No, ICE Isn’t the Gestapo

A viral classroom “history lesson” on Instagram and TikTok has racked up more than 182,000 likes. Among the cheerleaders is a self-identified PhD in history from Germany, proof that even alleged experts can be suckered by a sloppy whiteboard analogy. In the clip, the presenter claims U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is essentially the Nazi Gestapo, rattling off a whiteboard checklist as if it were airtight fact. It’s punchy, it’s provocative, and it’s utterly wrong. When you compare how each organization was created, who they answered/answer to, and what legal checks existed/exist, the analogy collapses into pearl-clutching, histrionic absurdity.

How ICE Was Actually Created

ICE exists today because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That law, debated and voted on in Congress, created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2003, DHS used its authority to reorganize older agencies. Immigration enforcement functions from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and investigative arms of Customs were merged to form U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The important point is that ICE is a statutory creation of Congress, not an improvised secret police. Its powers, funding, and oversight all trace back to legislation.

How the Gestapo Came Into Being

The Gestapo, by contrast, was born of executive decree in 1933. Hermann Göring, then Prussian Interior Minister, converted the state’s political police into the Geheime Staatspolizei—the Secret State Police. This was possible because the Nazi regime had already gutted parliamentary power. Two early measures made this possible: the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties, and the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler’s cabinet to pass laws without parliament.

By 1934–1936, Heinrich Himmler and the SS had absorbed the Gestapo entirely. In 1936, a decree explicitly exempted the Gestapo from judicial review, meaning German courts could not question its actions. From then on, the Gestapo functioned outside all legal bounds, accountable only to the SS and ultimately to Hitler.

Oversight vs. Impunity

The oversight gap between the two institutions is the defining difference.

Gestapo: No oversight, no courts, no legislature. Could arrest, torture, imprison, or execute at will. Fear was its mandate.
ICE: Overseen by Congress through appropriations and hearings. Subject to review by federal courts. Investigated by the DHS Office of Inspector General. Bound by statutes and constitutional constraints.

Critics may not like ICE’s actions, but those actions occur within a system of laws and checks. The Gestapo operated in a vacuum of law, precisely because law had been erased.

Oversight of ICE Facilities

Contrary to claims that ICE “operates without oversight,” its detention system is subject to multiple overlapping watchdogs:

ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR): Internal compliance & death reviews.
Office of Detention Oversight (ODO): Mandated inspections of detention facilities.
DHS Inspector General (OIG): Independent audits & investigations.
Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO): Responds to complaints from detainees & stakeholders.
DHS Civil Rights & Civil Liberties: Investigates civil rights allegations.
Third-party contractors: External inspection of facilities.
Congress: Facility visits, hearings, and funding oversight.

These layers conduct daily compliance checks, annual inspections, PREA audits, and in-custody death reviews. Critics say oversight should be stronger, but the claim that ICE runs unchecked simply doesn’t hold water.

The Checklists: Claim vs. Reality

Viral claims often throw up a checklist: arrests without warrants, imprisonment without trial, deportations, camps, no habeas corpus, and no oversight. That list looks convincing until you actually compare terms.

Arrests: Gestapo arrested anyone at will. ICE detains suspected immigration violators under statute, subject to court review.
Imprisonment: Gestapo used indefinite detention, often torture and execution. ICE holds people in civil detention pending hearings.
Deportations: Gestapo deported few, preferring imprisonment or death. ICE’s central mission is removal under immigration law.
Camps: Gestapo ran concentration and death camps. ICE runs detention centers—criticized at times, but not extermination sites.
Habeas corpus: Gestapo allowed none. ICE detainees can and do file habeas petitions in federal courts.
Oversight: Gestapo had none. ICE has layers of oversight, however imperfect.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of structure.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

The “Gestapo Checklist” in Context

Here’s what the viral checklist looks like when you apply it side by side.

