The Claim
"ICE is just enforcing the law."
What the Terms Actually Mean
This claim treats "the law" and "how it gets enforced" as the same thing. As Article 9 of this series traces in detail, they aren't — immigration law itself has stayed largely constant across the administrations covered in this series, while enforcement priorities, resource allocation, and target populations have changed substantially and repeatedly by executive choice. Confusing the two also lets a policy choice — like eliminating categorical priorities entirely — get described as an inevitability rather than what it actually is: one administration's specific, reversible decision about how to spend limited enforcement resources.
The White House
Each enforcement-priority memo cited below originated as an executive branch policy choice, not a change to the underlying statute. Photo: Library of Congress, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
What the Data Measure
The distinction between a law's existence (set by Congress) and an administration's enforcement priorities (set by executive branch policy, memo by memo, as documented across this entire series). Congress writes and amends the Immigration and Nationality Act only occasionally, through full legislative action; a memo reallocating enforcement priorities can be issued, and rescinded, by a single administration within days.
What the Evidence Shows
Documented fact: The statutory framework for who is "removable" has not fundamentally changed across the Obama, Trump I, Biden, and Trump II administrations covered in this series. What has changed, repeatedly and by explicit written policy choice: the 2014 Johnson memo's three-tier priority system (Obama); the 2017 Kelly memos removing categorical exemptions (Trump I); the 2021 Mayorkas memo narrowing enforcement to three threat categories (Biden); and the January 2025 executive order eliminating categorical priorities entirely (Trump II). Each of those was a discretionary policy choice about how to use enforcement resources against the same underlying statute — not a change to the underlying law itself. That pattern of repeated, memo-level change is itself evidence against the "just enforcing the law" framing, since a law that hadn't changed produced four meaningfully different enforcement postures depending entirely on which administration was in office.
What's Supported
It's true, narrowly, that any individual enforcement action taken against a removable person has some statutory basis — the law does authorize removal of removable people, in the abstract, a point our fact-check of "ICE Can Arrest Anyone Who Is Here Illegally" examines more closely. It would also be true, and uncontroversial, to say that no administration has invented a wholly new category of removable person out of nothing — every administration's targets have come from within the same existing statutory definition of who is removable.
U.S. Capitol
Congress writes the statute; the executive branch decides, memo by memo, how aggressively to enforce it. Photo: Diliff, CC BY 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons.
What's Missing or Misleading
"Just enforcing the law" implies no discretion is involved, when discretion — who to prioritize, where to direct resources, whether to maintain categorical exemptions — has been the central, explicitly written policy lever every administration in this series has used differently. The choice to have no categorical priorities at all, as the current administration has made, is itself a discretionary policy choice, not a legally compelled one; the statute doesn't require enforcement against every removable person simultaneously, and no administration in this dataset has had the resources to attempt that regardless. Treating the current no-categorical-priorities approach as the "default" or "neutral" reading of the statute also obscures that every prior administration in this series read the same statute and chose a narrower approach instead.
Government/Other Response
Every administration covered in this series has used some version of "enforcing the law" as public framing for its enforcement posture, regardless of which specific priority framework it had adopted — the phrase itself isn't unique to any one administration's messaging. Current ICE messaging on this point is available through its newsroom. None of the four administrations' messaging, in the material reviewed for this piece, explicitly acknowledged discretion as the operative variable in its own public framing, even though internal memos from each administration describe exactly that discretion in detail.
Bottom Line
Misleading as a complete explanation. The law sets the outer boundary of who can be removed; enforcement priorities — a real, documented, repeatedly-changed policy choice — determine who actually is, out of a population far larger than enforcement capacity allows targeting all at once. See Article 9 for the full 2011–2025 policy history. The honest version of the claim is narrower: ICE enforces a law that gives it broad, but not unlimited, targeting discretion, and which specific slice of that broad authority gets used has been a recurring policy choice, not a constant.
Quick Questions
"I.C.E. Incarcerating Communities Everyday" Sticker
"Just enforcing the law" doesn't explain why the same statute produced four different enforcement postures in fifteen years — this design names the discretion the phrase tries to erase.
➡ Browse the Anti-ICE Stickers Collection
Frequently Asked Questions
"Keeping Stolen Land 'Pure' Since 2003" Sticker
A warning-sign design for a policy history that's really a sequence of choices, not a single unbroken law — Abolish Ice, and abolish the idea that any of this was inevitable.
➡ Browse the Anti-ICE Stickers Collection
Every Abolish Ice sticker and magnet purchase from our Anti-ICE Stickers collection helps fund the reporting and continued development of this public resource.
Related Reading
How ICE's Target Population Expanded: the full 2011–2025 enforcement-priority memo timeline this article summarizes.
"ICE Can Arrest Anyone Who Is Here Illegally." What Does the Law Actually Allow?: a closely related claim about the statutory boundaries of enforcement discretion.
"If ICE Detained Them, They Must Have Done Something Wrong.": how the same discretionary enforcement choices produced documented wrongful-detention cases.
Sources: this series, Article 9 (2011–2025 enforcement-priority memo timeline); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement newsroom.
About Quietly Loud Prints
Quietly Loud Prints designs original parody, activist, educational, and political stickers inspired by history, humor, and grassroots movements. Our goal is to create thoughtful designs that help people express ideas through everyday objects.