The case of Adam Boyd, an ICE attorney who resigned for "moral" reasons has recently gotten some attention. Mr. Boyd noted that "We still need good attorneys at ICE. There are drug traffickers and national-security threats and human-rights violators in our country who need to be dealt with. But we are now focusing on numbers over all else." In other words, Mr. Boyd felt he could no longer work for an agency that has shifted its focus from deporting criminals, to one that is focused largely on removing anyone they can get their hands on.

Mr. Boyd's situation exemplifies the dilemma faced by many federal employees whose jobs involve immigration enforcement--at ICE, DHS, DOJ, USCIS, and other agencies: is it possible to continue in the job and still be a moral person? During most of the first Trump Administration, I think the answer to this question was generally "yes." This time around, I am not so sure.

A starting point to address the question of morality is whether we need immigration enforcement at all. Most Americans--including me--would answer that question in the affirmative. And if it is important to admit some people and keep others out, we need a system that distinguishes between those who are allowed to stay and those who must be excluded, and we need people to enforce the laws within that system.

Up until Trump 2.0, the main problem with our immigration system has been that it is dysfunctional. Our laws have failed to keep pace with current events. In the realm of asylum, for instance, it's been 40+ years since lawmakers had a meaningful conversation about who should qualify for protection and how many people we should admit into the country. Other areas of immigration law have not fared any better. For example, most Americans agree that DACA recipients--people who came to the U.S. as children and have spent the majority of their lives here--should be permitted to stay. However, we've never been able to pass legislation to that effect. By refusing to make difficult decisions and compromises, we were left with a failed immigration system that allowed people to remain in the United States, but without permanent status.

Into this legal and policy void stepped Donald Trump, who lied about non-citizens and demonized them for his own political ends. The result, of course, was that he was elected--twice. Now, we are in the position of turning his political arguments--again, largely based on lies--into policy, and government workers involved with immigration are expected to implement those policies.

During the first Trump Administration, I knew a lot of good people working for the government in the area of immigration, and I mostly encouraged them to stay. At the time, I felt that good people could make a difference by mitigating some of the Administration's bad policies and by helping to preserve due process. I still think that was right, and I saw how individual officers and attorneys made a difference by fulfilling their obligation to follow the law and by exercising compassion where they could.

But this time around, things are different. The Administration is intent on detaining and deporting as many people as possible, often with little due process of law. Few of the targeted individuals are violent or dangerous; they have simply fled persecution to seek protection in a country they thought would help them. Unfortunately, for many, our country is no longer a safe place.

Every day, we hear about instances of masked and unidentified ICE agents detaining innocent non-citizens for no reason other than the fact that they do not have permanent status here (and in a few cases where they do have permanent status here). ICE detains people from their homes, when they appear for check-ins, and even when they come to court for their hearings. How often this happens is difficult to say, but based on the number of instances reported, it seems common enough.

Under these conditions, I wonder how officers, judges, and attorneys can maintain their morality.

Take the courthouse arrests. If DHS attorneys and Immigration Judges are used merely as bait for ICE to trap immigrants when they arrive in court, aren't these attorneys and judges complicit in the scheme to deprive non-citizens of their due process rights? Are they not also to blame when such people are deported to places where they face harm? Being a moral person does not require that we allow everyone to stay. But shouldn't it at least require that we give each person a fair opportunity to present their case so we can decide whether they qualify for protection under the law? For me, depriving people of that opportunity is immoral.

I suppose one could argue that good people should remain in government to try to mitigate the damage. I do think that is true to a degree. We still see cases being granted by judges and Asylum Officers. DHS attorneys are still mostly reasonable.

In the end, each person within the system will need to decide whether they are able to do their job and live with themself. While I hope that good people can stay and stand up for the rule of law, I also think there is a time to leave. There are many good people working for the government, and I do not envy them this decision. But to be a moral person, to fulfill one's duty, sometimes involves making difficult choices. As I see it, for many officers, judges, and attorneys, the time for deciding is at hand.

Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com