Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV dispute - needs information on criticism

Since ICE has been created as a DHS organization, it has been subject to significant controversy. This controversy has been heightened with reports of deaths in custody throughout ICE's existence, as well as more recent reports of "lost" immigrant children (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-officials-lose-track-of-nearly-1500-migrant-children) and destruction of legal records documenting abuses (https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-plans-start-destroying-records-immigrant). Political dialogue surrounding ICE has also intensified in light of Donald Trump's statements on immigration.

This article, however, makes no mention of these widely reported incidents or the broader controversy surrounding US immigration policy, particularly regarding the lack of legal accountability enjoyed by ICE agents. The absence of a criticism section gives undue weight to ICE's self-justification, and therefore violates the NPOV policy. This is an issue that has been mentioned in the past, and given the timely nature of the present controversy alongside the amount of existing content in the article presenting ICE in a good light, the lack of a section discussing the controversy is unacceptable.

168.235.187.210 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - ^theWOLFchild 16:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a lack of a criticism or controversies section does not equate to an NPOV issue. I have removed the unwarranted tag. If you have specific improvements that you wish to make, feel free to take the time to edit the article. Scr★pIron^IV 17:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed please add detail about this current round of controversies. Andrevan@ 04:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I created a Criticism section, please have a look. Admittedly was difficult to distinguish between DHS or ICE broadly, and its sub-agencies such as Border Patrol and CBP, or even other departments altogether such as DHHS. Shushugah (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Child detention centers

Absolute nonsense that this article is 80% ICE propaganda sourced from their own website, but there's nothing about the child concentration camps that ICE so proudly maitntains — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.238.40 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree in short this page suffers from extreme pro ICE bias. We need to make constructive edits in its criticism section for example. Shushugah (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

"ICE has received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what *has* been described as concentration camps."

Should Read

"ICE has received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what *have* been described as concentration camps." 71.197.104.243 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Case Samples

None of the Case Samples have any references or sources, why is this huge section allowed to stay there while *any* criticism needs to have backed by several sources and editors still remove them? This article is not NPOV, its heavily heavily biased in favor of ICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.238.40 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

ICE criticism in the lede

Opening section for discussion about what should be included in the lede. At bottom of lede this paragraph was included and removed several times already:

ICE has recently received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what have been described as concentration camps. Shushugah (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Any proposals should be in line with MOS:LEAD, WP:CONTROVERSY AND WP:CRITICISM. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Shushugah: - just noticed your "revert" edit summary; "Revert: This is not a redundant paragraph. If you think the lede should not include the most prominent criticism of ICE this past month, please explain why in the talk page. This lede has been repeatedly removed for numerous procedural reasons and warrants a consensus amongst editors." - as you say, it's already been removed "repeatedly", and yet you are again re-adding it, basically edit-warring, and insisting on a "consensus". Well, where is the consensus supporting your edit? Per WP:BRD, it was added, then removed, which should be followed by discussion... not you re-adding it again based solely on your POV. (and I see you re-added manually, instead of reverting, as you claim). That content needs to be removed and only re-added if there is consensus and policy supporting it. - ^theWOLFchild 22:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Notifying Dlohcierekim. That controversial and unsupported edit was re-added back into the lead just as they were protecting the page to prevent this kind of disruptive editing. It should be removed pending a proper discussion. - ^theWOLFchild 22:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not an unsupported edit, their family seperation and child internment policy has resulting in mass media attention and protests across the country and removing it from the lead is extremely biased in favor of ICE. Any reasonable NPOV would include this criticism in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.144.5 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Unsupprted" by consensus, not by sources. (I thought that was obvious, apparently not). This issue is already documented in the controversy section, why does it need to be in the lead as well? The lead needs to reflect the entire article and we don't add info about controversies just because they are current or recent. That's what newspapers are for, not encyclopaedias. - ^theWOLFchild 23:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It was initially removed due to non reputable source ie National Review, so I re-added with two different reputable sources citing same thing. And then it was removed with reason that it was redundant, which it isn’t. Per the MOS:LEAD the lead is a short summary of the article which also includes any key controversies. If you think other controversies merit more weight, or different wording is more appropriate am open to that. Everything in the lede can be expanded later in the content.

