7
7
0
The recent New Yorker piece follows a familiar pattern—stories we in uniform have seen echoed across countless briefings, reports, and media narratives. Some accounts are undeniably disturbing; others inflate or distort facts to reinforce preconceived views. Yet in nearly every case, it is the operators on the ground who bear the brunt of public scrutiny. Reflecting on the pressure facing today’s ICE agents, I’m struck by how quickly we, as a nation, forget our own history—particularly the parallels between the treatment of Vietnam Veterans then and the treatment of these ICE agents now.
Vietnam American Military and ICE – Same Story, Different Day
Yes, there are notable parallels between the treatment of many Vietnam War veterans upon returning home and the current public treatment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, particularly those involved in field operations. The similarities center on themes of scapegoating, public vilification, and the psychological/social fallout that comes from being portrayed as the face of unpopular government policy.
Key Similarities
1. Serving as the visible face of controversial policy
• Vietnam veterans served by carrying out orders in a war that became deeply unpopular. They were not the architects of the war (politicians and senior commanders were), yet veterans absorbed much of the public anger.
• ICE agents (especially in Enforcement and Removal Operations) are federal law-enforcement officers executing laws passed by Congress and policies set by the executive branch. They do not write immigration law or set deportation priorities, but they have become the public symbol of a restrictive immigration-enforcement system that a large segment of the population opposes.
2. Public demonization and protests directed at individuals
• Returning Vietnam veterans were sometimes spat on, called “baby killers,” denied jobs, or faced hostile protests (the “spitting on soldiers” story is debated in its frequency, but the broader climate of contempt is well documented).
• ICE agents and their facilities are now regularly protested; agents have been doxed, harassed at restaurants, had their personal information published, and labeled “Nazis,” “Gestapo,” or “concentration-camp guards” by activists and some politicians. Protesters have shown up at agents’ private homes, and organizations such as “Never Again Action” explicitly compare ICE to the SS, and have endured physical abuse.
3. Moral injury and internal conflict
• Many Vietnam veterans returned feeling they had been ordered to participate in a war that large parts of society condemned as immoral. This created alienation and anger because neither the politicians nor the people had the veterans' backs. For the veteran, it was another war, just at home, and it felt worse than Vietnam.
• Some ICE agents report similar moral injury, particularly when removing long-term residents or separating families. Whistleblowers and former agents have described depression, PTSD, and substance-abuse issues stemming from being caught between legal duty and public hatred.
4. Being abandoned or criticized by segments of their own government
• Vietnam-era soldiers often felt the Johnson and Nixon administrations distanced themselves when public opinion soured; the war became “the soldiers’ war” rather than the government's. They often felt the US Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) was oblivious to the fighting and caused hundreds of casualties by way of ignorant commands.
• During the Trump administration and afterward, some politicians who supported strict enforcement in theory still condemned ICE agents in practice when specific viral incidents occurred (e.g., family separations, detention conditions). Calls of “Abolish ICE” came not just from the left wing but briefly trended among mainstream Democratic figures in 2018–2019, and 2025.
5. Long-term social stigma
• For years, it was socially unacceptable in many circles to admit you were a Vietnam veteran; some hid their service to avoid confrontation.
• Today, some ICE agents reportedly avoid telling people what they do for a living or hide their agency gear when off duty for fear of confrontation or violence.
Important Differences
• Voluntariness and era: Vietnam had a draft, about 1/3 of the total that served were draftees; virtually all ICE agents are career volunteers who chose federal law enforcement post 911, knowing immigration would be part of the mission.
• Scale of vilification: The anti–Vietnam War movement was orders of magnitude larger and more violent than today’s anti-ICE activism.
• Legal and moral context: The Vietnam War involved large-scale conventional combat and civilian casualties that many came to view as unjust or criminal.
• ICE operations, while controversial and often harsh, are (in most cases) enforcement of domestic civil immigration law, not battlefield actions.
• Public sympathy today: Vietnam veterans eventually received widespread gratitude and rehabilitation of their image (especially after the 1982 construction of the Vietnam Memorial).
ICE agents have defenders on the political right and among border-security advocates, but they lack anything close to the near-universal sympathy Vietnam vets eventually earned.
In short, both groups have been turned into lightning rods for broader policy disagreements they did not create, and both have experienced a version of “blame the grunt, not the general.” The parallel is real, even if the intensity, historical context, and ultimate public judgment differ.
Could it be that we could learn something from history?
Vietnam American Military and ICE – Same Story, Different Day
Yes, there are notable parallels between the treatment of many Vietnam War veterans upon returning home and the current public treatment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, particularly those involved in field operations. The similarities center on themes of scapegoating, public vilification, and the psychological/social fallout that comes from being portrayed as the face of unpopular government policy.
