Carson Says ICE Makes Indianapolis Less Safe — His Challengers and the Evidence May Tell a Different Story

Carson Says ICE Is Making Indianapolis Less Safe — But Where Is the Evidence?

INDIANAPOLIS — U.S. Rep. André Carson has reached a sweeping conclusion about the immigration-enforcement operation unfolding in his own congressional district: “ICE is making our city less safe.” What isn't safe anymore his his seat. He's been a joke and self-dealer.

It is a politically powerful accusation. What is missing so far is Indianapolis-specific evidence proving it.

Carson, an Indianapolis Democrat, launched a congressional inquiry this week after reports of increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity throughout Marion County. Videos have shown apparent federal agents detaining people at businesses, apartment complexes and along roadways, while immigration attorneys and community organizations report a substantial increase in enforcement. ICE itself has yet to provide a comprehensive accounting of the operation.

Carson has legitimate questions to ask. His September 2 letter requests the number of people arrested, the legal basis for their arrests, their criminal histories, whether warrants or removal orders existed, where detainees are being held and whether agents followed appropriate procedures. He also questions masked agents, unmarked vehicles and a reported foot pursuit across traffic near Post Road and Interstate 70. Congressional oversight of federal law enforcement is hardly improper.

But Carson has gone considerably further than asking questions. In an interview published Friday, he declared that ICE's claim of targeting dangerous offenders was “simply not true,” cited the national July statistic and concluded: “ICE is making our city less safe.” 

That conclusion deserves the same scrutiny Carson is demanding of ICE.

Carson's own letter asks federal officials to tell him how many Indianapolis detainees have criminal convictions, how many have pending criminal charges and how many have no criminal history. If he does not yet possess those answers, declaring that the enforcement operation makes Indianapolis less safe gets ahead of the evidence.

The distinction matters. Someone need not have a prior criminal conviction to be subject to immigration enforcement. Conversely, being unlawfully present or removable does not automatically make someone a violent criminal. A serious public-safety analysis requires knowing who was actually arrested and why.

Republican Sen. Jim Banks has taken the opposite position, praising ICE and saying its agents are enforcing immigration law and making Indiana safer. That assertion deserves evidence too. ICE weakened its own ability to settle the argument when it supplied examples of Indiana offenders with serious criminal records without establishing that those arrests occurred during the Indianapolis operation now generating controversy.

The Hoosier Enquirer therefore does not need to accept either political narrative.

Carson has asked ICE for precisely the information necessary to test his own claim. His letter demands records by September 9. When those records arrive—if ICE supplies them—the public should be able to examine how many Indianapolis arrests involved convicted criminals, pending charges, removal orders, immigration violations alone and any U.S. citizens mistakenly detained.

Then Hoosiers can judge whether ICE made Indianapolis safer or less safe.

Until then, Carson's statement is best characterized not as an established fact, but as a political conclusion awaiting the evidence his own congressional inquiry has requested.

And that may be the most revealing part of the controversy: Washington politicians on both sides are already announcing the verdict while Indianapolis is still waiting for the evidence.

Carson's ICE Fight Comes Two Months Before Voters Decide

Carson's increasingly sharp criticism of ICE isn't occurring in a political vacuum. Indianapolis voters will decide on November 3 whether to send him back to Washington for another term, and he faces two challengers: Republican Patrick McAuley and Libertarian James Sceniak.

McAuley provides the clearest political contrast because public safety is among the issues he has emphasized during the campaign. The Indianapolis commercial-real-estate professional has also identified infrastructure, housing affordability, economic development and homelessness among his priorities. Sceniak, meanwhile, gives voters a Libertarian alternative to both major parties.

Carson remains the overwhelming favorite on the district's political mathematics. Indiana's 7th Congressional District is entirely within Marion County, and its current Cook Partisan Voting Index is D+21, making it one of the country's more reliably Democratic congressional districts. Carson has represented the district since winning a special election in 2008 following the death of his grandmother, Rep. Julia Carson.

That doesn't make the ICE controversy irrelevant to the election. It makes the challengers' responses more important. Carson has now told Indianapolis residents that federal immigration enforcement is making their city “less safe.” McAuley and Sceniak should be asked the same concrete questions: Do they believe ICE's current Indianapolis operation is making the city safer? Do they support the arrests? Should ICE disclose the criminal histories and immigration status of those detained? And where should federal immigration enforcement end?

Those answers would turn the controversy from another Washington shouting match into an actual election issue.