

  We deserve to know why so many ICE officers are being hired.  We should demand that all federal officers receive at least a minimum of 400 hours of training, the minimum required by our states for police officers, not 47 hours as currently for ICE officers.  Also, consider the fact that ICE officers are not subject to the stringent pre-employment screening which most police department applicants face.  ICE officers not only lack training in police tactics, such as de-escalation, but some may even have tendencies toward violence. Contact your legislators (specifically Republicans) and tell them not to support the funding of ICE operations until Americans get answers to questions regarding Trump’s false narrative on immigration.

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers.  Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense.  The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence.  Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years.  As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered.  A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions. 

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow?  For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders? 

Who is Jonathan Ross?  How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7?  Did he position himself in a place of danger?  Was deadly force his only option?  How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle?  Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment?  If not, why not?  If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7?  Did she intend to block an ICE operation?  Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door?  Was she defiant?  Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?  

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions.  The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions.  An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate?  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States.  ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws.  They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions.  A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent.  ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers.  Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally.  ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation.  Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning.  Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish.  New recruits now receive 47 days of training.  The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation.  While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics.  The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS.  Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training.  De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

 In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle.  He was hospitalized with severe injuries.  To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty.  Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm.   He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty.   It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents.  To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers.  To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers. 

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty.  However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.