Masked Law Enforcement

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It's incredibly disturbing that ICE agents in the US are regularly masked: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/25/immigration-officers-wearing-masks

This appears to be a new phenomenon in the US. The places where I’ve seen this before—Mexico and Colombia—aren’t exactly models to emulate. In those cases, the rationale for police masking was stronger, given the relative power of organized crime. And I suspect their masking still contributed to the public's justified mistrust of law enforcement.

Being able to confirm that a law enforcement officer is who they claim to be seems absolutely essential. Like, a bare minimum. How the party of "don't tread on me" has come to endorse this and related outrageous abuses of state power (warrantless searches, trial-less extraditions, etc.) is beyond me.

The US could almost effortlessly cause mass self-deportation of illegal residents *today* if they just required employers to use E-verify. That they instead prefer to roleplay fascism (abductions, masked policing, using the marines as law enforcement, etc.) should be concerning to everyone.

[Octavious]

I know very little about this topic, but the bare minimum I expect from a law enforcement officer is not to turn up to where I live with a gun. The mask thing is an issue, but such an infinitely smaller issue that it's quite hard to get excited about that in particular. In much the same way that if I was being attacked by a bear it wouldn't be its bad breath that demands my immediate attention.

I guess it all depends on what you're used to. I hope I never get used to police with guns

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm actually okay with the police having proper enforcement tools so long as there is accountability. Canadian police officers typically have guns, which makes sense to me given that many of the criminals do too (that's of course even more relevant in the US).

The problem with ICE agents going around with their faces covered and without easily visible ID is that there's no easy way to identify them. That makes it much harder to report misconduct. It also makes it way easier for extremists and weirdos to impersonate them - an issue that can be a serious problem for public trust even if it only happens very occasionally.

I suppose I'd be mostly-agnostic about the masking if the officers had big, easily identifiable IDs on display at all times, which they currently don't. Even better if they had body cams that could be independently reviewed, which they also currently don't.

On a broader level, obfuscating police identities definitely feels like it's meant to send a message. It tells the public that the state no longer feels the need to be transparent, and it resembles the tactics of regimes where fear and secrecy are themselves tools of control - something that most properly liberal places should avoid entirely. If this message were 0% of the motivation then I'm confused why this practice only started recently.

All this feels particularly icky given that, if the goal were actually to deport illegal immigrants, there are viable and arguably more effective methods that don't require what looks like unaccountable state-sponsored thuggery.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

One funny thing is that bears are actually a problem where I live, but we manage them through accountability. We don’t de-fang or de-claw the bears, because bears need such weapons, so instead we have a system for monitoring and relocating the ones that get too familiar with humans and their garbage, and we can pretty reliably destroy the ones that attack people.

[Jamiet99uk]

I know very little about this topic, but the bare minimum I expect from a law enforcement officer is not to turn up to where I live with a gun. The mask thing is an issue, but such an infinitely smaller issue that it's quite hard to get excited about that in particular. In much the same way that if I was being attacked by a bear it wouldn't be its bad breath that demands my immediate attention.

I guess it all depends on what you're used to. I hope I never get used to police with guns

Totally agree on both counts.

The very sight of armed police is unsettling, is not normal in the UK, and should require a specific justification.

The idea of police being masked or concealing their identities is some absolute fascist police state crap that should never be tolerated.

[Jamiet99uk]

If you are ever challenged, or questioned, or threatened with arrest by an officer of the state, a very basic minimum expectation is that that officer should be identifiable, either by name or by badge number, so that if they break the law you can specifically make a claim against them.

Without that, you live in fascism.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If you are ever challenged, or questioned, or threatened with arrest by an officer of the state, a very basic minimum expectation is that that officer should be identifiable, either by name or by badge number, so that if they break the law you can specifically make a claim against them.

Without that, you live in fascism.

This exact thing is apparently happening: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/growing-calls-for-police-to-identify-and-uncover-face-amid-rise-in-ice-impersonators/3730630/

And the officers (or impersonators) doing this can't be held to account because no one knows who they are.

It's insane. Isn't this precisely what the 2nd amendment, despite its obvious flaws, was meant to counter? Shouldn't armed Americans shoot people who try to detain and kidnap them without first proving they're law enforcement?

