Bài xã luận: Các cuộc đột kích của ICE tại Santa Ana và Shadow of Power nhấn mạnh đến tính minh bạch.

Các báo cáo về hoạt động của ICE tại Santa Ana, California, đã khơi lại các vấn đề về sự can thiệp quá mức của chính phủ, thiếu cởi mở và sự tham gia ngày càng tăng của các nhà thầu tư nhân trong các hoạt động thực thi pháp luật công. Mặc dù không liên quan trực tiếp đến các cuộc đột kích nhập cư cụ thể này, Haliburton, một công ty toàn cầu có lịch sử lâu đời làm việc cho chính phủ Hoa Kỳ, đã nêu ra những vấn đề đáng lo ngại về danh tính của những người phụ trách các cuộc đột kích này và động cơ khiến một số người tham gia che giấu danh tính của họ.

Sau những cáo buộc rằng các nhà lãnh đạo thành phố đã biết về các cuộc đột kích của ICE trước đó trong năm nay, Hội đồng thành phố Santa Ana gần đây đã thừa nhận những lo ngại về việc thực thi luật nhập cư. Những tuyên bố này cho thấy sự khó chịu ngày càng tăng trong số những cư dân cảm thấy họ đang bị nhắm mục tiêu một cách bất công theo luật nhập cư liên bang. Việc sử dụng danh tính ẩn và các hoạt động không xác định trong suốt các hành động thực thi chỉ khiến công chúng hoài nghi hơn và làm xói mòn lòng tin vào hệ thống.

Mặc dù Halliburton nổi tiếng nhất với các hợp đồng năng lượng và quốc phòng, chẳng hạn như các tương tác gây tranh cãi trong suốt Chiến tranh Iraq, nhưng công ty này không bị liên kết ngay lập tức với các hoạt động thực thi luật nhập cư. Nhưng có thể hiểu được tại sao một số người lại suy đoán về vai trò của nó khi tính ẩn danh trở thành đặc điểm của các hoạt động cảnh sát do lịch sử lâu dài của nó hoạt động dưới sự giám sát hạn chế của công chúng và mối quan hệ lâu dài với chính phủ Hoa Kỳ.

Nhân viên có thể bị buộc phải đeo khẩu trang trong các hoạt động của ICE vì lý do hoạt động hoặc an toàn, nhưng thông lệ này lại tạo ra ấn tượng về một quyền lực mờ ám, không được kiểm soát mà không có sự công khai hoặc trách nhiệm giải trình. Sự giám sát của đảng dân chủ là không thể khi mọi người không hiểu biết về những người ban hành luật. Mối quan ngại này trở nên tồi tệ hơn khi các nhà thầu tư nhân – những người báo cáo với hội đồng quản trị công ty chứ không phải công dân – được cho là tham gia vào việc thực thi pháp luật.

Mối quan tâm hàng đầu phải là sự công khai. Bất kể Halliburton hay nhà thầu nào khác đang hỗ trợ ICE, người dân Hoa Kỳ nên được thông báo về những người đang tiến hành các hoạt động này, những hệ thống giám sát nào đang được áp dụng và cách thức quyết định các chiến thuật thực thi pháp luật. Người dân Santa Ana và tất cả các cộng đồng bị ảnh hưởng bởi việc thực thi luật nhập cư nên nhận được câu trả lời, chứ không phải sự mơ hồ.

Những người giám sát và nhà lập pháp phải quyết định xem ranh giới giữa khu vực công và tư có trở nên quá mơ hồ trong các hoạt động địa phương quan trọng hay không và liệu các biện pháp bảo vệ hiện có có đủ để duy trì các quyền công dân hay không. Bất cứ điều gì ít hơn dân chủ đều nuôi dưỡng sự ngờ vực, sợ hãi và xung đột; mặt khác, dân chủ phát triển mạnh mẽ trong sự công khai.

Editorial: Las redadas de ICE en Santa Ana y la sombra del poder enfatizan la transparencia.

Los informes sobre las operaciones de ICE en Santa Ana, California, han reavivado los problemas de extralimitación gubernamental, falta de transparencia y la creciente participación de contratistas privados en las actividades de aplicación de la ley. Aunque no está directamente relacionada con estas redadas de inmigración en particular, Haliburton, una firma internacional con una larga trayectoria trabajando para el gobierno de Estados Unidos, plantea cuestiones inquietantes sobre la identidad de los responsables y la motivación de algunos de los participantes para ocultar su identidad.