I am on mobile, so I did a manual revert. I apologize for any confusion there. Shushugah (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

One more comment. On the article page, it was never stated explicitly that this information doesn’t belong in the lede, but I suspect people didn’t want it there. I engaged and addressed specific reasons in good faith, and preemptively opened this section here so we can talk plainly about it. On both sides, I think people worry about WP:NPOV which is especially important on heated topics like this. Shushugah (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact it, it was added, then removed. At that point, if you still wanted it added, you should've started a discussion before re-adding, per WP:BRD, to seek consensus. Instead you keep re-adding it, which is basically edit-warring. Even now it should be removed until there has been a discussion, perhaps even an RfC, so the community can review, discuss, and possibly form a consensus on that entry, or any possible alternatives. The rules apply to you, just like everyone else. - ^theWOLFchild 09:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to address the content itself, but since you tagged Admin and mentioned procedural issues, I’ll address those. I still want to hear your and anyone else’s content recommendation. I agree with having an RfC. With regards to WP:BRD, inside that link it says:

"BRD is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy"

Shushugah (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, BRD is not a "policy", but you do realize that it is a widely accepted practice among this community? If you want to cling to a technicality to support your cramming in disputed content you personally support without any input from the community, then you are not grasping the collegial aspect of this project. I realize that you are relatively inexperienced, but this is something you will come to realize is of importance here as you go along. Also, while BRD is not a policy, edit warring is. So once you've been reverted, you need to learn to leave it be and discuss. It will cause less problems in the end. - ^theWOLFchild 11:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice I have posted request for 3PO Wikipedia:Third_opinion. I am new and also engaging in good faith. I created this section unprompted by any administrator. I reverted your contribution once, and addressed another person who questioned the source's reliability. Two reverts is hardly an edit war. No one, so far has explained what improved/replacement content should be, including yourself. On other hand, several people, registered and unregistered have supported that this is relevant and appropriate. I am trying to build a consensus here, and yes we need to resolve this dispute Shushugah (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

As you've just pointed out, several editors have already been involved, and simply adding one more opinion to the mix via 3PO, I believe, would hardly be sufficient. This is why I suggested an RfC, which, again I believe, would be the more appropriate course of action. - ^theWOLFchild 14:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Why was this removed? Per the MOS:LEAD explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I look forward to your or anyone else's answers on improved content. Removing the most important controversy, would be violation of WP:NPOV Shushugah (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC

It was already established that after you added that content, it removed and since challenged. The lead should remain as QUO while disputed content is discussed, relevant policies and guidelines are reviewed and the community has an opportunity to form a consensus. You didn't do that, you just kept re-adding. It was removed again and page protection was requested to keep the article stable and prompt a discussion. Again you added it, just minutes before the page was locked. It was removed, pending a discussion and consensus. But again, instead of awaiting the outcome of any discussion, you re-add this disputed and controversial content (for the n^th time?). You are basically gaming the system and waging a slow edit war. BRD may not be a policy, but it is a community-wide accepted practice and you should try following it for once. You need to establish consensus to re-add that edit again. - ^theWOLFchild 23:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No one except yourself called for removing it. Nonetheless, I asked you for your insight of what is improved content, and you're refused to answer. You cited consensus, when then only consensus there is from four people saying to keep it and yourself calling for its removal. Prior people had specific concerns, which were immediately accepted amendments such as reputable source. I have acquired consensus, and I am willing to incorporate your ideas, if you would actually share them, instead of just reverting, and then cyclically accusing me of reverting, what has been reverted. Shushugah (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2018

In the lead, the sentence; ICE has recently received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what have been described as detention camps.‍[5] was added and removed several times. This disruption is the very reason the page has been protected. Despite advising the editor to start discussion and seek consensus, they instead re-added it again, just as the protection was being added (basically slipping it under the wire.) It should be removed until there has been a discussion, possibly by way of RfC, so the community has an opportunity to review the content, discuss relative P&G and possible alternatives, and perhaps form a consensus. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 09:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: "Not done" - what a shock. As soon I saw it was you I expected nothing different. "please establish a consensus for this alteration" - erm, that's the whole point. It was added and removed, then re-added without consensus. But whatever. Thank you so much for your assistance. Awesome admin'ing, as usual... - ^theWOLFchild 14:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"As soon I saw it was you I expected nothing different"... "But whatever. Thank you so much for your assistance. Awesome admin'ing, as usual..." -- This is an inappropriate way to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia. Smaller question, where did you advise me to start a discussion? You commented 20 minutes after I created a discussion already. Shushugah (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate way to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia - Feel free to lecture me on the rules when you start following them yourself. Until then... - ^theWOLFchild 16:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Compound modifier in lead

