America Isn’t Divided on ICE – It’s Divided on REALITY.
What I learned by listening to both sides – and how we’re all getting played.
As anti-ICE protests escalate, you may find yourself struggling to make sense of the dueling narratives.
I’ve spent the last week doing something most people avoid: actually listening to voices on all sides.
And I mean really listening.
Here’s what I’ve learned.
Each side thinks they’re the reasonable one.
Each side thinks the other side is lying – or has lost their minds.
And each side – at some level – may actually have a point!
Here’s what’s really happening
The truth is: we are not having a debate about immigration policy.
We’re having an argument about legitimacy.
About who gets to enforce what, where and how.
About what kind of power the federal government should be allowed to deploy in American neighborhoods.
About – fundamentally – who is invading whom. (Are dangerous, foreign hordes invading our precious country? Or are jackbooted government thugs invading our precious cities?)
Here’s the kicker: we’re reaching our conclusions inside completely different algorithmic universes and data silos.
Different videos. Different headlines. Different “facts.” Different emotional cues.
So, of course we can’t agree.
We are not even watching the same movie.
A Personal Note
Before I share with you what I learned, I must confess that I know a lot about street protests.
Twenty-five years ago, I was one of those young activists – facing off with cops in the streets. During the 1999 Seattle anti-WTO protests, I got teargassed. At the 2000 D.C. protests against the World Bank, I got hit by a cop car.
Nobody had to pay me to be there. I was young, fired up and convinced I was on the right side of history. I showed up because I believed the world was heading in the wrong direction – and I felt like I had to do something about it.
That same righteous sense of duty is animating both sides in today’s clashes.
If you’re conservative and your first instinct is “those people are paid, professional agitators,” you’re missing the human part of this story. The protesters see themselves as brave souls – showing up to protect innocent newcomers who are facing an imminent, unfair threat. They denounce as deeply unAmerican the idea of masked government agents operating with impunity. (They don’t seem like they are cashing any George Soros checks, to me.)
If you’re progressive and your first reaction is “they’re all monsters,” you’re missing something too. People on the other side see unchecked immigration and overrun borders as a physical and cultural threat. They see themselves as protecting their country, defending their communities and standing up for their values – while honoring a difficult job that someone has to do.
On both sides, the partisans aren’t “bought.” They’re believers. Not mercenaries, but missionaries.
Let me translate the two sets of narratives for you, because I promise – it’s not exactly what you think.
Movie #1: What conservatives are seeing and why it makes sense to them
When many conservatives look at Minneapolis, they see a clear story.
ICE is law enforcement. Period.
For conservative commentators, there’s no meaningful distinction between ICE and your local police department. A badge is a badge. An order is an order. Disobeying “law enforcement” is a serious violation – full stop.
These arrests are needed for public safety.
The emphasis in right-wing information ecosystems is on violent criminals and drug traffickers. They also fear terrorism and radicalism; they worry that the United States will become like Europe, which they see as a land overrun with Muslim extremists.
The message is simple: weak enforcement invites predators to come to the U.S. – and American citizens pay the price. Add the Minnesota fraud storyline, and it becomes: “The system is being gamed by criminals taking money that should be helping your family — and Democrats are letting it happen.” The message is no longer just “the border is broken.” In the uglier corners of the internet, that fraud story spills into broad-brush ethnic blame, which hardens resentment fast.
The protests aren’t an act of conscience. They’re an act of obstruction.
The analogy is “you wouldn’t block police officers.” They see people physically interfering with legitimate law enforcement and escalating danger for agents on the scene.
The shooting of Renee Good was self-defense.
A vehicle advancing head-on towards an agent is a weapon. If your social media feed shows only the video angles that show danger to the ICE agent, the Left’s outrage looks phony and unhinged.
Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety.
The Right sees lawsuits against ICE as the Left choosing chaos over order. When liberal officials align with protesters, conservatives see Democratic office-holders as undermining the security of our nation and jeopardizing our freedom. Why? Just to score political points.
Now here’s the key: conservatives are not pretending.
Based on what they’re seeing, conservatives genuinely believe that if we don’t support immigration enforcement, we won’t have a country. And they believe progressive protestors are trying to make legitimate law enforcement impossible.
From inside that reality, abolishing ICE sounds as insane as abolishing the fire department.
Movie #2: What progressives are seeing and why it makes sense to them
Now flip the channel.
When many progressives look at Minneapolis, they also see a clear story.
But they don’t see “law enforcement under attack.” They see “unchecked power expanding.”
ICE operations look like an occupation, not public safety.
Masked agents. Unmarked vehicles. Raids in neighborhoods. Federal presence that feels designed to intimidate, not protect. Violence first, question later. The Trump Administration singling out democratic cities that have elected officials from the opposing side. For people experiencing masked & militarized raids in their hometown often using violent force to round their neighbors up on buses without any due process while acting on orders from the president with full immunity and no accountability. ICE starts to look and feel a lot like rising authoritarianism.
