ICE, Nazis and the Gestapo relative to other countries
CLAIM
Public comparisons between ICE and the Gestapo or Nazis are circulating widely. If you really want an example I will link several, but you don't need to look far. This is my core claim I want fact checked.
SUPPORTING ARGUMENT: If harsh immigration enforcement = Nazi, then Australia would qualify too, which shows the analogy is broken.
Australia's immigration enforcement framework includes policies that are legally stricter than those used in the US, including mandatory detention, offshore processing, and visa cancellation based on character assessments. Both the US and Australia operate immigration enforcement under judicial review and elected governments.
EVIDENCE
Australia requires mandatory detention of unlawful non citizens as a baseline policy. In the US, detention is often discretionary and commonly includes bond hearings or supervised release.
Australia operates offshore detention facilities in Nauru and Manus Island where asylum seekers were processed and held outside the country to prevent settlement on the mainland. The US has no equivalent standing system of third country offshore detention as a core immigration policy.
Australia can cancel visas on character grounds based on associations, reputation, and perceived risk, even without a criminal conviction. This gives immigration authorities broader discretion than systems that rely primarily on court outcomes or formal charges.
Australia's immigration minister has personal authority to cancel visas or override tribunal decisions in the “national interest”, concentrating significant power in a single executive office.
Australia has formally barred certain unauthorized boat arrivals from ever permanently settling in the country, even if recognized as refugees. The US asylum framework does not contain a blanket statutory ban of that type.
Australia's immigration enforcement is nationally unified with limited state resistance, while US immigration enforcement operates in a federal system where states and cities can legally restrict cooperation.
CONTEXT
Nazi Germany abolished opposition parties, eliminated judicial independence, censored the press, and used secret police outside judicial oversight as part of one party rule and state terror. Neither the US nor Australia is abolishing elections, banning opposition movements, or operating a secret police beyond court review. Immigration enforcement disputes occur within functioning legal systems and are not historically comparable to how Nazi state power functioned.
SOURCES
Australia's mandatory detention policy is grounded in the Migration Act 1958, which requires detention of unlawful non citizens until removal or visa resolution. This is a statutory default, not a case by case choice.
Australia's character based visa cancellation powers come from section 501 of the Migration Act, which allows cancellation based on risk assessments, associations, and reputation, not only criminal convictions.
Australia Migration Act section 501 (character test)
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html
Australian Human Rights Commission visa cancellation under s501
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/when-can-visa-be-refused-or-cancelled-under-section-501
Australian Human Rights Commission mandatory immigration detention
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/6-australias-immigration-detention-policy-and-practice
Australian Border Force immigration detention overview
https://www.abf.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/border-protection/immigration-detention
Refugee Council of Australia offshore processing policy
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-policies/5/
US Department of Homeland Security ICE overview
US Supreme Court case on detention and bond hearings (Johnson vs Arteaga-Martinez)
9 Comments