The lead currently reads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a law enforcement agency of the Federal government of the United States…

This should read U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a law-enforcement agency of the Federal government of the United States…; "law-enforcement" is a compound modifier of "agency". — Hugh (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying there should be a dash between "law" and "enforecement"...? You can ask an admin to add one via edit request if you feel its urgent, or wait a couple days until the page protection expires and add it yourself. - ^theWOLFchild 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2018

The references to "immigrants" under the subtitle "Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)" is incorrect. The office Immigration and Customs Enforcement website relating to subject is https://www.ice.gov/ero. This clearly states the mission of ICE as this: "To identify, arrest, and remove aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts. Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) upholds America's immigration laws at, within and beyond our borders through efficient enforcement and removal operations." The targets of removal are "aliens", those persons who have no authorization to be in the United States, not "immigrants" who have, by definition, permission to be in the United States. There is no mention of "immigrants" as the targets of ICE enforcement. Please remove the false references to "immigrants" and replace with "aliens"Texastruthseeker (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC). Texastruthseeker (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Texastruthseeker: Note that most aliens do have such authorization. Some helpful legal terminology from Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.: "deportable alien. An alien who has entered the United States but is subject to removal." --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note Not sure what exactly is requested or whether there is consensus for such a change. So disabling request for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2018

In the lead, add the HTML entity ‍ or the template {{Zero width joiner}} between "camps." and "<ref>".

So, instead of:

ICE has recently received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what have been described as detention camps.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ex-cia-chief-defends-tweet-comparing-trump-border-policy-to-nazi-concentration-camps/|title=Ex-CIA Chief Defends Tweet Comparing Trump Border Policy to Nazi Concentration Camps|author=Jack Crow|date=18 June 2018|accessdate=20 June 2018}}</ref>

it would be:

ICE has recently received substantial criticism over their internment of migrant children into what have been described as detention camps.‍<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ex-cia-chief-defends-tweet-comparing-trump-border-policy-to-nazi-concentration-camps/|title=Ex-CIA Chief Defends Tweet Comparing Trump Border Policy to Nazi Concentration Camps|author=Jack Crow|date=18 June 2018|accessdate=20 June 2018}}</ref>

Reason: For me right now, there is a line break between the content and the citation, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. This would eliminate that issue.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2018

In the lead, add after the final sentence:

Ronald Vitiello was named as the agency's Deputy Director on June 30, 2018. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said he will also serve as acting director.

References

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your request! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2018

In the lead, at graf 3, delete:

The current Director of ICE is Thomas Homan, serving in an acting capacity.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Instead of removing it outright, I just updated the line to reflect the new acting director. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding lead

There is no consensus in this discussion owing to the unclear opening statement. An RfC participant noted: "If you want to have a productive RfC, you need to present the community with a coherent question. A generic 'what should the lead be' isn't easy for uninvolved people to answer."

There is no prejudice against opening a new RfC that asks a specific question about what the lead should or should not contain.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is appropriate content for the lead of this article? See this existing section for some of the discussion dispute including process Shushugah (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

cc: @Thewolfchild:

• Comment User:Thewolfchild: I would like to hear your thoughts. If we're just talking consensus, the only concerns I have noted so far were User:XavierGreen's concern (diff) about using the National Review as a source, and 168.235.187.210's concern that this topic matter was being given undue weight due to the lack of content in the article. Both of those appear addressed, given the new section. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved non-American, the only issues I have with the lead are these, about its balance:

1. It seems a bit too much like a newspaper (WP is not news) to name the current incumbent in the lead, since that data is available in the infobox.
2. That ICE isn't responsible for border patrols seems like undue weight on a current or recent issue (recency bias); we might as well state that they don't operate an office on Mars for prospective immigrants from that planet!

Otherwise, the lead is informative in a summary way, which seems about right. yoyo (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've already expressed my concerns and cited relevant P&G, but again, I'll say WP is not news. We dont flash recent news headlines in leads like the front page of the NY Times. The lead should summarize the entire article. The article has a 'controversies' section, the lead could include a more generalized mention that there has been a number of controversies during the history of this agency, but it would be inappropriate and UNDUE to specifically highlight one single controversial issue. It seems the only reason a user or two want this in there so badly is because it's recent and they want to bring attention to it. That's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. - ^theWOLFchild 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• If you want to have a productive RfC, you need to present the community with a coherent question. A generic "what should the lead be" isn't easy for uninvolved people to answer. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 2 July 2018

In the lead, in the second paragraph, in the citation at the end of the fourth sentence, add the ref website; add the most relevant ref quote (see the web page title, which says "… Michael Hayden on Twitter"); and add the needed correction to that quote.

