I believe our real point of disagreement is not whether laws exist or whether ICE has formal authority. The question is whether the way that authority is exercised remains compatible with equal dignity and due process. You emphasize legality, funding, and institutional continuity. For me, that is only one layer. The other is how enforcement is experienced by those subjected to it: street arrests without judicial warrants, administrative detention outside the normal criminal justice system, and the use of force in situations that, in many European legal systems, would require much stricter judicial oversight. Saying “this is legal” does not automatically answer the moral or democratic question of whether it is just. History shows that systems can operate fully within the law and still produce outcomes that are later recognized as unjust. I am not arguing for tolerating crime or making borders meaningless. (This standard applies to me both downward and upward: to migrants as well as to governments and their highest political leadership.) I am arguing for a single standard of procedural fairness and human dignity, regardless of nationality or immigration status. When a group of people is governed primarily through administrative power rather than full judicial process, a two-tier system of rights effectively emerges. For me, this is not about vengeance or demonizing officers. It is about whether the legal framework itself—and the way it is enforced—meets the standard of equal justice under the law, not merely formal compliance with rules.