This piece examines Sen. Dick Durbin’s comparison of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the World War II internment of Japanese Americans, explains why that comparison is misleading from a Republican perspective, and lays out practical priorities for safe, lawful enforcement that respects civil liberties while protecting borders.
Sen. Dick Durbin’s comment equating ICE with the internment of Japanese Americans pushes a sharp emotional line that overlooks key facts. The internment was an indiscriminate, racially targeted removal of citizens and residents without individualized cause. By contrast, ICE acts under statutes passed by Congress, carries out targeted operations, and operates within a legal framework that includes judicial review.
From a Republican standpoint, defending the rule of law means defending agencies that enforce immigration statutes while insisting on accountability. ICE agents arrest individuals suspected of criminal activity, detain removable aliens under federal law, and coordinate with prosecutors and immigration judges. Those actions are not the same as sweeping, racially based incarceration ordered by wartime political fiat.
That distinction matters because it frames the right response: fix policies that fail, rather than erase enforcement altogether. If there are abuses, they should be investigated and punished in court, not conflated with an historic constitutional atrocity. Republicans argue for clearer laws, stronger border control, and better resources so officers can do their work within predictable rules and humane standards.
Practical reforms can reduce the friction that fuels political rhetoric. More immigration judges, faster processing, and improved detention conditions lower the chance of public harm and political scapegoating. Technology and better data-sharing with state and local partners can help separate dangerous offenders from people who have legitimate asylum or relief claims.
At the same time, Republicans stress the importance of protecting due process for everyone, including noncitizens. Civil liberties are a core conservative value when enforcement is fair and transparent. Courts, not politicians, should be the venue for contesting detention and removal, and any systemic problems belong in oversight hearings with specific remedies.
Durbin’s comparison also obscures who pays the price of lax enforcement: local communities and lawful workers. Unmanaged borders can fuel crime, strain public services, and undercut wages for vulnerable American workers. A Republican response emphasizes restoring lawful immigration channels while stopping incentives for illegal entry that create humanitarian and security problems.
Public debate should focus on evidence and policy, not charged parallels to past injustices that are not analogous. Pointing to the internment is an effective rhetorical move, but it is not a substitute for legislative solutions. Republicans press for a set of achievable goals: secure borders, expedited asylum processing, and strict penalties for human smuggling networks.
Finally, the conversation must include respect for those who serve in enforcement roles and accountability for those who break the law. ICE officers operate in difficult circumstances and deserve support to carry out lawful duties safely. At the same time, independent oversight and transparent reporting protect both citizens and noncitizens by ensuring the system respects basic rights.
Durbin’s comment raises emotions and reopens wounds from a shameful chapter of American history, but using that chapter as a blanket comparison misleads the public and diverts attention from concrete solutions. Republicans call for a calm, evidence-driven path forward that secures the border, enforces the law fairly, and reforms processes that are broken without abandoning enforcement altogether.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.