Claim	Gestapo (Nazi Germany)	CBSA (Canada)	INM (Mexico)	ICE (U.S.)
Created how?	1933 decree by Göring, empowered by Reichstag Fire Decree & Enabling Act; absorbed into SS.	2003 statute creating CBSA; accountable to Parliament.	INM under Mexico’s Interior Ministry; broad executive authority.	2002 Homeland Security Act; DHS reorg in 2003.
Arrests without warrants?	✔ Unlimited, arbitrary arrests.	✔ Can detain suspected immigration violators without warrant.	✔ Routinely stop buses/trains, demand papers, detain instantly.	✔ Limited civil detentions, subject to immigration court review.
Imprisonment without trial?	✔ Indefinite custody, torture, execution.	✔ Administrative detention until hearing.	✔ Detention in estaciones migratorias; often weeks or months, little process.	✔ Detention pending hearings; appeals and habeas possible.
Deportations?	Rare—preferred camps, executions, genocide.	✔ Regular removals of inadmissible persons.	✔ Massive annual deportations of Central Americans.	✔ Core mission; carried out under statutory process.
Camps?	✔ Concentration & death camps.	✔ Immigration Holding Centres (locked, but humane by comparison).	✔ Detention centers with notorious conditions; 2023 fire killed 40+.	✔ Civil detention centers, subject to lawsuits & oversight.
Habeas corpus / Courts?	✘ None; exempted from review in 1936.	✔ Detainees can challenge detention in Canadian courts.	✘ Weak; limited access to counsel, rapid removals.	✔ Federal courts & immigration judges review custody/removals.
Oversight?	✘ None; accountable only to Himmler/Hitler.	✔ Parliamentary oversight on paper, but critics say formal review remains weak and mostly internal.	✘ Oversight nominal, enforcement heavy-handed.	✔ DHS OIG, Congress, courts, FOIA, press.
Purpose / Mandate	Terrorize population, crush dissent, enforce genocide.	Enforce immigration/customs law in a democratic system.	Enforce immigration law with forceful, rapid removals.	Enforce immigration/customs law within U.S. statutory framework.

A Real-World Contrast: Mexico vs. U.S. Enforcement

To take it a step further and put this debate into real context, it helps to look south. Here’s how Mexico’s immigration authorities handle the same situation ICE faces today—when migrants try to run and resist compliance.

In Mexico, the Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM), often backed by the National Guard, pursues migrants with shields, batons, and sometimes rubber bullets. Once caught, detainees are placed in detention centers that have drawn heavy criticism for overcrowding and poor conditions. Deportations are fast and appeals are rare. In practice, running from INM often means a beating and a one-way ticket out of the country.

In the United States, ICE agents also pursue and arrest non-compliant migrants, but their use of force is governed by Department of Homeland Security policy and subject to after-action review. A person who runs may end up in cuffs, but the next step is processing through immigration courts, with access to hearings and the ability to appeal. In short, the same scenario plays out very differently: in Mexico it ends in rapid removal, while in the U.S. it leads to paperwork, lawyers, and judges.

And for the sake of argument, if you look north, Canada’s Border Services Agency operates much the same way ICE does: arresting, detaining, and deporting under immigration law. The difference is that Canada’s oversight system is weaker than the U.S., which makes ICE—ironically—the more accountable agency.

Masks and Misconceptions

One of the viral talking points is that ICE agents wear masks because they are “cowards.” The reality is more straightforward. Many law enforcement agencies—including FBI, ATF, and U.S. Marshals—use masks as standard procedure during raids. The purpose is to protect officers’ identities and families from retaliation, whether from activist groups that doxx agents or from dangerous criminal networks such as traffickers and cartels.

The Gestapo didn’t wear masks because they didn’t need to. Anyone who dared to expose or resist them could be silenced permanently. Masks in the ICE context are about defensive protection in a democracy, not unchecked power in a dictatorship.

Bipartisan Usage of ICE

Another critical point: ICE is not a partisan invention. Since its creation, ICE has operated under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, President Barack Obama presided over record deportations, earning the label “Deporter-in-Chief” from immigration advocates. Donald Trump expanded its enforcement priorities, and President Joe Biden narrowed them through policy memos, but neither party dismantled ICE.

Twice since 2002—Obama’s first two years and Biden’s first two years—Democrats had full control of the White House, House, and Senate. At any time, they could have repealed the Homeland Security Act, restructured DHS, or dissolved ICE through legislation. They did not. This demonstrates bipartisan consensus that immigration enforcement, however debated in scope, is a permanent part of U.S. governance.

Why the Comparison Fails

And this is why history matters. A two-minute viral clip can strip away context, gloss over realities, and convince hundreds of thousands of people that ICE and the Gestapo are interchangeable. The result isn’t education—it’s fear. The Gestapo was the instrument of a totalitarian dictatorship; ICE is a statutory agency of a constitutional republic, reshaped every few years by elected leaders. Understanding those differences is the only way to view immigration enforcement rationally, rather than falling for zany online reels that flatten history into slogans.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #trevors_history_reels #ICE #history

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!