Two Conversations, One Messy Topic
There are topics that reveal something about a person's character by how they approach them, not by what they conclude. Immigration enforcement in America right now is one of those topics. It has become so emotionally loaded, so thoroughly captured by tribal politics, that it is genuinely difficult to find people willing to hold a complex thought about it for more than thirty seconds.
I had two conversations recently that stuck with me, not because they resolved anything, but because they each illustrated a different way of being wrong about this.
The first was with a friend who describes himself as a moderate. He thinks the way ICE treats some people is terrible. He also thinks illegal immigration is a real problem that can't be wished away. He was genuinely curious to hear my perspective, open to where it might take him. That kind of intellectual honesty is rarer than it should be, and I appreciated it.
The second was with a Church leader. A man with real experience watching ICE operate in Southern California, and with family members of Mexican heritage who, despite holding legal status, live in fear of what federal enforcement might mean for people they know. He came to the conversation having already decided what I believed. He seemed to assume I was a Trump loyalist who didn't care about human suffering. He wasn't interested in engaging the complexity. Rather, he wanted to register his objection and move on.
What struck me about both conversations was that neither person was wrong about everything. The coworker was right that illegal immigration is a genuine problem. The Church leader was right that ICE has real accountability issues and that human dignity is not optional. But both were operating with incomplete pictures. And that incomplete picture, whether it comes from the left or the right, is ultimately what makes this issue so hard to think about clearly.
Before I go further: I am not a Trump die-hard. I think he is a generally capable president who is doing a genuinely difficult job that most people would fail at, while also carrying serious personal and political flaws that matter and should be named. I don't believe the ends always justify the means. I also don't believe that disapproving of Trump's style or character is the same thing as having a coherent immigration policy. Those are two different conversations, and we keep mixing them up.
This article is my attempt to disentangle them.
The Numbers Nobody Wants to Sit With
What Actually Happened Under Biden
Any honest conversation about ICE enforcement has to start here, because the emotional temperature of this debate is largely a reaction to what happened at the border from 2021 to 2024.
According to the Pew Research Center's 2025 analysis, the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached 14 million in 2023, the highest level ever recorded. In 2021, when Biden took office, that number was approximately 11 million. That is a meaningful increase of roughly three million people in two years, a pace Pew described as record-setting.
Border encounters the metric used by Customs and Border Protection to track every individual stopped or apprehended at the southern border averaged approximately two million per year from 2021 to 2023, according to the Washington Post's analysis of government data. For context, the yearly average during Trump's first term was roughly one-quarter of that.
Now, it is important to be precise here, as both sides abuse these numbers in different ways. Encounters are not the same as permanent residents. Many people encountered are removed or returned. Many who were allowed in were placed in immigration proceedings, meaning they had legal protections pending court dates, not permanent legal status. The Trump administration's claim that "20 million illegal immigrants" entered under Biden is not supported by data, and responsible commentary should say so.
But the growth was real. A Heritage Foundation analysis estimated that approximately 6.7 million new unauthorized residents entered the country between January 2021 and end of 2023. Pew's more conservative estimate put the net unauthorized population at 14 million by mid-2023, up from 11 million. Either way, it represents the largest increase in the unauthorized immigrant population in recorded history. Anyone who denies that a significant problem developed is not being honest.
Much of the growth was driven by Biden administration policies, particularly parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (the so-called CHNV program) that allowed people to enter the country with temporary protected status rather than going through traditional immigration channels. These were not people sneaking across the desert. They were arriving through programs that critics argued effectively created a backdoor to legal residence. The Biden administration ended those programs in mid-2024, which slowed the growth, but by then, the number was already at a historic peak.
The Obama Comparison Everyone Is Avoiding
Here is the thing that nobody on the left seems willing to engage honestly, and it is perhaps the single most clarifying fact in this entire debate.
Barack Obama deported approximately 3.1 million people over his two terms more than any modern president before him. Immigrant rights groups were so alarmed by his enforcement record that they gave him the nickname "Deporter in Chief." In 2013 alone, his administration deported 432,000 people, the highest single-year total ever recorded.
Trump's first term deportation total was approximately 1.2 million people, significantly less than Obama's eight-year total. Even combining Trump's first term with what his second term has produced so far, his cumulative numbers do not yet approach Obama's. In 2025, the Trump administration carried out roughly 540,000 deportations compared to Obama's 612,000 in 2013 alone, during the first year of his second term.
To be clear: there are real methodological debates here about how deportations are counted, whether border removals and interior removals should be compared the same way, and how Title 42 expulsions are classified. These are legitimate distinctions. But they do not erase the basic fact: the man the left is calling a fascist for deporting people is doing so at a pace that Obama sustained for eight years without anything like the current outrage.
And then there is Tom Homan.
Homan is Trump's Border Czar. He is the face of the current enforcement operation, the man at whom protesters direct their anger, the person whose name has become a symbol of what critics consider cruel and draconian immigration policy. In 2025, he became nationally known for aggressive interior sweeps, threatening to arrest local officials who impede ICE operations, and overseeing enforcement actions that have, at times, detained and transported people with clean records and legal status.
What is less commonly discussed is that, in 2013, Barack Obama appointed Tom Homan to run ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations. The Obama administration awarded him the government's highest civil service honor, the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service, in 2015. The official ICE press release at the time specifically praised his leadership in expanding deportation capacity, increasing detention beds, and managing the surge of unaccompanied children across the Southwest border.
The Washington Post, in 2015, ran a piece about Homan under the headline: "Thomas Homan deports people. And he's really good at it." That was a compliment.
Trump hired the same man. Obama honored him for doing the same job. Democrats had no significant objection to Homan's work during the Obama years. They are now calling him a Nazi.
I am not saying this to be provocative. I am saying it because if your objection is truly to the tactics of immigration enforcement and not to the fact that a Republican is doing it, then you have some explaining to do about why the same person was your hero nine years ago.