[CaptainFritz28]

It is. It's the very reason the 2nd amendment exists. If an armed man in a mask and tactical gear barges into my house uninvited and without a warrant, and appears to have the intent to either take me or others hostage by use of force, he gets shot.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It is. It's the very reason the 2nd amendment exists. If an armed man in a mask and tactical gear barges into my house uninvited and without a warrant, and appears to have the intent to either take me or others hostage by use of force, he gets shot.

Ah, but we've previously discovered you're the last unarmed Texan. That leaves you only with preventative strategies like not electing the guy who needlessly empowers unidentifiable government agents

[learnedSloth]

It is. It's the very reason the 2nd amendment exists. If an armed man in a mask and tactical gear barges into my house uninvited and without a warrant, and appears to have the intent to either take me or others hostage by use of force, he gets shot.

Ah, but we've previously discovered you're the last unarmed Texan.

I gathered from that post that he isn't unarmed anymore.

That leaves you only with preventative strategies like not electing the guy who needlessly empowers unidentifiable government agents

That's easier said than done. Even Hitler was an animal-loving vegetarian and a sober youth idol.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I was certainly being glib.

But it's a point to consider.

If you're thinking through realistic (albeit unlikely) circumstances where your best option is to kill some masked government agent, you've found yourself in an untenable spot.

Now should be the time for Americans, including Trump supporters, to make it known that masked ICE agents are beyond the pale. No one needs to change their mind on immigration policy, they just need to draw a red line on this outrageous enforcement technique.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It's baffling that Republicans appear to support these sorts of raids despite their blatantly unconstitutional tactics.

The same people who worry about threats to the Second Amendment seem perfectly willing to ignore a host of constitutional violations posed by unidentifiable ICE agents: violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process, and the First Amendment’s safeguard against state intimidation.

And all in service of a policy that’s less effective at reducing unauthorized immigration than simply enforcing existing labor laws. The goal isn’t law and order - it’s to terrorize non-whites and blue states, stage performative deportations, but ultimately preserve the exploitable underclass that props up key sectors of the economy.

[Octavious]

I still can't get my head around the mentality that insists that wearing masks, that are designed to protect officers from having their images and identities posted online and themselves and their families receiving death threats, is beyond the pale...

Whereas officers being armed with guns, specifically designed remove people from this plane of existence for evermore (and upwards of a thousand Yanks a year are indeed wiped off the face of the Earth by law enforcement officers), is just seen as them having the appropriate tools.

It must have taken a hell of a lot of mental conditioning to get people to a state where they just accept this.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm confused what you don't get about the accountability argument?

If officers are being doxxed and harassed there might be a good faith argument for covering their faces. That's only tenable, and indeed constitutional, if there is some other clear way to identify them (e.g., a clearly displayed badge number that could be used to investigate a complaint). The problem today is there are many documented incidences of ICE agents not even displaying badges and also refusing to show ID when requested.

The gun thing seems to just be a transatlantic miscommunication. There are simply too many guns in amongst the general population, let alone the criminal population, for law enforcement in the US to wander around with batons. It's an undesirable situation that nonetheless seems imminently understandable. Since the gun thing is no longer a choice, it raises the stakes on the need for police accountability and public trust in law enforcement.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I know you've found a comfortable angle with the gun thing to make an argument that's doesn't land specifically the Trump admin. Fair enough if that's the only part of this you find interesting. But I wonder what you think about the other issues at play?

What's the good faith argument for the Trump admin prioritizing a strategy of random ICE agent mediated deportations, rather than merely expanding the existing E-verify system such that employers have a harder time employing illegals? The uncharitable view I hold is that the chaos of random deportations is the point, while actually reducing the number of illegals is clearly secondary.

What is the good faith argument for a policy allowing ICE agents to hide their identity not only to the general public (via masking), but also in a manner that makes them totally unaccountable (i.e., the demonstrably lax rules on badging and ID)? The uncharitable view I hold is that allowing bad behaviour by ICE agents, and letting a few imposters terrorize specific people (dark skinned folks in blue states), is part of the point.

