Law Enforcement Has Become A Safe Haven for Sadists
This morning, Julie Watson looked at how detentions of European tourists at US borders point to fears of traveling to America. She started with the story of a U.S. citizen who wound up chained to a bench, while her fiancé, Lucas Sielaff, was accused of violating the rules of his 90-day U.S. tourist permit. He also wound up, handcuffed and shackled, dumped in a crowded U.S. immigration detention center for 16 days before being allowed to fly home to Germany. Welcome to America!
Since Señor Trumpanzyy took office, wrote Watson, “there have been other high-profile incidents of tourists like Sielaff being stopped at U.S. border crossings and held for weeks at U.S. immigration detention facilities before being allowed to fly home… Sielaff, 25, and the others say it was never made clear why they were taken into custody even after they offered to go home voluntarily. Pedro Rios, director of the American Friends Service Committee, a nonprofit that aids migrants, said in the 22 years he has worked on the border he has never seen travelers from Western Europe and Canada, longtime U.S. allies, locked up like this. ‘It’s definitely unusual with these cases so close together, and the rationale for detaining these people doesn’t make sense,’ he said. ‘It doesn’t justify the abhorrent treatment and conditions’ they endured. ‘The only reason I see is there is a much more fervent anti-immigrant atmosphere,’ Rios said.”
The incidents are fueling anxiety as the Trump administration prepares for a ban on travelers from some countries. Noting the “evolving” federal travel policies, the University of California, Los Angeles sent a notice this week urging its foreign-born students and staff to consider the risks of non-essential travel for spring break, warning “re-entry requirements may change while you are away, impacting your return.”
Sielaff said he and Tyler are now rethinking plans to hold their wedding in Las Vegas. He suffers nightmares and is considering therapy to cope with the trauma.
“Nobody is safe there anymore to come to America as a tourist,” he said.
These detentions and the kind of brutal treatment being meted out to tourists signals something far deeper than mere bureaucratic inefficiency or overzealous enforcement of immigration laws. They reflect a disturbing tendency in law enforcement that has been well-documented in historical, psychological and political studies: when given unchecked power, especially under an authoritarian or xenophobic regime, many individuals in law enforcement transition easily from upholding the law to outright bullying, abuse and sadism.
The work of academics Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo provides a psychological foundation for understanding why border agents, police officers, and other enforcers of state power so often become perpetrators of cruelty. Milgram’s experiments in the 1960s demonstrated that ordinary people are capable of inflicting harm on others when instructed by an authority figure.
Similarly, Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment showed how individuals assigned to roles of power quickly adapted to— and even relished— abusing those without it. Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” is especially relevant here. Border Patrol agents, like the bureaucrats in Nazi Germany she analyzed, may not see themselves as ideologically driven oppressors. Rather, they are cogs in a system that rewards compliance and punishes dissent. Their actions— handcuffing and chaining a U.S. citizen, detaining a tourist in solitary confinement for weeks— are rationalized as “just following orders.” But as history has repeatedly shown, this is precisely how authoritarian regimes normalize brutality.
When political leaders with authoritarian tendencies like Senor T, Musk and Vance, come to power, law enforcement becomes a critical tool of enforcement— not just of laws, but of ideological control. The Trump-Musk regimne’s openly xenophobic rhetoric and policies are emboldening Border Patrol and ICE agents to act with impunity. The sudden increase in detentions of tourists, despite their home countries’ strong diplomatic ties with the U.S., suggests that, once again, cruelty itself has become the point.
The shift in border enforcement mirrors historical examples of how security forces have been weaponized to target specific groups. In Spain, under Franco, police forces routinely detained and tortured political dissidents under the guise of “security.” In Musk’s apartheid-era South Africa, border enforcement and immigration policies were explicitly designed to reinforce racial hierarchy. Even in Vichy France, local police actively participated in rounding up Jews for deportation to Nazi death camps— not because they were ordered to by German officers, but because the collaborationist government had cultivated a culture of eager compliance with brutality.
The problem extends beyond individual officers or administrations. Structural issues within law enforcement— lack of accountability, militarization, and an “us vs. them” mentality— create an environment where abuses are inevitable. The absence of transparency in U.S. Customs and Border Protection ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) ensures that poorly-trained officers can operate with little fear of consequences.
The reports of detainees being shackled, denied information about their rights, and held in conditions designed to break their will evoke the practices of authoritarian states. The targets may shift— from undocumented immigrants to asylum seekers to Western tourists— but the underlying dynamic remains the same: power unchecked becomes power abused. These detentions should be understood not as isolated incidents but as part of a broader, more insidious pattern. Authoritarian regimes and their enforcers thrive on normalizing cruelty, expanding the scope of who can be mistreated without consequence. Today, it's a German tourist. Tomorrow, it's a journalist, a political dissenter, or an ordinary American who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. History teaches that once law enforcement begins to act with impunity, the line between protector and oppressor dissolves. If the current trajectory of U.S. border enforcement continues, the question is not whether abuses will escalate— it is how much further they will go before resistance stops them.
