My husband’s family has a trust that owns rental properties. One of them is a commercial property with several tenants. One of the tenants is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and they use it as a “short-term holding facility” (their description).
We receive income from the trust, which earns money from several other things as well; it’s all bundled together. Figuring out what portion of my rental income comes from the ICE client is not possible, as the family member who manages it declines to go to the trouble, which I understand is considerable.
I feel pretty horrible about getting money from an immigration prison, but I’m the only beneficiary of the trust who cares. I could resign from the trust, but my husband of 50 years would get my share — and anyway, our funds are completely mingled.
I’m not sure you can make me feel any better about this, but I’m curious about the ethics of receiving money from an entity you consider kind of evil. I went to a lot of Catholic schools, including a Jesuit university. I don’t know all the finer points, but it feels unethical. My husband and his family think this is ridiculous. What is your opinion? Is there a correct action? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
It’s understandable that you’re troubled. Court rulings, investigative reporting and firsthand accounts have shown that ICE has acted in ways that not only harm noncitizens but also erode the rights of citizens.
Even so, the existence of an immigration-enforcement agency isn’t inherently the problem. Most people accept that states have a right to control their borders and that there’s a legitimate role for authorities charged with enforcing immigration policy, especially when it comes to those who have committed serious crimes. ICE also investigates trafficking, smuggling and other transnational offenses that clearly require federal oversight.
The core issue is less the agency’s mandate than its methods. Well-documented abuses — denials of due process, inhumane conditions and politically motivated enforcement — have undermined public trust and raised serious ethical concerns. The worry is not whether immigration law should be enforced but how, and at what human cost.
The holding facilities ICE uses are part of this system: They house people awaiting deportation, court appearances or further investigation. What’s in dispute isn’t the need for such spaces; it’s the treatment of detainees within those spaces. Many facilities have drawn criticism for degrading or dangerous conditions. Still, as a beneficiary of a trust that rents a property to ICE, your leverage is minuscule. You can’t unilaterally break the lease. Even if you could, ICE would simply relocate its facility. And while moral complicity is a serious concern, receiving income from a legal tenant, however problematic, isn’t generally considered an ethical transgression on its own.
We’re all entangled in systems we don’t control. As citizens, we’re already implicated in the actions of government agencies that act in our name and that we help fund. If those actions are shameful, they cast a shadow on all of us. But that shared entanglement also opens the door to shared responsibility — and response.
You mentioned your Jesuit university. You’ll probably remember, then, the emphasis placed on “discernment” — not just abstract moral reasoning but the habit of examining one’s own position in the world, with clarity and courage, and then acting on that understanding. So here’s one constructive path: If this money feels tainted, redirect it. Use it to support organizations that advocate for the rights you believe ICE has violated — groups like the A.C.L.U., the American Immigration Council or local legal-aid nonprofits that provide support for detainees. Back candidates pushing for humane immigration reform. It’s a way to turn your sense of passive complicity into a measure of active redress. You may not be able to change the trust’s lease, but you can choose what your share of the proceeds stands for.
like it’s pretty obvious this person’s sense of integrity is bothering them and the family of vicious snakes they married into hasn’t yet dismantled them into loving life in Team Evil… because they are reaching out to a “neutral” 3rd party.
but damn. should be pretty easy to say, “your husband and your in laws are the soulless vampires, eagerly feeding off human misery, the most vulnerable people. drain your joint accounts, file for divorce, and take whatever you can before moving away and starting again where humans live.”
I should start looking for archives of German newspapers in 1930s and 40s and search for opinion pieces like this. I am sure there would people saying that it’s legal and someone else would have done it, so profiting off of helping the SS is actually okay.
Wow, I think I really do need to go through these archives more. After this post, I just decided to pull up some online archives of German newspapers, and the first one I opened was from 1940. The opinion column is a pro-zionist screed because to paraphrase “these Jews belong in their ‘promised land’ and not in Europe. So we should help them get back their motherland and move there.”
“the SS is renting from me and paying their rent in gold teeth, how can I feel better about helping law enforcement?”
I read a fictional book recently that was about some cartoonishly evil white people were doing murder and kidnapping to buy up property and stuff. To my surprise and delight the protagonists solution was to shoot all of them fucking dead. Like walk into their board meeting and shoot them with guns until they were dead.
Need to read more of that, I think.
What was the book?
Well I just spoiled the ending but
spoiler
When No One Is Watching By Alyssa Cole
This is a glimpse into the insane lives of rich people
Every richboy a Romanov.
The Ethicist is so funny as a concept. “Here’s a suggested course of action without any framing or discussion of what makes something ethical or not in the first place.”
Is it ok to scalp an NYT ethicist and make and sell funny mustaches from the hair?
It depends, it’s a complicated issue
They should kick out ICE, then sell their share to a housing co-op. They’re your tenants, asshole
Most people accept that states have a right to control their borders
“Most people”:
“Shoot and cry” articles? Meet “cage and frown”
“The Ethicist” a.k.a. the Demiurge
it’s good when concentration camp owners die
“Is it immoral to sell hoses to the guy who uses them to wash the blood off the gears of imperialism?”
Stop trying to reconcile your ethics with capitalism. Capitalism is unethical.
Fuckin lol
Is there a correct action?
Yes there is, in fact it is written on that wall over there - why don’t you go read it? (brace noise)
maybe you can rent to ICE as long as it leaks like a sieve. both as in the pigs get wet when it rains, and the prisoners escape very easily.
I will also accept an elaborate trap where agents show up to work and are eaten by the plant monster from little shop of horrors while you funnel the innocent into some new underground railroad.