... Described as detention camps.

References

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Add a missing parameter (ref website) to the citation

Here's the currently worded citation, which doesn't give the website name (National Review):

... described as detention camps.

References

Here's a correctly worded citation, which does give it:

... described as detention camps.

References

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done I've added National Review to the citation, but I am not going to add the quote in, that needs to be an editorial discussion. Fish+Karate 13:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Change Thomas Homan (Acting) to Ronald Vitiello (Acting) for chief1name field in infobox. TheSubmarine (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No opposition so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because this article has been protected due to edit warring. And considering that the 3O request was made after the protection, that was borderline forum shopping. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Erpert:, an RfC request was posted after the 3PO request. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2018

As some are calling for its abolition, there appears to be some confusion as to exactly what ICE does not do, so I propose this sentence be appended to paragraph #1 in the lede:

ICE does not patrol American borders; rather, that role is performed by the United States Border Patrol, a unit of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is a sister agency of ICE.

Reference: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1040/~/difference-between-u.s.-customs-and-border-protection-%28cbp%29%2C-u.s.-citizenship soibangla (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Seems a bit pointy to me. ICE also aren't responsible for space exploration but we don't need to point that out in the article. If there were substantive, reliably-sourced sources out there that discussed a widely-held confusion about whether ICE are responsible or not for border patrolling, then it would warrant addition. Fish+Karate 13:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a considerable amount of confusion, and deception, about what ICE actually does:

The Hill — June 29: Thomas Homan, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), addressed critics on Friday attacking his agency over migrant family separations. "They need to educate themselves," the ICE chief told Fox News. "I mean, this protest yesterday, to protest about family separations on the border — ICE doesn't separate families on the border. That's the Border Patrol. We're a different agency."

The New York Times — July 3: What Is ICE and Why Do Critics Want to Abolish It? Is ICE separating families at the border? No. That’s Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency for the Border Patrol, which is responsible for patrolling, monitoring and securing the United States’ borders with Mexico and Canada.

Factcheck.org — July 3: Calls to Abolish ICE Not ‘Open Borders’ Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Slate — July 3: What ICE Really Does There’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. There’s Customs and Border Protection. Who does what?

GOP — July 3: "Democrats’ calls to abolish ICE would mean abolishing America’s borders— and opening the floodgates to crime, drugs, and terrorism"

soibangla (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bed Quota

The section mentioning a quota of 34,000 immigrants was recently updated (diff) because it was false. The article referred to beds, not immigrants. The section doesn't quite make sense now. I feel there are two options:

1. Remove the reference to beds
2. Reframe the content to make sense.

I don't have a strong preference. PolitiFact did a bit on the misconception about the beds. They agree, there is no legal requirement to fill the beds. But they also mention, "Under different DHS secretaries, the government’s interpretation of the law has varied as to whether the beds need to be filled or not." If there are other secondary sources to back that up, might be worth mentioning. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Article needs major cleanup of unsourced material

A significant portion the article uses dead links or is completely unsourced. The descriptions under the "Investigative Programs" in particular are already excessively long, all the unsourced details should be trimmed off to leave more succinct descriptions that actually have citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.238.40 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Improving content where needed is better than mass removal. If links are "dead", tag them, add new ones, or try the Way back machine to restore them. There are better options than just gutting the article. - ^theWOLFchild 15:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We are in agreement here. Wayback machine works well for dead links. And prefer improving article over gutting. In my last edit, I encountered both. Situation where good citation was available online, and situations where the only source is a Wayback URL to ICE.gov press release page. Shushugah (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A few sections appear to be copy-and-pasted from press releases and official ICE sites. This probably isn't a copyvio issue since it's a federal government source, but they should certainly be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Is re-writing WP:OR in a neutral, encyclopaedic tone really enough? ICE, like any other institution can claim whatever it wants, but that does not make it an established fact, especially on a Wikipedia page about itself. Agreed, ICE content all falls under public domain Shushugah (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Gov't sites are RS. BTW... 25% of this article's content has now been removed. Where's the improvement? - ^theWOLFchild 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Government sources are indeed reliable sources, when covering a topic other than literally itself. ICE is not WP:IS for the purpose of covering ICE. If they make a claim that is unsubstantiated elsewhere, we can note their statement, but we do not treat it as a neutral established fact. And WP:SPIP applies in particular to reposting press releases. Shushugah (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The content starting with U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Homeland_Security_Investigations_(HSI) and inclusive of the section "Office of Professional Responsibility" reads like it's been copied from the agency's web site. Some of it is sourced to press releases, which would be WP:SPIP sources, while much of it is uncited. Some major surgery is called for. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Campaign to abolish/replace ICE