Tras las acusaciones de que los líderes de la ciudad estaban al tanto de redadas previas de ICE este año, el Ayuntamiento de Santa Ana reconoció recientemente su preocupación por la aplicación de la ley migratoria. Estas declaraciones sugieren un creciente malestar entre los habitantes, que se sienten injustamente perseguidos por la legislación federal de inmigración. El uso de identidades ocultas y agentes desconocidos en las acciones de aplicación de la ley simplemente aumenta el escepticismo del público y erosiona la confianza en el sistema.

Aunque Halliburton es más conocida por sus contratos de energía y defensa, como sus polémicas interacciones durante la guerra de Irak, no se la ha vinculado inmediatamente con actividades de control migratorio. Sin embargo, es comprensible que algunos especulen sobre su papel cuando el anonimato se convierte en una característica de las operaciones policiales, dado su largo historial de operar bajo escasa supervisión pública y sus antiguos vínculos con el gobierno estadounidense.

El personal puede estar obligado a usar mascarillas durante las actividades del ICE por razones operativas o de seguridad, pero esta práctica alimenta la impresión de un poder opaco, sin control, sin transparencia ni rendición de cuentas. La supervisión democrática es imposible cuando se desconoce quiénes promulgan las leyes. Esta preocupación se agrava cuando se cree que contratistas privados —que reportan a las juntas directivas corporativas en lugar de a los ciudadanos— participan en la aplicación de la ley.

La principal preocupación debería ser la transparencia. Sea cual sea Halliburton u otro contratista que asista al ICE, el pueblo estadounidense debe estar informado de quién lleva a cabo estas operaciones, qué sistemas de vigilancia existen y cómo se deciden las tácticas de aplicación de la ley. Los habitantes de Santa Ana y todas las comunidades afectadas por la aplicación de las leyes migratorias deben recibir respuestas, no ambigüedades.

Los organismos de control y los legisladores deben decidir si los límites entre los sectores público y privado se están volviendo demasiado difusos en actividades locales importantes y si las protecciones existentes son suficientes para defender los derechos civiles. Cualquier cosa que no sea democracia fomenta la desconfianza, el miedo y el conflicto; por otro lado, la democracia prospera abiertamente.

Editorial: Santa Ana’s ICE raids and the Shadow of Power emphasize transparency.

Reports of ICE operations in Santa Ana, California, have resurrected issues of government overreach, lack of openness, and the growing part private contractors in public law enforcement activities. Though not directly connected to these particular immigration raids, Haliburton, a worldwide firm with a long history of working for the US government, brings up unsettling issues about the identity of those in charge of them and the motivation for some of the participants to conceal their identities.

Following accusations that city leaders were aware of prior ICE raids this year, the Santa Ana City Council recently acknowledged concerns about immigration enforcement. These statements suggest growing discomfort among inhabitants who feel they are being unfairly targeted under federal immigration legislation. Using hidden identities and unknown operatives throughout enforcement actions just makes the public more skeptical and erodes trust in the system.

Although Halliburton is most well-known for its energy and defense contracts, such as its contentious interactions throughout the Iraq War, it has not been immediately linked to immigration enforcement activities. But it’s understandable that some would speculate about its role when anonymity becomes a characteristic of police operations given its long history of operating under limited public oversight and its long-standing ties with the U. S. government.

Personnel may be obliged to wear face coverings during ICE activities for operational or safety reasons, but this practice feeds into the impression of an opaque, unchecked power without openness or accountability. Democratic oversight is impossible when people lack the knowledge of the people enacting the law. This concern is made worse when private contractors—who report to corporate boards rather than citizens—are thought to be involved in law enforcement.

Top concern ought to be openness. Whatever Halliburton or other contractor is assisting ICE, the American people should be informed of who is conducting these operations, what surveillance systems are in place, and how law enforcement tactics are decided upon. The people of Santa Ana and all communities affected by immigration enforcement should receive answers, not ambiguity.

Watchdogs and legislators have to decide whether the boundaries between the public and private sectors are becoming too indistinct in important local activities and if existing protections are sufficient to uphold civil rights. Anything less than democracy fosters mistrust, fear, and strife; on the other hand, democracy thrives in the open.

Editorial: A Personal Encounter Underscores the Significance of Clear Boundaries at Camp Pendleton

US Military Base Camp Pendleton MP

I unintentionally entered Camp Pendleton this week through one of its public access sites, which put me in an unexpected situation. I had accidentally driven onto federal property, which was a genuine mistake that was immediately noticed by the military police at Camp Pendleton.