[Jamiet99uk]

If I was faced with a masked "officer" who refused to identify themselves or show any ID I would call 999 (or 911 obv) and say "I am being accosted by someone impersonating a law enforcement officer; they are refusing to show any authorisation or identify themselves, I assume they are a criminal, help!".

[CaptainFritz28]

I was certainly being glib.

But it's a point to consider.

If you're thinking through realistic (albeit unlikely) circumstances where your best option is to kill some masked government agent, you've found yourself in an untenable spot.

Now should be the time for Americans, including Trump supporters, to make it known that masked ICE agents are beyond the pale. No one needs to change their mind on immigration policy, they just need to draw a red line on this outrageous enforcement technique.

I agree. Armed or not, the citizens have a responsibility to do something about it... unfortunately that means that I have a responsibility to do something about it. I'm not quite certain what that specifically means at the present moment.

[CaptainFritz28]

If I was faced with a masked "officer" who refused to identify themselves or show any ID I would call 999 (or 911 obv) and say "I am being accosted by someone impersonating a law enforcement officer; they are refusing to show any authorisation or identify themselves, I assume they are a criminal, help!".

If they show no identification or affiliation with any agency, not even a badge, and are concealing their identity, I think that's definitely a fair thing to do, if not the best thing.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I really feel for Americans in this moment.

A lot of y'all clearly felt forced to pick between bad options and now you're getting some policies that, while foreseeable, weren't really what you were signing up for.

The burden here really probably should weigh heaviest on Trump voters, not because of moral culpability, but because their voices are the only ones that really matter in this case. A young conservative Christian making a principled case about defending the constitution and Americans' civil liberties would be much more impactful at this point than yet another blue haired oddball mixing their condemnation of ICE tactics (something I hope most Americans could agree with) with a deeply divisive and unpopular stance on immigration (let them all in, let them all stay, denigrate anyone who has a problem with this).

[CaptainFritz28]

I know you've found a comfortable angle with the gun thing to make an argument that's doesn't land specifically the Trump admin. Fair enough if that's the only part of this you find interesting. But I wonder what you think about the other issues at play?

What's the good faith argument for the Trump admin prioritizing a strategy of random ICE agent mediated deportations, rather than merely expanding the existing E-verify system such that employers have a harder time employing illegals? The uncharitable view I hold is that the chaos of random deportations is the point, while actually reducing the number of illegals is clearly secondary.

What is the good faith argument for a policy allowing ICE agents to hide their identity not only to the general public (via masking), but also in a manner that makes them totally unaccountable (i.e., the demonstrably lax rules on badging and ID)? The uncharitable view I hold is that allowing bad behaviour by ICE agents, and letting a few imposters terrorize specific people (dark skinned folks in blue states), is part of the point.

I don't think there is any justification for agents being unidentifiable. That is just ridiculous, as it allows for vigilantism and obstructs the ability to be transparent in matters of justice.

But that's really the only big issue I have with what I've seen thus far. The only warrantless arrests are not home arrests but public ones, and if they are warrantless they have been determined by judges to have probable cause, which was a precedent set long before Trump got into office. I've not heard any reports yet of US citizens being detained, but I'm sure they're out there. Sidenote: There is no justification for US citizens being detained. Every operation has a failure rate, and the fact that the failure rate of ICE arrests is so low as to go unreported is a testament to their effectiveness. Still, any citizens deported would be a breach of justice.

What I find interesting is that people are treating Trump's deportations as something totally new, when under Obama's administration over 3 million immigrants were deported, at a rate almost twice as high as Trump has been deporting people. Why did that policy suddenly change among the Democratic party as soon as Trump took office? Even Biden was in favor of deportations on a mass scale before Trump, and then all of a sudden he changes his mind with the rest of the party. The riots in LA, the protests all across the country... why weren't these present under Obama, and why did everyone change their minds?

So I think there should be coverage of masked, unidentifiable agents making arrests (which ought to be changed) and any US citizens being deported (which should be reported on, but if it is, it's not reported on in any widespread manner). Other than that, I think criticism of deportations by Democrat politicians, just by the principle of deportations, is largely hypocritical.