There is no info on the growing campaign to abolish and replace ICE, that has been started since Trump's child separation policy debacle. Enough notable politicians and other political activist have endorsed the idea that it deserves mention in this article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, would go well inside the Criticism section. There is also Occupy Ice. Shushugah (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Might wanna consider securing this article

With the 21 Savage thing that just occurred, I had to remove a "#Free21Savage" from the article. Don't know how many more of that will come. To be honest, I'm surprised that other recent debacles regarding ICE hasn't made the article lock-worthy already. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.124.148 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

additional social media section

Do you think a section covering social media responses and the effect online movements (#abolishice) have had would be a relevant addition to this article? Kafshar17 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Kafshar17

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Abolish ICE Protests.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed12's changes to the lead

Continue to be problematic. Their lead rewrite is longwinded and convoluted. They are edit warring and fail to use edit summaries. They were already been blocked for edit warring in this very article only a scant few days ago, but return as without seeming to have learned any lessons. El_C 00:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely. Neutrality^talk 05:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a question.

Recently, I have found a website that states that ICE aren't cops, but have permission to claim to be. It can be founded here: https://fedpractice.com/blog/ice-agents-arent-police/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.193.67 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

this page shows a racist photo where the ICE agents are blurred to protect them but the "mexican" man has no such rights to privacy on this website. Limmojoe769 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CP 133 Group 13 Proposed Edits

Add a section about Sanctuary Cities
Add a section about the Protests Surrounding ICE
Add a section about ICE Health Service Corp
Add a section about How ICE was Started and by who (Background) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharleengill (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 Group 12 Peer Review

I believe that Group 13’s edits substantially improve the quality of the article, as they provided much more detail to ICE’s history and impact. By including detail about protests against ICE and sanctuary cities, this provides insight into how ICE has been viewed, and society’s response as a whole to the formation and actions of ICE. Moreover, they provided background into ICE’s formation. In addition, information concerning ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) made their edits relevant to health policy. I believe that Group 13 accomplished their overall goals for improvement as stated in the talk page. The edits reflect a neutral point of view, and are cited with secondary sources that are verifiable. There is no conflicting formatting or evidence of plagiarism.

EOh92 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Group 13’s edits improve the article considerably by providing insight to the health care services provided to ICE detainees and the health-related challenges they may face. Additionally, the edits shed light on humanitarian concerns regarding the treatment of detained migrant children. The article edits align well with their goals for improvement as mentioned in the Talk Page. While some edits do not explicitly align with a specific goal originally set out, they are helpful nonetheless. The edits mentioned by Group 13 are all cited appropriately with secondary sources that are aligned with Wikipedia’s standards.

Jcoloso (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Group 13’s edits substantially improve the article and make it more relevant to what is going on today. The addition of ICE Health Services is important to show what services are supposed to be provided at these sites. I think it would be helpful to add evidence on whether these services have actually been provided as this is just briefly touched on during the separation of migrant children section. I believe that the section on the adoption of immigrant children without the consent or knowledge of family is particularly insightful. The source they got this from, The Intercept, is known to be very left biased but also known to have high factual reporting. Overall, the sources they used are of quality and the links to get to the sources work. I believe they did accomplish their overall goals that they stated in their talk page. I believe that their edits do present a neutral point of view, presenting facts without providing any commentary. While the facts are sometimes disconcerting, they are the facts. RessoC (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The group’s edits substantially improved the article as they provided a lot of information on ICE, the politics surrounding it, & it’s history. I believed the section of Sanctuary cities is significant as it shows public combatants and lack of cooperation against ICE. I believe group 13 accomplished their overall goals of adding a section about Sanctuary Cities, Protests surrounding ICE, ICE health service corp, & how ICE was started & by who. The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view as it shows relevant sources for all information recorded.

FNguyen3 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)