Faculty Provide Analysis on Legality, Unintended Consequences, and Implications of ICE Raids
PRINCETON, NJ – Faculty from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs are raising questions that policymakers and the media should consider as the Trump Administration escalates the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to cities across the United States. They call into question the constitutionality of immigration enforcement tactics, the global consequences of these actions, and the societal costs.
Barbara Buckinx, Research Scholar and Lecturer in Public and International Affairs:
“Immigration enforcement is a routine feature of immigration systems, under different U.S. administrations and across liberal democracies. But some tactics generate intense anxiety, and what is legal is not necessarily prudent or ethical. In Princeton, a recent ICE raid caused widespread alarm among parents, with rumors spreading throughout the day and the high school briefly going into shelter-in-place. If fear was the intended effect, it worked — but fear should never be the goal of enforcement.”
Amelia Frank-Vitale, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs:
“The escalation by ICE in Minnesota is deeply troubling — and increasingly lawless. More and more, we are seeing that ICE is targeting anyone who they suspect to be an immigrant — regardless of actual immigration status, criminal record, or where they might be in the legal process. In order to inflate their detention and deportation numbers, this administration is targeting all immigrants — including citizens, legal permanent residents, and asylum seekers who are following the legal process to seek protection. This is on display in Minnesota, but it's the same logic behind ICE arresting people who are showing up to their hearings in immigration court, canceling Temporary Protected Status for millions, and challenging the bedrock principle of birthright citizenship. This demonstrates just how little the Trump administration is actually concerned about legality. The facade of going after 'the worst of the worst' or those who 'skipped the line to get here' has been shattered, and the violent xenophobia at the heart of the anti-immigrant agenda is increasingly evident.”
Filiz Garip, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs:
“In early December, the federal government sent thousands of immigration agents into the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. A few days later, an ICE agent fatally shot a U.S. citizen, protests erupted, and lawsuits quickly followed. Officials said this was about enforcing the law, but moments like this tend to surface when immigration becomes a political pressure point, when showing action matters as much as results. Similar operations are now appearing elsewhere, including in states like Maine, where federal agents are expanding arrests and enforcement efforts. Big, visible moves — such as raids, mass deployments, and crackdowns — are powerful because they look decisive and tough. Meanwhile, quieter steps that might actually change things, like holding employers accountable, often get pushed aside. And because the U.S. has the largest immigration enforcement system in the world, choices driven by optics at home end up shaping how immigration is enforced, and performed, far beyond its borders.”
Udi Ofer, John L. Weinberg Visiting Professor and Lecturer of Public and International Affairs:
“The federal government has clear authority to enforce federal immigration laws, but that authority is strictly constrained by the Constitution. Immigration enforcement is subject to the Fourth Amendment’s limits on searches and seizures, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process and equal protection, and the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and association. Recent federal immigration enforcement practices raise serious constitutional concerns, including concerns over racial profiling, excessive force, unlawful arrests, and retaliation against protected speech. These practices also underscore some gaps and hurdles in our legal and jurisprudential frameworks for holding federal officers accountable for civil rights violations. At a time when constitutional limits are being severely tested, strengthening accountability mechanisms is essential to the rule of law.”
Deborah Pearlstein, Director, Program in Law and Public Policy and Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor in Law and Public Affairs:
“Even among the growing number of shocking government actions in the name of immigration enforcement, the revelation last night of an apparent DHS policy authorizing warrantless, forcible entry into people’s homes stands out. The Fourth Amendment warrant requirement — requiring an independent court to find probable cause before permitting the state to enter the home — is among our most foundational constitutional rights. Its violation for any purpose should raise alarm bells for Americans of any political party.”
Kenneth Roth, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor and Visiting Lecturer:
“The problem is not just the abusive nature of ICE raids but also their target. Trump has a mandate to beef up border security, but ICE raids in neighborhoods and workplaces are another matter. Most immigrants detained for deportation are not recent arrivals but established immigrants. Of the 14 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., two-thirds have been in the country for five or more years. They often have U.S. citizen spouses and children, and typically hold jobs, pay taxes, and have friends and relationships in the community. They look like Americans in all but the papers they carry. U.S. law has a five-year statute of limitations for most crimes. We need a similar statute of limitations for undocumented immigrants.”
Julian Zelizer, Malcolm Stevenson Forbes, Class of 1941 Professor of History and Public Affairs:
“The news coming out of Minneapolis, which builds on the news from other cities like Chicago, has shifted the conversation away from the inflow of undocumented immigrants to the constitutionality and danger of the tactics being used in immigration enforcement. Renee Nicole Good's death brought all these concerns together in dramatic and horrific fashion. On the grounds that the current debate is being conducted, many Americans are far less supportive. Indeed, polls show that larger numbers are fundamentally concerned about the threat that ICE poses to basic rights that are valued in broad portions of the electorate.”
To schedule an interview, contact Ambreen Ali. Keep up to date with Princeton SPIA, including news, upcoming speakers, and events at: spia.princeton.edu and on X, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
###
About Princeton SPIA
The Princeton School of Public and International Affairs is dedicated to integrating world-class scholarship and a commitment to service in order to make a positive difference in the world. We welcome a robust exchange of ideas and strive to foster a close-knit community that values and supports every member. We believe that public policy in the 21st century demands a passion for service, a respect for evidence of unsurpassed quality, a global perspective, and a multiplicity of voices. Our graduates pursue careers around the globe in government, nongovernmental and multilateral organizations, foundations, and policy and research institutes.