ICE agents are not the police.
Police officers enforce criminal law with constitutional guardrails and local accountability structures. That is NOT true for ICE. ICE is a federal immigration agency with a narrower mission, less authority (especially over U.S. Citizens and legal residents) and aimed primarily at non-citizens. Progressives believe ICE is operating way outside that lane – especially after an ICE agent shot Renee Good three times at close range. The subsequent paramilitary style activity in Minneapolis further delegitimates ICE in the mind of progressives.
ICE agents are sweeping up the wrong people.
Not MS-13 gang members, but regular workers. Parents. Legal residents. Roofers. Nannies. Cooks. Citizens. Families desperately trying to locate loved ones for days with no information.
Dissent is being criminalized.
When filming, observing or peacefully protesting gets treated like interference with law enforcement, people read it as a First Amendment emergency. Not a talking point, an actual emergency.
The shooting was unnecessary – and the accountability looks compromised.
In their feed, the video doesn’t match the official story. The use of force escalated too fast. Then the federal government took control of the investigation – which looks like the fox guarding the henhouse, a bad student grading his own homework with zero accountability.
Here’s the key: They’re not pretending either.
Progressives genuinely believe unchecked federal power is being weaponized in American communities – with too little oversight and way too much force. They see blue cities targeted and “law and order” language used to justify suppression of dissent.
From inside that reality, not protesting feels like giving up on democracy itself.
The Legitimacy Gap: Two Definitions of “Law Enforcement”
This is where so much of the tension lives.
To conservatives, law enforcement officers in this situation are presumptively “the good guys.” A direct order from a law enforcement officer carries built-in moral weight. Disobeying gives license to anarchists and threatens community safety.
To progressives, an ICE agent’s commands to U.S. citizens do not carry that same legitimacy, especially when ICE is perceived to be acting unlawfully or violently. Refusing an ICE command doesn’t feel like disrespecting the police. It feels like resisting tyranny.
Same moment. Two completely different interpretations. Two different moral frameworks.
Blind Spots on Both Sides
Neither side is seeing the full picture.
Conservatives: Many of you are not seeing the human cost that makes people feel morally obligated to risk arrest, tear gas and worse. You’re not seeing the family terror when someone disappears and never comes home. You’re not seeing how helpless people feel when they can’t locate a detained loved one for days. You’re not seeing the legal residents and citizens who’ve gotten swept up. You’re not seeing why people might genuinely believe this crosses a line.
Progressives: Many of you are not seeing the disorder and danger that makes people feel morally obligated to defend strong enforcement. You’re not seeing the communities that feel preyed upon by trafficking networks and violent criminals. You’re not seeing the agents who feel under siege, hated and physically attacked for doing a job the government hired them to do. You’re not seeing why people might genuinely believe this is necessary.
Your preferred news sources – and especially your social media feeds – are giving you an incomplete picture.
And that’s not an accident. That’s the business model of social media. Outrage pays. Fear spreads. Certainty goes viral. Nuance and balance die in the algorithm.
A Challenge to Both Sides
The facts of the shooting of Renee Good are disputed. That matters.
When facts are contested, most people pick the version that flatters their tribe. Then they work backward – and call it the truth.
Doing that puts gasoline on the fire.
We have to resist the temptation to do so. The test of character is whether you can hold the uncertainty – and honor your own instincts while making space for other points of view.
Before you jump into the ring, pause and ask yourself this:
Can you name the other side’s deepest fear in one sentence, in a way they would recognize as true?
I’ll go first.
Conservative fear: If we don’t enforce immigration law firmly, we’ll lose control of our borders and our country. The people protesting are making officers’ jobs more dangerous and our communities less safe.
Progressive fear: If we don’t push back on ICE overreach right now, we will normalize unchecked federal power in American neighborhoods. Innocents will suffer, and any form of dissent will be treated as a threat to be crushed.
Both sets of fears are rooted in the hearts of people who are trying to protect something precious.
The problem is we’ve been trained to treat the other side’s fear as fake, evil or just plain stupid.
Where do we go from here?
Here’s my proposal:
To conservatives: Stop collapsing “protest” into “terrorism.” Stop treating every protester like a paid agitator or an anarchist. Most are concerned neighbors trying to defend their community members. You don’t have to agree with their clothes, hair or language. But you should at least try to understand where they’re coming from.
To progressives: Don’t treat every person who supports stronger immigration enforcement as a villain. Many aren’t cheering for cruelty; they’re scared of chaos and genuinely want order and safety. You can disagree with the policies and still take their fears seriously.
And if you’re going to protest, please know your rights (and their limits). Protect yourself. Record from a safe distance. Don’t block vehicles. Don’t throw rocks or shine lasers. Don’t surround agents so nobody can safely leave. Keep your hands visible. Stay on sidewalks when you can. And if you’re given a lawful dispersal order, move. You can be loud and passionate without getting hurt — or handing your opponents the exact behavior they’re hoping for to film and share as “rage bait” clips.
