Home > NewsRelease > Why ICE? Soothing Historic Context
Text
Why ICE? Soothing Historic Context
From:
Peggy Sands Orchowski -- Immigration Expert Peggy Sands Orchowski -- Immigration Expert
Washington, DC
Tuesday, June 24, 2025

 

Why ICE?   Soothing Hisorical Context

By Margaret Orchowski

 It's not exaggerating to say that many good Americans are freaking out about ICE.  That is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002. It is the first and only federal agency charged with enforcing immigration laws INSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE U.S. 

 

But somehow, "interior enforcement of immigration laws" sounds NAZI to some Americans.  Recently urban protestors are demanding  – sometimes with violence -  to defund and end ICE. They assault its officers and obstruct them from doing their jobs   

 

To calm the rage and provide some rational thinking, I offer some context and basic history of how we came to have ICE.   

 

Immigration management by Congress is in the constitution in the first section; but as was typical in the early decades of the Republic, Congress gave each state jurisdiction. There was no national immigration law until 1891. Congress passed two comprehensive immigration laws after that.  Like all laws, immigration laws define what is lawful and what isn't. They also include what the punishment could be for unlawful behavior.

 

After the historic surge of migrant workers between 1880-1920, labor laws (age limits, conditions, and the like) that benefited all workers were passed. But there was little enforcement, especially of people living and working here illegally (mainly farm workers, household help and such).  It was – and still is – only a misdemeaner to cross the border illegally.  It is only a civil offense to overstay a temporary permit including tourists.  Violators could be punished by fines, imprisonment and even deportation. But there was little interest in enforcement except for serious criminal felons.

 

But the issue of growing illegal immigration festered.  By the mid 1980s, the growing numbers of illegal (aka unauthorized, unlawful, undocumented) immigrant workers were impacting local social services, hospitals and especially schools across the south west. Texas wanted to bar any illegal immigrants from getting any benefits including schools, but the Supreme Court ruled against that.  In 1986, Congress granted "a oner-time only" amnesty to any illegal immigrant who had come in before 1982.  It was estimated that some one million illegal immigrants would apply for amnesty; in fact over 3 million did.   

 

The 1986 amnesty bill also made it illegal for employers to hire workers without work permits.  But the enforcement part almost never happened.  No one including the INS really wanted to do it.  The number of illegal immigrants grew exponentially in the 90s -- – particularly overstayers of temporary permits including the increasingly easy-to-get foreign student permits (that could be picked up at the local travel office in some countries).

 

Then the terrorist attack of 9/11 happened.   It was perpetuated by foreign nationals with dozens of false drivers' licenses and expired and fake temporary permits -- even student permits that had never been approved. 

 

9/11 changed immigration enforcement completely. Sudddenly, immigration became a factor in national defense. The Department of Homeland Security was created combining dozens of separate enforcement agencies. 

 

INS was abolished – split into two bureaus with more efficient and compatible roles:  Citizenship and Immigration SERVICES (CIS) dealing with legal permit holders and preparations for citizenship;  and Immigration and Custom ENFORCEMENT (ICE) to deal with enforcement of immigration laws regarding trafficking, smuggling and removal of illegal immigrants who refused court orders to self deport. By 2025 there are an estimated 20 million plus people living illegally in the U.S.

 

That's why we have ICE.

# # # # # #

 

Jan. 27, Georgetowner online                     ESSAY about birthright citizenship.                        645 words

Executive Order Intends io Limit Birthright Citizenship, Not End It

By Margaret Orchowski

Please don’t panic or exaggerate the birthrights citizenship executive order. The much expected EO does not end birthright citizenship. It limits it. That does not take a constitutional amendment.  In fact it’s been changed by Congress and by a Supreme court decision several times in the past.

Here's the first sentence of the 14th amendment:: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

The definitive word in that sentence is AND!  If the framers wanted anyone and everyone born in the US to be citizens they would not have added an “and” clause, AND means (if you recall grammar lessons) also, plus, as well as. 

 As you can see, the first sentence of the 14th amendment states clearly that anyone claiming birthrights citizenship must fulfill TWO CONDITIONS:

1.     Be born in the United States

2.     Be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The order would make ineligible for birthright citizenship anyone born in the U.S. whose parents have no lawful or legal authorization to be here or who are in the US on limited, temporary non-immigration permits such as foreign students and tourists.  

Changing who is eligible or not for birthrights citizenship has actually happened in the past via Congressional legislation and also a ruling of the Supreme Court.  In addition, Trump’s executive order reflects at least 15 years of proposals considered by Congress, one as HR1 (in the 112thCongress.

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 to “rightly repudiate the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race”, as stated in Trump’s executive oder.  There were no national immigration laws until the 1880s; hence the amendment at the time did not address legal permanent, temporary or illegal immigration status of the birth parents.

But in 1868, according to the Congressional Research Office, there were FOUR defined groups of people in the United States who were NOT considered to be under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws and whose birth children were not allowed citizenship nor the right to vote.  

The jurisdictional status of two of these groups were changed over time.  The children of legal permanent Chinese immigrants were ruled by the Supreme Court in 1898 in U.S. vs. Wong (a very narrow ruling) to be under the jurisdiction.  In 1921 American Indians born and raised in a recognized Indian Nation were given the right to vote and hence citizenship by Congress in the 1921 Indian Voting Rights Act.

But two other groups remain excluded to this day: 

1)     the children of diplomats to the U.S, with immunity from U.S. laws; and 

2)     a rather nebulous universal rule according to the U.S., Congressional Research Office that the children born of recognized invaders are not under the jurisdiction of the invaded state.

Since 2010, Congress has addressed proposals to exclude birthright citizenship from TWO additional groups:  

1) children born of birth tourists (visitors who come on a three month permit with the sole purpose of getting citizenship for their child with no intention or right to immigrate and contribute to the U.S,) and 

2) children born of parents BOTH of whom are illegally in the country and have no right to be here,  In 2011 this 2 page bill was HR1 in the new Republican dominated 112th congress.

Clearly President Trump’s executive order is not new, unconstitutional nor in any way racist. Read it here (2+ pages only) .  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

It may however be challenged and perhaps decided by the Supreme Court, for instance on whether or not illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or not.

# # # # #

Margaret Orchowski is a credentialed Congressional reporter on immigration and author of two recent books (Nov 2024) on how immigration laws and policies evolved in the U.S.: “The 5 Basics Everyone should Know About Immigration” and a new paperback updated edition of “The law That Changed the Face of America” 

  

   a

Pickup Short URL to Share
News Media Interview Contact
Name: Peggy Sands Orchowski
Title: Senior Congressional Correspondent
Dateline: Washington, DC United States
Main Phone: 202-236-5595
Jump To Peggy Sands Orchowski -- Immigration Expert Jump To Peggy Sands Orchowski -- Immigration Expert
Contact Click to Contact
Other experts on these topics