Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that violent attacks against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and officers are unacceptable, must be fully condemned, and that Congress stands in support of ICE’s mission to protect national security, public safety, and the enforcement of immigration laws.
Summary
House Resolution 767 expresses the House of Representatives' condemnation of violent attacks against ICE facilities and officers. It affirms support for ICE's mission to protect national security, public safety, and enforce immigration laws. The resolution also encourages public officials and media entities to reject rhetoric that incites hostility toward ICE.
Expected Effects
This resolution serves as a formal statement of the House's position on violence against ICE. It may lead to increased resources for protecting ICE facilities and personnel. It could also influence public discourse surrounding immigration enforcement.
Potential Benefits
- Reinforces the importance of the rule of law and condemns violence.
- Supports law enforcement officers and their mission.
- May lead to improved safety measures for ICE personnel and facilities.
- Encourages responsible rhetoric from public officials and media.
- Acknowledges the vital role ICE plays in national security.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could be perceived as divisive, further polarizing the debate on immigration.
- May alienate communities critical of ICE's enforcement practices.
- Could be interpreted as overlooking legitimate concerns about ICE's operations.
- May not address the root causes of the violence, such as frustration with immigration policies.
- Risks chilling free speech by discouraging criticism of government agencies.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution's alignment with the Constitution is complex. While it supports law enforcement, which is a legitimate government function, it also touches on issues of free speech. The First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government, but does not protect incitement to violence. The resolution's call for responsible rhetoric could be seen as an attempt to limit speech, but it is framed in the context of preventing violence against government personnel and facilities.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).