The Bottom Line
We can have smart immigration enforcement that’s constitutional, accountable and effective.
We can have legitimate protests that don’t put officers, bystanders or undocumented families at greater risk.
We can have both safety and freedom. Liberty and justice.
But not if we keep living in split-screen realities where your side is always perfect – and the other side is always evil.
Those shortcuts are how we lose the plot. And more importantly, that’s how we lose each other.
I’ve been on both sides of the barricade. Literally. I’ve been a protester in the streets. I’ve been in rooms with law enforcement trying to keep people safe. And here’s what I know:
This country is better than these screaming matches that dehumanize anyone who dares to disagree with “our side.” People are better than their most inflammatory posts, reposts or political beliefs.
My hope — my prayer — is that we can learn to listen to each other again. To see each other’s humanity. To at least try to understand where the other side is coming from.
Because at the end of the day, we’re all we’ve got.
I understand what you’re trying to do in this, Van, an extension of your important listening work in Beyond the Messy Truth. But I also have problems with it. It’s valuable to say “if I had your experience then I would believe how you believe.” But you have to really be careful not to give legitimacy to lies, because we’re living in a time when the administration lies daily, recklessly, and intentionally. And well-meaning people believe those lies.
There’s a legit debate about how to address people coming over the border (no one even mentions climate change as a driver, which they should). And from the polls, even some consensus that you can’t just have open borders.
But if you listed to the administration and its allies, every ad, interview, public statement talks about the predators, drug dealers and child molesters. And that’s simply not the truth about who’s been targeted, in part because if someone is a predator, drug dealer or child molester, they’re likely in jail, where they should be. And that’s a regular law enforcement function, with procedures to protect the innocent. Instead you get constant and unrelenting lies about “we’re arresting criminals,” where they don’t mention that the bulk of the criminal acts are for crossing the border and no more. It’s a deliberate lie, like JD Vance saying it was ok to talk about “eating dogs and cats” even after local officials said it was false, because it served the greater purpose of addressing “American suffering.”
So it’s valuable to say, there are a lot of good people who believe the lies and you don't want to write them off. But you don’t want to give the lies legitimacy, because one of the most frightening things of this regime is its recklessness toward truth.
On Renee Good, you’ve watched the videos, and I doubt you’re on the fence about whether it was necessary for the Ice officer to shoot her. She turned her wheels away. The agent got in front of the car, in violation of any standard police procedure. The agent walked away fine. And then the administration defamed her by calling her a domestic terrorist. Now if all you get is Fox and the right wing social feeds, then you’re going to believe that he had no choice and that she’s a dangerous subversive. But if you justify it by putting all perspectives equal, it’s like justifying those who disappeared people off the streets under Pinochet in Chile or Videla in Argentina. Yes, they probably believed they were saving the country from dangerous subversives, but their actions were abhorrent, as are the bulk of the ICE actions.
That doesn’t count the administration putting the ICE officers in what Robert Jay Lifton called, during Vietnam, “an atrocity producing situation.” Or ICE shoving the head of the Minneapolis City Council. Or refusing to let Congressional representatives inspect their holding facilities, and arresting them when they try to go in. Or going after local elected officials who oppose them.
I understand you’re trying to get those opposed to the Trump administration to understand how his supporters see the situation (and vice versa). But you have to acknowledge the assaults on the truth in the process, because they’re one of the core pillars of what genuine authoritarianism, and not just differences in perspective.
Happy to talk about all of this (I just emailed via substack, or you can grab my contact info at paulloeb.org), and you know how I’ve long respected your work, and appreciated your kind words on my books, like Soul of a Citizen. But while I understood the impetus of the piece, I really did have some problems with it.
Paul
Paul Loeb
Author, Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
PS--I do totally agree that resistance to ICE and Trump has to be nonviolent (actually working on a piece critiquing the movie One Battle Or Another for romanticizing violence). But that doesn't mean it has to be docile, and when they go into people's homes without a warrant, or pick up random day workers at Home Depot, I think people who make it harder for them are heroes.
I tried to explain to someone at a polite gathering that Renee Good would almost certainly have lived if she complied with orders from ICE agents. She had to leave the room after I said that as if I just said something horrible. Someone else made a hugely unlawful suggestion of what should be done about the current political situation. It was roundly rejected by others, but no one wanted to leave the room on that count. It was more a cause for joking. I am sick and tired of being typecast as right wing because I refuse to prostrate myself before the left’s canon of martyrs while demonizing the martyrs held up by right. I admire the efforts of Van Jones to be fair minded and persuade rather than scapegoat and coerce. We need more of that. Life in the Bay Area gets exhausting because I feel like the left here clings to its virtue signals as tightly as conservatives in other places cling to their guns. I would like less of both. There’s too much hate.