Look, the people who join organizations like ICE come from diverse backgrounds, but certain personality traits, ideological inclinations and socio-economic factors often play a role in their recruitment. Understanding who joins, how they’re trained, and what kind of mindset they develop can shed light on why some law enforcement officers engage in behavior that mirrors criminal gangs. A significant portion of ICE agents come from military backgrounds, particularly those who have served in combat roles. They may be drawn to ICE due to familiarity with structured, hierarchical institutions and the promise of stable employment. Many ICE recruits hold strong nationalist, law-and-order or anti-immigrant views, making them ideologically inclined toward harsh enforcement. Studies have shown that authoritarian personalities gravitate toward positions that allow them to exercise control over others. Jobs in ICE, like other law enforcement positions, can attract people who seek dominance, control or action. This includes a small but notable subset of individuals who might have sadistic tendencies or enjoy exerting power over vulnerable populations.
In theory, when ICE agents undergo training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, they don’t only get use-of-force training and weapons and tactical training but also some legal education covering immigration law, constitutional issues and procedures for detention and deportation as well as cultural and psychological conditioning that emphasizes viewing undocumented immigrants as threats, reinforcing an “us vs. them” mentality. Reports from whistleblowers indicate that within ICE and CBP, training often cultivates a callous attitude toward detainees, especially migrants. Hazing and peer pressure reinforce a culture where empathy is discouraged, and cruelty is normalized. Let’s not forget that psychological studies suggest that certain individuals are naturally drawn to positions of authority where they can dominate others and that structural conditions within these agencies can nurture sadistic behavior. There is a chronic lack of oversight leading to dehumanization of detainees, who are portrayed as criminals, drug smugglers or national security threats. Reports of sexual abuse, unnecessary force and inhumane treatment within ICE detention centers indicate a system where cruelty goes largely unchecked. Peer reinforcement and group dynamics within law enforcement often reward aggressive behavior while ostracizing those who speak out against abuse.
Ironically, the psychological and social drivers that lead people to join criminal gangs are similar to those that lead others into law enforcement gangs. Whether it’s a street gang or a rogue police unit, people seek camaraderie, purpose, and power. Both paths offer a sense of financial stability and protection in otherwise unstable environments. Some recruits enjoy enforcing hierarchies and controlling others, whether as a gang enforcer or a border agent. Many law enforcement officers come from backgrounds where violence was normalized. Just as gang members may have grown up in violent environments, some law enforcement officers (especially former military) see violence as a natural tool for control.
In the U.S., law enforcement gangs (sometimes called “cliques” or “deputy gangs”) are well-documented in places like the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, where officers engage in criminal behavior, including brutality, cover-ups and intimidation. Groups like the “Jump Out Boys” (known for glorifying shootings) and “The Banditos” operate like criminal syndicates within law enforcement. ICE and CBP have also been accused of fostering similar internal cliques, where officers encourage violent or dehumanizing behavior.
As you’ve probably been reading, the private prison industry plays a significant role in shaping the culture of agencies like ICE and the broader law enforcement apparatus. Private detention centers, including those used for immigrant detainees, operate under profit motives that incentivize filling beds rather than even considering any kind of humane treatment. This financial structure encourages aggressive enforcement policies, which can attract and reinforce the authoritarian tendencies of those working within the system. Private prison companies, such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, make money based on the number of detainees they house. This creates an incentive to push for stricter immigration enforcement policies, leading to more detentions— even of people who could otherwise be released or allowed to leave voluntarily. Private detention centers have been widely criticized for poor conditions, abuse and lack of oversight. Credible reports have documented cruel treatment by guards, some of whom exhibit sadistic behavior. These jobs often attract individuals seeking power over others and the lack of accountability enables misconduct. Many ICE and law enforcement officials later take jobs in private detention companies, and vice versa. This creates an institutional culture where aggressive enforcement is normalized and rewarded. Studies on dehumanization show that when people are placed in positions of unchecked power— such as private detention guards working in isolated, poorly monitored facilities— they are more likely to engage in abusive behavior. This echoes findings from Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. Private prison companies lobby for policies that lead to more detentions, such as harsher immigration laws, mandatory detention quotas, and extended stays for detainees. They benefit from authoritarian governance structures that expand police powers.
ICE, Border Patrol and private prison staff often form tightly knit subcultures that resemble gangs. Officers protect each other even when abuses occur. Many in these organizations embrace xenophobic or authoritarian worldviews looking at immigrants as criminals or “invaders” that justifies cruelty.
The Trump-Musk regime exhibits countless tendencies that totally align with characteristics of fascistic regimes. One notable example is the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify mass deportations of noncitizens without warrants. Historically used during wartime, this act allows the government to apprehend and remove “alien enemies.” The regime’s rhetoric has drawn comparisons to historical fascist language. Experts have analyzed Trump's speeches and policies, noting parallels to authoritarian leaders of the past. For instance, the use of divisive language, the portrayal of certain groups as threats, and the undermining of democratic institutions are tactics reminiscent of early 20th-century fascist movements. Scholars emphasize the importance of recognizing these patterns as potential threats to democracy, urging vigilance in upholding democratic norms and values. With characters like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan in charge, these developments suggest a concerning trend towards authoritarianism, highlighting the need for continued scrutiny and defense of democratic principles.
Let me just add that in the year before the Trump-Musk takeover, the U.S. travel and tourism sector contributed approximately $2.36 trillion to the nation's gross domestic product and that this industry supported over 15 million American jobs. Shrinking this will add to the Trump Recession.
Commentaires