After that, I had a courteous and professional conversation with the MPs who pulled me over at the entrance checkpoint. They checked my identification, interrogated me about why I was there, and made sure I wasn’t a security risk. They gave me a warning and sent me back to the main road after concluding that my presence was unintentional and not dangerous.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency was noticeably absent from this interaction. I was not surprised by this fact given that immigration enforcement and law enforcement frequently converge in unexpected ways in the current environment. And the fact that the military police were entirely concerned with security and safety—not immigration status—gave me a sense of comfort.

Every U.S. military facility, including Camp Pendleton, has its own distinct jurisdiction. It is a community that welcomes thousands of service members, their families, and civilian workers, as well as a sovereign military area. The military police’s decision not to include ICE during regular vehicle stops or searches is not only legally correct but also necessary for preserving trust and operational efficiency inside the base.

Camp Pendleton

The lack of immigration enforcement in routine policing creates a culture of security and cooperation for people who reside or work on base, such as civilian contractors, international military liaisons, or foreign nationals serving under special visas. It makes certain that individuals are not deterred by the threat of deportation from seeking necessary services or reporting crimes.

My brief but ultimately uneventful experience serves to emphasize a more fundamental point: military facilities must continue to prioritize their primary purpose of protecting the country. The law enforcement in that area should be carried out with professionalism, clarity, and a thorough awareness of the unique characteristics of military communities.

For a long time, the Department of Defense has maintained that military facilities are not the place for local law enforcement activities that have nothing to do with base security. Whether by duty, invitation, or, like in my case, by mistake, this policy safeguards the integrity of the military objective as well as the rights and dignity of all persons who enter the base.

The Camp Pendleton Military Police should be praised for their professional and cautious response to the situation. Their behavior demonstrates a dedication to the values of fairness, discretion, and respect that characterize our military, as well as to security.

Mistakes occur, but an institution’s actual character is revealed by how it responds. In this instance, Camp Pendleton successfully completed the test.

Editorial: The Broken Promise of Sanctuary: ICE Raids in Santa Ana Expose Leadership Failures


In recent weeks, the city of Santa Ana, California—self-identified as a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants—has been thrust into national attention following a series of aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that have left its predominantly Latino community in distress. These operations serve as a stark reminder of how tenuous the notion of “sanctuary” is when local leadership fails to uphold its commitments. At the core of this controversy is Mayor Valerie Amezcua, whose tenure has increasingly come under scrutiny as her administration seems ill-equipped—or perhaps unwilling—to protect residents from federal encroachment.


Santa Ana, similar to many cities throughout the United States, adopted sanctuary policies with the aim of fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. The premise was straightforward yet powerful: local police would not cooperate with federal immigration authorities unless absolutely necessary, ensuring that all residents could feel secure in reporting crimes or seeking assistance without the dread of deportation. For years, these measures have acted as a lifeline for thousands of families who consider Santa Ana their home. However, now faced with an intensifying crackdown by ICE, the facade of protection offered by these policies appears to be fraying—and one cannot help but question whether Mayor Amezcua holds some responsibility for the turmoil unfolding before us.

A Crisis Unfolding

The recent surge of ICE arrests in Santa Ana has sent shockwaves through neighborhoods already contending with economic difficulties and systemic inequality. Families have been shattered, children left without parents, and businesses disrupted as workers disappear overnight. Community leaders report widespread anxiety among residents, who are now uncertain about where they can turn for safety. This climate of fear is precisely what sanctuary policies were intended to avert—but instead, it appears the city’s leaders have permitted ICE agents to disrupt lives with impunity.


What renders this situation particularly outrageous is the fact that Santa Ana’s population is predominantly Latino, with nearly three-quarters of its residents identifying as Hispanic or Latinx. Many of these individuals arrived in the United States in search of improved opportunities for themselves and their families, contributing significantly to the cultural and economic fabric of the city. Yet rather than standing firmly with them during this crisis, Mayor Amezcua has seemed absent at best—and complicit at worst.

Leadership on Trial

Since assuming office, Mayor Amezcua has faced challenges in exhibiting effective leadership, often criticized for favoring optics over substantive action. Her response to the current ICE raids has done little to alleviate those apprehensions. While other mayors of sanctuary cities have publicly denounced such actions and worked diligently to protect their constituents, Amezcua has conspicuously maintained her silence. When pressed for clarification, she provides vague assurances about “working within legal frameworks” but refrains from committing to tangible measures that might genuinely protect vulnerable residents.
This absence of decisive action prompts significant inquiries regarding her dedication to the very constituents she vowed to serve. How can a mayor assert her representation of a community when she declines to confront forces that threaten its very survival? In moments of crisis, authentic leadership necessitates boldness—not timidity. It mandates heeding the voices of those most impacted and undertaking substantive measures to fulfill their needs. Regrettably, Mayor Amezcua’s history implies she possesses neither the courage nor the vision to meet the chall

A Call to Action

The struggles of Santa Ana’s immigrant community should act as a clarion call, not only for Mayor Amezcua but also for every elected official in municipalities across the nation. Sanctuary policies are of no consequence if they cannot be enforced effectively—and such enforcement commences with robust, principled leadership ready to oppose injustice. Local administrations must investigate every potential avenue to resist federal overreach, ranging from legal disputes to grassroots initiatives aimed at empowering marginalized populations.