Key Similarities
1. Serving as the visible face of controversial policy
• Vietnam veterans served by carrying out orders in a war that became deeply unpopular. They were not the architects of the war (politicians and senior commanders were), yet veterans absorbed much of the public anger.
• ICE agents (especially in Enforcement and Removal Operations) are federal law-enforcement officers executing laws passed by Congress and policies set by the executive branch. They do not write immigration law or set deportation priorities, but they have become the public symbol of a restrictive immigration-enforcement system that a large segment of the population opposes.
2. Public demonization and protests directed at individuals
• Returning Vietnam veterans were sometimes spat on, called “baby killers,” denied jobs, or faced hostile protests (the “spitting on soldiers” story is debated in its frequency, but the broader climate of contempt is well documented).
• ICE agents and their facilities are now regularly protested; agents have been doxed, harassed at restaurants, had their personal information published, and labeled “Nazis,” “Gestapo,” or “concentration-camp guards” by activists and some politicians. Protesters have shown up at agents’ private homes, and organizations such as “Never Again Action” explicitly compare ICE to the SS, and have endured physical abuse.
3. Moral injury and internal conflict
• Many Vietnam veterans returned feeling they had been ordered to participate in a war that large parts of society condemned as immoral. This created alienation and anger because neither the politicians nor the people had the veterans' backs. For the veteran, it was another war, just at home, and it felt worse than Vietnam.
• Some ICE agents report similar moral injury, particularly when removing long-term residents or separating families. Whistleblowers and former agents have described depression, PTSD, and substance-abuse issues stemming from being caught between legal duty and public hatred.
4. Being abandoned or criticized by segments of their own government
• Vietnam-era soldiers often felt the Johnson and Nixon administrations distanced themselves when public opinion soured; the war became “the soldiers’ war” rather than the government's. They often felt the US Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) was oblivious to the fighting and caused hundreds of casualties by way of ignorant commands.
• During the Trump administration and afterward, some politicians who supported strict enforcement in theory still condemned ICE agents in practice when specific viral incidents occurred (e.g., family separations, detention conditions). Calls of “Abolish ICE” came not just from the left wing but briefly trended among mainstream Democratic figures in 2018–2019, and 2025.
5. Long-term social stigma
• For years, it was socially unacceptable in many circles to admit you were a Vietnam veteran; some hid their service to avoid confrontation.
• Today, some ICE agents reportedly avoid telling people what they do for a living or hide their agency gear when off duty for fear of confrontation or violence.
Important Differences
• Voluntariness and era: Vietnam had a draft, about 1/3 of the total that served were draftees; virtually all ICE agents are career volunteers who chose federal law enforcement post 911, knowing immigration would be part of the mission.
• Scale of vilification: The anti–Vietnam War movement was orders of magnitude larger and more violent than today’s anti-ICE activism.
• Legal and moral context: The Vietnam War involved large-scale conventional combat and civilian casualties that many came to view as unjust or criminal.
• ICE operations, while controversial and often harsh, are (in most cases) enforcement of domestic civil immigration law, not battlefield actions.
• Public sympathy today: Vietnam veterans eventually received widespread gratitude and rehabilitation of their image (especially after the 1982 construction of the Vietnam Memorial).
ICE agents have defenders on the political right and among border-security advocates, but they lack anything close to the near-universal sympathy Vietnam vets eventually earned.
In short, both groups have been turned into lightning rods for broader policy disagreements they did not create, and both have experienced a version of “blame the grunt, not the general.” The parallel is real, even if the intensity, historical context, and ultimate public judgment differ.
Could it be that we could learn something from history?
inside-the-activist-groups-resisting-ice
Posted from newyorker.com
Vietnam War
American History
Posted 2 mo ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
3
3
0
There is a loud faction of citizens who support the 'rule of men, not the rule of law'.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Not sure how to respond to this one. All I have is an opinion. And who doesn't have one of those. I think the emotional response and general public parts of this are accurate. But I think the "apples to oranges" saying applies to the actual situations ...and yeah, the grunts usually get the blame.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
SGT Kevin Hughes - Hyundai wasn't the target of the actions, neither was LG Energy Solution, their partner on the battery plant. Hyundai runs the overall complex and the auto-manufacture factory, but specifically in this case, the target was a South Korean subcontractor to Hyundai that was doing the fit-out phase of the plant. The likelihood of a construction subcontractor stepping over the lines of legality when it comes to personnel is more likely than Hyundai doing it. How likely though I have no clue.
The construction at the plant has resumed. After being paused for two months, LG Energy Solution (the lead partner the construction sub works for) announced it was resumed last month.
I am less inclined to render an opinion on the baselessness of the raid raid since it was a month to multi-month joint state/federal investigation. If it was solely an I.C.E. operation I would be more suspect that it could be a zealous overreach by a single agency.
Finally to 'due process'. Due process simply means that, in order to ensure fair treatment according to the laws, a procedure must be followed to ensure that the government doesn't take a right or privilege away without an impartial review of the circumstances of the situation.
I mentioned a while ago (I think when someone made the comment about all undocumented immigrants are entitled to a judicial hearing) that 'due process' when it comes to immigration enforcement is a bit complex.
Everyone, regardless of their legal status in the country, is entitled to due process, but due process does not necessarily mean a hearing in front of a judge. Due process in immigration proceedings could simply be a interview with an asylum officer for a credible fear screening and the right to contact their country's consulate for assistance (such as cases that are eligible for expedited removal), to possibly a higher level administrative review of a removal decision or a judicial review by an Immigration Judge.
What is 'right' when it comes to due process usually comes down to a person's ideology. What is legal is defined by the published laws and judicial review of laws affecting individuals (if challenged). The emotional conflict comes when the two don't coincide.
For example, is it 'right' that someone who did not legally enter the country, but has integrated themselves with their community and kept their nose clean for the past two years, can be summarily deported without much fuss (no immigration hearing, etc.) Maybe, maybe not (depends on your ideology). Is it 'legal' though? According the Immigration and Nationality Act* it is.
-------------------------------
* Congressional Research Service (Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy, updated March 31, 2025) - https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45020/R45020.12.pdf
The construction at the plant has resumed. After being paused for two months, LG Energy Solution (the lead partner the construction sub works for) announced it was resumed last month.
I am less inclined to render an opinion on the baselessness of the raid raid since it was a month to multi-month joint state/federal investigation. If it was solely an I.C.E. operation I would be more suspect that it could be a zealous overreach by a single agency.
Finally to 'due process'. Due process simply means that, in order to ensure fair treatment according to the laws, a procedure must be followed to ensure that the government doesn't take a right or privilege away without an impartial review of the circumstances of the situation.
I mentioned a while ago (I think when someone made the comment about all undocumented immigrants are entitled to a judicial hearing) that 'due process' when it comes to immigration enforcement is a bit complex.
Everyone, regardless of their legal status in the country, is entitled to due process, but due process does not necessarily mean a hearing in front of a judge. Due process in immigration proceedings could simply be a interview with an asylum officer for a credible fear screening and the right to contact their country's consulate for assistance (such as cases that are eligible for expedited removal), to possibly a higher level administrative review of a removal decision or a judicial review by an Immigration Judge.
What is 'right' when it comes to due process usually comes down to a person's ideology. What is legal is defined by the published laws and judicial review of laws affecting individuals (if challenged). The emotional conflict comes when the two don't coincide.
For example, is it 'right' that someone who did not legally enter the country, but has integrated themselves with their community and kept their nose clean for the past two years, can be summarily deported without much fuss (no immigration hearing, etc.) Maybe, maybe not (depends on your ideology). Is it 'legal' though? According the Immigration and Nationality Act* it is.
-------------------------------
* Congressional Research Service (Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy, updated March 31, 2025) - https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45020/R45020.12.pdf
(0)
(0)
SGT Kevin Hughes
Yes interpretation is wide open depending on your ideology. But for the average Joe, it is perception. As one of my old Show Business Cronies used to say: "People want a Star...and if you don't want to be one, they will find one." And that came about just because I was asked if I wanted to fly in the front of the bus, or the back of the bus...meaning First Class, or Economy. Having grown up poor, and not wanting to be a Star...I said: 'back of the bus is fine. " I got reamed over that. And the perception in the Minority Communities around here...is fear.
Having read seven of Annie Jacobson's thoroughly researched, annexed, and footnoted, books, along with "How Civil War Starts" by Barbara Walters....I think I have an overall grasp of the big picture. Of course the Devil is always in the details...and we are drawing in details. It is much more fun for me, to lunch with my grandkids and discuss Jupiter being made out of Liquid Metal, than to go down the bread crumb trails of autocrats seeking power.
Having read seven of Annie Jacobson's thoroughly researched, annexed, and footnoted, books, along with "How Civil War Starts" by Barbara Walters....I think I have an overall grasp of the big picture. Of course the Devil is always in the details...and we are drawing in details. It is much more fun for me, to lunch with my grandkids and discuss Jupiter being made out of Liquid Metal, than to go down the bread crumb trails of autocrats seeking power.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
SGT Kevin Hughes - BTW, thanks for that post on Jupiter previously. Interesting reading!
(1)
(0)
SGT Kevin Hughes
COL Randall Cudworth - Your posts remind me of Annie's work. So well researched and open minded. I have seen her in several Interviews, and even the "hard" questions she finds a way to broaden the perspective. So keep it up, you might be one of the few voices of reason in our recent cacophony of emotional gaslighting. So good on you!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google