Rokan's Journal

Brig Gen HRM Rokan Uddin (Retd)

What is unfolding in the United States today is not merely a series of isolated law-enforcement incidents; it is a structural stress test of constitutional governance. The actions attributed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol, operating under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, have sparked nationwide fear precisely because they blur long-standing legal and moral boundaries between immigration enforcement and militarized internal policing.

At the heart of public anxiety is the expansion of discretionary power. Immigration enforcement agencies were historically designed to operate within administrative law, not as roaming armed units exercising lethal force deep inside American cities. Border Patrol’s statutory authority was originally tied to border zones and ports of entry. Over time, however, internal legal interpretations expanded its operational radius—most notably the “100-mile zone,” which now covers areas where nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population lives. This expansion, while technically legal on paper, was never meant to normalize armed confrontations in dense civilian environments such as Portland or Minneapolis. The reported shootings have amplified a deeper concern: use-of-force standards appear inconsistently applied. Under U.S. law, deadly force is constitutionally permissible only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Civil-rights experts argue that immigration enforcement officers—who are not traditionally trained for routine urban policing—are increasingly placed in situations where split-second decisions carry fatal consequences. When such decisions result in civilian deaths, especially in non-border contexts, they raise questions about training adequacy, mission creep, and command responsibility.

Equally alarming is the perception of erosion of Fourth Amendment protections, which safeguard citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Reports of warrantless home entries, aggressive raids, and searches in or near schools and workplaces—whether fully substantiated or not—create a chilling effect. Even when agents possess legal authority, the manner of execution matters. Lawful authority exercised without restraint can still violate constitutional norms if it disregards proportionality, due process, or civilian safety. Schools and public institutions occupy a particularly sensitive place in American law and culture. For decades, enforcement agencies followed “sensitive locations” guidelines that limited operations in schools, hospitals, and places of worship. The rollback or dilution of these norms—combined with aggressive rhetoric—has generated collective fear beyond immigrant communities, affecting citizens, teachers, healthcare workers, and local administrators. When parents fear sending children to school, the damage extends well beyond immigration enforcement—it strikes at the social fabric.

Another major fault line is accountability. Federal officers benefit from strong legal protections, including qualified immunity and internal investigative mechanisms that often lack transparency. While such protections exist to allow officers to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation, critics argue they now function as institutional shields, insulating agencies from meaningful oversight. When investigations are internal, delayed, or opaque, public trust collapses—especially in cases involving death. The political dimension cannot be ignored. Presidential rhetoric and executive priorities shape enforcement culture. When leadership emphasizes numerical targets, “toughness,” or exceptional authority, it can unintentionally signal tolerance for excess. Critics argue that the current climate encourages agents to push legal boundaries, confident that political backing will outweigh consequences. This is not unique to anyone’s administration, but it becomes especially dangerous when combined with polarization and weakened institutional restraint.

The societal consequences of this climate of fear are deep, cumulative, and far-reaching, extending well beyond undocumented immigrants and directly affecting the broader fabric of American society. When armed enforcement actions, shootings, and aggressive raids become visible parts of daily life, fear does not discriminate by legal status. Ordinary citizen teachers, parents, workers, students—begin to question a foundational assumption of democracy: whether constitutional protections apply equally to everyone, or selectively based on power, identity, or circumstance. Once that doubt takes root, trust in institutions erodes rapidly. One of the most immediate consequences is the breakdown of community–law enforcement relationships. When federal agents are perceived as unpredictable or unaccountable, communities grow reluctant to cooperate with any form of law enforcement. People hesitate to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or seek help in emergencies, fearing that interaction with authorities could expose them or their families to risk. This withdrawal does not enhance public safety, it undermines it. Neighborhoods become less secure, criminal activity becomes harder to detect, and the very goals of law enforcement are compromised.

The psychological impact is especially severe and long-lasting. Fear-based enforcement creates chronic stress, anxiety, and trauma, particularly among children. Young people who witness raids, hear about shootings, or grow up with the constant fear that a parent or neighbor may be taken away develop heightened levels of emotional distress. Research consistently shows that such stress can impair concentration, learning, and social development. Schools are no longer seen purely as places of safety and growth but as potential points of danger, which disrupts attendance, performance, and long-term educational outcomes. These effects do not disappear with time; they often follow children into adulthood. At a societal level, prolonged fear reshapes political behavior and social norms. History—both in the United States and globally—demonstrates that societies governed through intimidation tend to experience declining civic trust. People disengage from democratic participation, believing that institutions no longer represent or protect them. At the same time, fear can fuel radicalization at both extremes: some turn toward authoritarian solutions in the hope of “order,” while others are driven toward anger, alienation, and resistance. The middle ground—where democratic compromise and dialogue exist—shrinks.

Political fragmentation deepens as communities retreat into identity-based silos, defined by fear rather than shared citizenship. Instead of viewing one another as neighbors with common rights and responsibilities, people begin to see others as risks, liabilities, or threats. This fragmentation weakens national cohesion and makes societies more vulnerable to manipulation, misinformation, and unrest. Ultimately, fear as a governing tool is corrosive. It may produce short-term compliance, but it destroys long-term legitimacy. A society that internalizes fear loses confidence in the rule of law and replaces it with uncertainty about power—who has it, how it is used, and against whom. Once that shift occurs, restoring trust becomes far more difficult than maintaining it in the first place.

From a legal perspective, the United States now faces a critical question: Can immigration law be enforced without hollowing out constitutional law? The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to basic protections of life, liberty, and due process. Any enforcement regime that appears to do so risks undermining the very legitimacy of the state. The way forward requires course correction, not escalation. Independent investigations, restored limits on enforcement zones, reinstated protections for sensitive locations, and clear separation between immigration enforcement and militarized policing are essential. Congressional oversight, judicial scrutiny, and transparent reporting must be strengthened—not weakened. Without these safeguards, short-term enforcement gains may come at the cost of long-term democratic damage.

America’s strength has always rested not only on its laws, but on restraint in the use of power. When citizens begin to fear their own government more than criminality or external threats, the nation enters dangerous territory. Immigration enforcement, no matter how politically charged, cannot be allowed to override constitutional principles. If it does, the damage will not be limited to immigrants—it will reshape American society itself, in ways that may take generations to repair.

hrmrokan@hotmail.com