Everyone should be concerned by ICE agents’ brutality | Opinion
Column Calls for Accountability as U.S. Immigration Enforcement Fatalities Rise
Portland, Maine – A recent column in the Press Herald by Portland resident Rachael Haskell has ignited debate over the United States’ use of force in immigration enforcement. Haskell, who has long written on social justice issues, argues that the deaths of individuals like Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a man shot by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents this year, represent a broader crisis of human rights that demands urgent public scrutiny.
A growing list of casualties
Haskell points to a disturbing trend this year: a spike in lethal encounters between ICE agents and the people they are tasked with detaining. Durán Guerrero, a 27‑year‑old immigrant, was found dead on a street in Washington, D.C., after ICE agents allegedly used deadly force during an attempt to arrest him. Haskell notes that Durán Guerrero is not the only victim; other cases have been reported across the country, raising questions about the policies that allow such outcomes.
International scrutiny
The column also highlights the United Nations’ recent statements condemning U.S. immigration enforcement practices. A press release from the U.N. Human Rights Office in January 2026 calls on the United States to “respect the right to life and urgently review lethal force” in immigration operations. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been vocal as well, publishing a series of reports that criticize the Trump administration’s approach and calling attention to the continuing use of excessive force.
“We are seeing a pattern that violates international human‑rights law,” Haskell wrote. “The U.S. must step back and listen to the international community.”
A moral, not purely political, debate
Haskell frames the issue as one of morality rather than politics, citing Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assertion that “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” The columnist argues that silence and inaction in the face of such violence effectively support the continued use of lethal force. She urges readers to consider the moral implications of these deaths and to question whether strict immigration enforcement can coexist with the protection of human life.
Maya Angelou’s words echo in the piece: “No one of us can be free until everybody is free.” Haskell interprets this as a reminder that freedom is collective—if one person is denied the right to life or treated with cruelty, the nation’s claim to liberty is undermined.
Calls for accountability
Haskell calls for a comprehensive review of ICE’s use-of-force protocols, the appointment of independent investigators for all fatal incidents, and a broader discussion about how to balance immigration control with human rights. She stresses that the nation’s democratic values hinge on the ability to hold government officials accountable for violations of the law and the Constitution.
The column acknowledges the divisive nature of the debate. “It is possible to be strict on immigration while avoiding extreme violence,” Haskell writes. “That conversation needs to happen, and it can only happen if we restore the foundational principles of justice and dignity for all people, regardless of citizenship.”
Reactions and implications
While the Press Herald did not publish a formal editorial response to Haskell’s column, several local officials have taken to social media to address the issue. The Maine Department of Public Safety has reiterated that state law enforcement agencies are not directly involved in ICE operations, although they occasionally provide support. In contrast, the Maine Civil Liberties Union has called for a state-level investigation into how federal immigration policies might influence local policing practices.
The column’s timing coincides with a national conversation about the militarization of immigration enforcement. Several federal agencies are reportedly reviewing their protocols, and the Biden administration has pledged to “reduce the use of force” in immigration contexts. Haskell’s piece adds a local perspective to this broader debate, emphasizing that the consequences of federal policy are felt across all states, even those as far from the borders as Maine.
A call to action
Haskell concludes by urging readers to move beyond “political” labels and engage in a human‑rights‑based discussion. “If we do not act now, the next casualty may not be someone we know,” she warns. “The only way to prevent that is to hold our government to the standards we claim to uphold.”
The column has spurred discussion in Portland’s community groups, where activists are calling for town hall meetings to discuss ICE practices and local support for immigrant communities. The conversation has also prompted local journalists to investigate the extent of federal presence in Maine’s smaller towns.
As the debate continues, Haskell’s column serves as a reminder that the use of lethal force in immigration enforcement is not just a policy issue, but a moral one that touches every American, whether they are immigrants or citizens, residents or visitors. Whether the federal government will heed the calls for reform remains to be seen, but the urgency expressed by Haskell and many others underscores that the stakes are far beyond politics.