Furthermore, residents are urged to hold their leaders accountable. If Mayor Amezcua is unable to fulfill the promise of sanctuary, then it may be time for another individual to rise to the occasion—someone who comprehends the stakes involved and possesses the moral clarity required to uphold human dignity above all else.

Conclusion

Santa Ana stands at a pivotal juncture, torn between the ideals it previously embraced and the harsh realities of existence under an increasingly antagonistic federal administration. For an extended period, the city’s leaders have depended on vacuous rhetoric while neglecting to enforce meaningful protections for their most vulnerable residents. As ICE persistently targets Latino families in Santa Ana, one irrefutable truth emerges: the era of empty gestures has concluded. Genuine transformation will necessitate authentic leadership—and until Mayor Amezcua demonstrates her ability to provide such leadership, the residents of Santa Ana merit superior representation.

La alcaldesa de Santa Ana, Valerie Amezcua, podría colaborar con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) en la implementación de estas directivas federales

Foto de: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter

En los últimos días, Santa Ana, una ciudad ubicada en el condado de Orange, California, ha vivido extensas protestas pacíficas. Estas manifestaciones han sido impulsadas principalmente por la gran comunidad latina de la ciudad, que ha expresado una gran preocupación por múltiples cuestiones interconectadas.

Un tema clave en juego son las recientes políticas migratorias del presidente Donald Trump, especialmente sus propuestas de deportaciones masivas de inmigrantes indocumentados, incluidos aquellos sin antecedentes penales que se desempeñan como miembros diligentes y contribuyentes de la sociedad. El plan del gobierno de invocar la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros de 1798 para acelerar las deportaciones ha intensificado estas preocupaciones.

Foto de: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter

Para agravar aún más el malestar local, hay informes que indican que la alcaldesa de Santa Ana, Valerie Amezcua, podría estar coordinando con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) para ejecutar estas órdenes federales. Muchos perciben esta supuesta colaboración como una violación de la ley de ciudades santuario de Santa Ana de 2017, que se promulgó para proteger a las personas indocumentadas de las acciones federales de inmigración.

Las protestas se han caracterizado por su enfoque no violento, con manifestantes que abogan por la protección de los derechos de los inmigrantes y el cumplimiento de la ordenanza de ciudad santuario. Los líderes comunitarios y los defensores están promoviendo políticas que reconocen el papel de los inmigrantes indocumentados y buscan una reforma migratoria integral en lugar de acciones punitivas.

Foto de: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter

Estos sucesos en Santa Ana reflejan una conversación nacional más amplia sobre las políticas de inmigración y la participación de los gobiernos locales en su aplicación. A medida que la situación evoluciona, pone de relieve la discordia entre los mandatos federales y los principios comunitarios, en particular en áreas con grandes poblaciones de inmigrantes.

Santa Ana Mayor Valerie Amezcua may be collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the implementation of these federal directives

Photo by: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter

In recent days, Santa Ana, a city located in Orange County, California, has experienced extensive peaceful protests. These demonstrations have been mainly fueled by the city’s large Latino community, voicing significant concern over multiple interconnected issues.


A key issue at stake is President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies, especially his proposals for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, including those without criminal histories who serve as diligent, tax-paying members of society. The administration’s plan to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to accelerate deportations has intensified these worries.

Photo by: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter


Further aggravating local unrest are reports indicating that Santa Ana Mayor Valerie Amezcua may be coordinating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out these federal orders. Many perceive this alleged collaboration as a breach of Santa Ana’s 2017 sanctuary city law, which was enacted to safeguard undocumented individuals from federal immigration actions.


The protests have been characterized by their non-violent approach, with demonstrators advocating for the safeguarding of immigrant rights and compliance with the sanctuary city ordinance. Community leaders and advocates are promoting policies that acknowledge the roles of undocumented immigrants and pursue comprehensive immigration reform rather than punitive actions.

Photo by: Igmar Rodas / The Orange County Reporter


These occurrences in Santa Ana mirror a wider national conversation regarding immigration policies and the involvement of local governments in enforcing them. As the situation evolves, it highlights the discord between federal mandates and community principles, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations.