A conflict exists between users who want to completely abolish the TSA and return security to private airlines, and those who support or accept the deployment of ICE agents into airports as a replacement or supplement. While both groups dislike the TSA, some users argue that ICE agents are not trained for security and should be focused solely on deportations, while others view ICE presence as a positive, more competent alternative to TSA.
Users argue that the TSA is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a waste of money. They believe airlines should handle security, as they did before 9/11, and that this would lead to better, less intrusive screening. They view ICE deployment in airports as a distraction from ICE's primary mission of deportation.
Users who support ICE presence in airports view them as more effective and professional than TSA. They argue that ICE agents are better suited for security roles and that their presence deters illegal aliens from flying. They are less concerned about ICE being diverted from deportation duties, or view the airport presence as a secondary but valuable function.
Participants disagree on whether deploying ICE to airports is a brilliant strategic move or a distraction from their primary deportation mission.
Supporters argue this is a 'chess move' that pressures Democrats, disrupts illegal travel, and allows ICE to catch illegals at a chokepoint. They believe it energizes the base and punishes Democrats.
Critics argue that ICE agents are already overwhelmed with deportation tasks and moving them to airports 'sabotages' the mass deportation goal. They believe ICE should focus solely on capturing and deporting illegals, not doing security work.
Participants disagree on whether deploying ICE to airports is an effective enforcement strategy or a wasteful distraction from mass deportations.
Users argue that airports are choke points where illegals can be easily caught, especially those using vouchers or traveling domestically. They view it as a way to force Democrats to fund the TSA or as a necessary step in broader immigration enforcement.
Users argue that ICE should be focused on raids and mass deportations in cities and homes. They view airport deployment as a 'performative' move that fails to deliver on the core promise of removing millions of illegals.
Participants disagree on whether Trump's decision to use ICE at airports is a smart strategic move or a sign of incompetence/betrayal.
Users believe Trump is using ICE to force Democrats to fund the TSA or to set up a larger political trap. They view the move as clever and part of a broader plan.
Users argue that Trump is failing to deliver on mass deportations and is being manipulated by handlers or the Deep State. They view the airport move as a sign of weakness or a 'L'.
Users disagree on the primary motivation for deploying ICE to airports. Some view it as a genuine security and immigration enforcement measure, while others see it as a political stunt or a test for election interference.
Users believe the deployment is a legitimate effort to improve airport efficiency and catch illegal aliens who are exploiting the system.
Users suspect the deployment is a political move to embarrass opponents and a test run for using ICE to interfere in elections by preventing illegal alien voting.
Participants analyze the deployment of ICE to airports as a political strategy by the Trump administration. Some users believe this is a 'wag the dog' scenario or a prelude to a larger political move, designed to force Democrats to fund the TSA or face chaos at airports. The logic is that by placing ICE in airports, the government creates a visible crisis that pressures political opponents to resolve the funding issue. Others view this as a betrayal of campaign promises, arguing that Trump is using ICE for performative purposes rather than conducting mass deportations as promised. There is a sense that Trump is being manipulated by handlers or the 'Deep State' to avoid the political fallout of aggressive deportation efforts. The debate centers on whether this move is a clever long-game strategy to consolidate power or a sign of weakness and incompetence, with users divided on the true intentions behind the policy shift.
A central debate concerns the strategic utility of deploying ICE agents to airports during the DHS funding standoff. Proponents view this as a brilliant political 'chess move' designed to pressure Democrats, disrupt illegal travel at chokepoints, and energize the conservative base by demonstrating executive action. They argue that ICE presence allows for the identification and arrest of undocumented individuals attempting to fly, thereby enhancing security and enforcement simultaneously. Conversely, critics argue that this deployment sabotages the primary mission of mass deportations. They contend that ICE agents are already overwhelmed with existing caseloads and that diverting manpower to airport screening duties dilutes the administration's ability to capture and remove illegal immigrants from the interior. This faction believes ICE should focus exclusively on interior enforcement and high-value targets, rather than performing TSA-like screening duties which they view as a distraction from the core goal of rapid, large-scale removals. The disagreement highlights a tension between using ICE as a political leverage tool versus maintaining its operational focus on deportation logistics.
Users disagree on the primary motivation for deploying ICE to airports. Some view it as a genuine security and immigration enforcement measure, while others see it as a political stunt or a test for election interference. Comments suggest that Democrats are trying to ban ICE from polling stations and that illegal aliens are using their status to influence elections. The deployment of ICE to airports is seen by some as a precursor to broader ICE operations, including potential interference in elections. This subtopic highlights the political polarization surrounding the issue, with users attributing the deployment to Trump's strategic decision-making to embarrass political opponents and demonstrate executive action. The discussion also touches on the role of Congress in hindering security and border enforcement goals, with users criticizing legislative inaction and calling for Congress to adjourn and let Trump govern.
Commenters view Trump's decision to deploy ICE to airports as a 'chess move' that forces Democrats into a difficult position: either fund the TSA (which they have been blocking) or allow ICE to handle security and immigration enforcement. This is seen as a way to expose Democratic hypocrisy and force a resolution to the TSA funding crisis. Trump is praised for his strategic use of executive power to address both immigration and security issues simultaneously. The deployment is interpreted as a political maneuver to highlight the failures of the current administration and to rally support among his base. Users believe that this strategy puts pressure on Democrats to either support the status quo or accept a more aggressive enforcement approach. The narrative suggests that Trump is using the ICE deployment to demonstrate his effectiveness and to challenge the political opposition on their own turf.
Disagreement on the best path forward: funding TSA to restore normal operations or keeping ICE in airports to enforce immigration laws.
Some users argue that the ultimate goal should be to fund TSA and return to normal airport operations, with ICE handling immigration separately. They see the current situation as a crisis that needs a traditional solution.
Users who argue that funding TSA is unnecessary and that ICE should remain in airports permanently. They view the TSA funding crisis as an opportunity to eliminate a wasteful agency and replace it with a more effective one.
Disagreement over whether ICE's presence at airports is a permanent replacement for TSA or a temporary stopgap until TSA is funded.
Users argue that ICE should permanently replace TSA, as ICE is more competent, efficient, and capable of handling both security and immigration enforcement. They believe TSA is fundamentally flawed and should be abolished.
Some users view ICE's role as temporary, filling in for TSA during the funding crisis. They anticipate that once TSA is funded, ICE will withdraw, or that the current situation is a short-term fix rather than a structural change.
A central theme in the discussion is the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to perform standard Transportation Security Administration (TSA) duties during the government shutdown. Participants note that with TSA staffing critically low due to resignations and lack of pay, ICE agents are being utilized to check IDs, manage passenger lines, and conduct security screenings. This move is framed by some as a pragmatic solution to the immediate operational crisis at airports, ensuring that flights can continue despite the federal lapse in funding. The presence of ICE agents in security checkpoints is seen by supporters as a dual-purpose strategy: maintaining airport functionality while simultaneously enhancing immigration enforcement capabilities within the secure zone. This deployment blurs the lines between law enforcement and security screening, raising questions about the primary role of these agents in civilian spaces. The substitution is viewed as a temporary measure to bridge the gap until the shutdown is resolved or until a more permanent structural change to airport security is implemented.
Beyond security screening, the deployment of ICE agents to airports is discussed as a mechanism for mass deportations and enhanced immigration enforcement. Users express hope that this move will lead to the identification and removal of illegal immigrants who are traveling domestically or using flight vouchers. The airport is viewed as a choke point where illegals can be easily caught, especially those who may not have proper identification or who are traveling under false names. Some participants argue that this is a strategic opportunity to enforce immigration laws more rigorously than ever before, leveraging the presence of federal agents in a high-traffic area. The discussion includes debates on the feasibility of identifying illegals among passengers, with some noting that many illegals have IDs or use sophisticated methods to evade detection. Despite these challenges, the sentiment is that the presence of ICE at airports will significantly increase the risk for undocumented travelers and serve as a deterrent to illegal entry via air travel.
A dominant narrative in the extracted threads is the deployment of ICE agents to airports to alleviate TSA staffing shortages and clear long security lines. Users report that ICE presence has made lines move 'smooth' or become 'completely empty,' attributing this efficiency to the removal of illegal immigrants who were previously flying on vouchers or using lax security protocols. This subtopic highlights the perceived operational superiority of ICE over TSA, with commenters noting that ICE agents are more competent and capable of handling both security and immigration enforcement simultaneously. The presence of ICE is viewed not just as an immigration enforcement action but as a logistical solution to airport congestion, with users praising the 'smooth' operations and the visible deterrence effect on undocumented travelers. This efficiency is often contrasted with the perceived incompetence and slowness of the TSA, reinforcing the argument that ICE is a more effective agency for airport security tasks.
A dominant theme in the discussion is the perceived causal link between the deployment of ICE agents to airports and a significant reduction in TSA wait times. Users report specific instances in Atlanta and Philadelphia where ICE presence correlated with faster processing and increased accountability for TSA agents. This subtopic explores the narrative that ICE agents are more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more competent than their TSA counterparts. The presence of ICE is viewed not just as an immigration enforcement action but as a mechanism to correct perceived inefficiencies and laziness within the TSA, which is often characterized as a government jobs program for the unemployable. This efficiency gain is attributed to the stricter enforcement of identification requirements and the removal of illegal aliens who were allegedly exploiting the system by flying without proper ID. The deployment is seen as a practical demonstration of executive power improving public service delivery, contrasting the perceived incompetence of federal bureaucracy with the perceived effectiveness of ICE operations.
Many users advocate for the permanent dissolution of the TSA and its merger into ICE or CBP. They argue that immigration enforcement and airport security are functionally similar tasks—preventing unwanted people and items from entering the country—and should be handled by a single, more capable agency. ICE is seen as the superior choice due to its law enforcement capabilities and perceived competence. This subtopic reflects a broader desire to eliminate what users view as a wasteful and ineffective bureaucracy. The argument is that TSA's primary function has been compromised by political correctness and DEI hiring practices, whereas ICE maintains a focus on security and enforcement. Users suggest that merging the two agencies would streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve security outcomes by leveraging ICE's expertise in identifying and removing threats, including undocumented immigrants attempting to board flights.
Participants propose a structural merger of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to create a unified security and immigration enforcement apparatus at airports. This policy suggestion aims to replace the TSA with ICE permanently, allowing for the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants as they pass through security checkpoints. Proponents argue that this integration would prevent illegals from entering the country freely and significantly reduce the burden on existing immigration systems. The proposal links the 'tsa' and 'ice' labels by treating immigration status as a primary security concern equivalent to terrorism or weapon possession. Users express strong support for this merger, viewing it as a necessary step to close loopholes that allow undocumented individuals to travel domestically and internationally. The underlying logic is that national security and immigration enforcement are inextricably linked, and that a single, powerful agency is required to effectively police borders and internal movement, thereby enhancing both physical security and immigration compliance.
Participants argue that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workforce is predominantly composed of minorities hired under previous administrations that prioritized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This hiring model is contrasted sharply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is described as having recent hires under a 'no DEI' regime associated with President Trump. The core argument suggests that the current TSA demographic makeup is a direct result of these specific policy choices, leading to a workforce that participants view as ideologically driven rather than merit-based. This subtopic links the 'hiring' and 'agents' labels to a broader critique of federal employment practices, suggesting that the presence of specific demographic groups in TSA is not incidental but structural, resulting in a security apparatus that participants believe is compromised by its own hiring philosophy.
A specific policy argument is made that replacing TSA agents with ICE agents constitutes a 'soft firing of minorities.' This strategy is presented as a method to purge the airport security workforce of the demographic groups allegedly overrepresented in TSA due to DEI hiring practices. The subtopic explicitly links the 'hiring' and 'agents' labels to a proposed administrative overhaul where ICE personnel, perceived as more disciplined and less influenced by DEI mandates, would assume security roles. This proposal is framed not just as a personnel change but as a corrective measure to restore perceived competence and loyalty within the security apparatus. The argument implies that the current TSA structure is fundamentally flawed due to its demographic composition, and that a swap with ICE would resolve issues of incompetence and ideological bias, effectively using immigration enforcement personnel to secure civilian infrastructure.
Users disagree on the appropriate scope of ICE operations. Some advocate for a narrow focus on airports and borders, while others push for a broad expansion into all public spaces and services.
Users argue that ICE should be deployed to hospitals, ERs, polling places, bus stations, DMVs, and construction sites to maximize the impact on illegal immigration.
Some users suggest that ICE should focus on airports and borders, arguing that expanding too broadly could lead to legal challenges or operational inefficiencies. They view the airport deployment as a sufficient and strategic starting point.
Users disagree on the relative effectiveness of TSA and ICE in managing airport security and passenger flow. While most view ICE as superior, some argue that TSA's role is necessary for counter-terrorism and that ICE's presence is primarily for immigration enforcement, not security.
Users argue that ICE agents are more competent, less bureaucratic, and better at enforcing rules, leading to faster security lines and better overall airport operations. They view TSA as a failed government program.
Some users argue that TSA's primary role is counter-terrorism and that removing it or replacing it with ICE could compromise security. They suggest that ICE's presence is a distraction from its core mission or that it is not equipped to handle security threats.
Users discuss reports that illegal aliens were able to fly domestically without proper identification, often using manila envelopes or court papers provided by the government. This is cited as evidence of TSA incompetence and a security breach. The deployment of ICE is seen as a way to catch these individuals who are exploiting the system. Some users argue that the TSA's failure to verify identity properly is a significant threat to national security and that ICE's presence is necessary to enforce identification requirements. This subtopic highlights the intersection of immigration enforcement and airport security, with users viewing the two as inextricably linked. The discussion also touches on the behavior of illegal aliens in response to ICE presence, such as avoiding airports, switching to bus travel, or self-deporting, which is seen as a positive outcome indicating that ICE is effectively disrupting the networks that facilitate illegal immigration and travel.
Users propose expanding ICE operations beyond airports to a wide range of public venues, including hospitals, emergency rooms, polling places, bus stations, DMVs, and construction sites. The rationale is to maximize the impact of ICE on illegal immigration by targeting areas where illegal aliens are known to congregate or access services. This expansion is viewed as a necessary step to disrupt the networks that facilitate illegal immigration and travel. Some users see the airport deployment as a precursor to broader ICE operations, including potential interference in elections or other domestic policies. The discussion highlights a desire to use ICE as a general tool for enforcing immigration laws in all aspects of public life, reflecting a belief that the current scope of ICE operations is insufficient to address the perceived crisis of illegal immigration. This subtopic also touches on the political implications of such expansions, with some users dismissing protests against ICE presence as ineffective or driven by political agendas.
Participants discuss the deployment of ICE agents into airports, specifically noting that they are currently training for or performing security roles alongside or in place of TSA. Some users express approval of ICE presence, viewing them as more competent, masculine, and effective than TSA agents. Others criticize this as a misuse of ICE resources, arguing that ICE agents should focus solely on deportation and immigration enforcement rather than passenger screening. The debate centers on whether ICE personnel have the appropriate training for aviation security and whether their dual role compromises their primary mission. Supporters argue that ICE agents bring a stricter, more serious demeanor to security checks, deterring illegal aliens from flying. Critics worry that diverting ICE resources to airport security weakens border enforcement and creates operational conflicts. This subtopic highlights the tension between using existing law enforcement assets for domestic security and maintaining their specialized immigration focus.
Disagreement over whether ICE deployment at airports would have prevented 9/11, with some citing visa violators and others citing conspiracy theories about CIA involvement.
Users argue that since all hijackers were visa violators, ICE enforcement at airports would have identified and stopped them.
Users counter that 9/11 was a false flag or that hijackers were given visas by CIA figures like John Brennan, implying that standard ICE enforcement would not have stopped a state-sponsored plot.
Disagreement over whether the observed reduction in TSA lines is directly caused by ICE enforcement actions or by a broader decrease in non-essential travel.
Users believe that ICE deployments lead to plummeting TSA lines and reduced traffic, implying a direct causal link between removing illegals and improved airport efficiency.
A user argues that the drop in lines is more likely due to people stopping non-essential flights rather than ICE actions, offering an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has significantly expanded its operational footprint, conducting large-scale deportation efforts in diverse geographic locations including Minneapolis and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Reports indicate that ICE is utilizing commercial aircraft to transport detained individuals, a logistical approach that suggests a systematic and high-volume removal strategy. In Minneapolis, these operations have proceeded despite active efforts by Democratic officials to obstruct or delay the process, highlighting a tension between federal enforcement priorities and local political resistance. The expansion into the U.S. Virgin Islands challenges the assumption that island jurisdictions are immune to federal immigration enforcement, demonstrating the reach of federal authority. Participants discuss the mechanics of these operations, such as the quiet emptying of prisons and jails to facilitate transport, indicating a coordinated effort to maximize the efficiency of removals. This operational intensity underscores a shift towards more aggressive and visible enforcement tactics, aiming to dismantle networks that may harbor undocumented individuals and to assert federal control over immigration enforcement across all territories.
Participants analyze the political implications of the ICE/TSA/DHS standoff, particularly regarding the upcoming midterms. The ICE airport move is seen as a strategic maneuver to 'piss off' Democrats and energize the conservative base by demonstrating executive action and pressure. There is discussion of how Democrats might use this as a 'poison pill' in negotiations, or how the GOP should frame the narrative around potential airport delays and security concerns. Some users argue that the administration should preemptively control the media narrative to prevent 'false flags' or propaganda against ICE, ensuring that the deployment is viewed as a success rather than a disruption. The debate also touches on the broader political strategy of using immigration enforcement as a wedge issue, with some believing that the ICE deployment will galvanize voters while others worry it could backfire if it leads to significant travel disruptions. The subtopic reflects a keen awareness of the political stakes involved in the shutdown and the potential long-term impact on voter sentiment and party dynamics.
Evidence suggests that ICE agents are reportedly supportive of the airport security role, viewing it as an opportunity to catch more undocumented individuals and serve the President's agenda. There is mention of increased ICE manpower and recruitment, suggesting that the agency has the capacity to take on additional roles without compromising its primary mission. This subtopic highlights the internal dynamics of the ICE workforce, with agents expressing enthusiasm for the deployment as a way to enhance their effectiveness and visibility. The support from ICE agents is seen as a positive indicator for the administration's strategy, as it suggests that the workforce is aligned with the political goals of the leadership. However, there are also concerns about the potential for burnout and the strain on resources if the deployment is prolonged. The discussion reflects a broader narrative of a motivated and capable enforcement agency that is eager to assist in the administration's immigration crackdown, provided it has the necessary resources and political backing.
A debate emerges regarding whether citizens should be required to show passports or Real IDs for domestic flights. Some users argue this is already the case or should be, while others view it as an Orwellian overreach. Participants discuss the practicalities of carrying passports and the potential for ICE to demand proof of citizenship from all travelers, noting that this could lead to widespread disruption and civil liberties violations. The discussion touches on the balance between security and privacy, with some users advocating for stricter identification requirements to prevent illegal immigration and terrorism, while others argue that such measures are unnecessary and invasive. The debate reflects broader concerns about government surveillance and the erosion of personal freedoms in the name of security.
Users report that illegal immigrants are avoiding airports due to fear of ICE arrests, leading to empty flights and reduced traffic. This is seen as a successful 'self-deportation' strategy, where the threat of enforcement is enough to deter illegal travel. The removal of illegal immigrants from the air travel system is viewed as a win for national security and a reduction in the burden on public resources. This subtopic highlights the psychological impact of enforcement policies, with users noting that the mere presence of ICE agents can have a deterrent effect. The discussion includes anecdotes of empty flights and reduced passenger numbers, which are attributed to the fear of deportation. This perspective suggests that enforcement does not need to be constant or aggressive to be effective, as the threat alone can achieve significant results.
Users argue that airlines are complicit in illegal immigration by allowing illegals to board flights, often using vouchers provided by the government. There is a call for airlines to be held liable and fined for transporting undocumented individuals. The suggestion is that airlines should be forced to pay for the deportation of illegals they transport, or face severe penalties. This subtopic highlights the role of private sector entities in facilitating illegal immigration, with users arguing that airlines have a responsibility to verify the status of their passengers. The discussion includes calls for stricter regulations and enforcement against airlines that fail to comply with immigration laws. This perspective suggests that holding airlines accountable is a key component of effective immigration enforcement, as it removes the economic incentive for transporting undocumented individuals.
Discussions focus on the ability of undocumented immigrants to fly domestically and the role of ID verification systems like REAL ID and the SAVE Act in preventing this. Participants debate whether illegals can currently fly, with some arguing that lax enforcement allows them to travel freely, while others suggest that ICE presence at airports would serve as a significant deterrent. The potential for ICE to catch illegals at airports is seen as a key benefit of the proposed deployment, turning airports into chokepoints for enforcement. However, there is also skepticism about the effectiveness of current ID verification methods, with some users pointing out loopholes that allow undocumented individuals to bypass checks. The conversation often links airport security to broader immigration enforcement strategies, with some advocating for stricter ID requirements and others arguing that the focus should be on interior enforcement rather than border or airport screening. The subtopic highlights the tension between technological solutions for ID verification and the practical challenges of enforcing immigration laws in a high-traffic environment.
Users debate the relevance of 9/11 to current security policies, with some arguing that ICE deployment at airports would have prevented the attacks because all hijackers were visa violators. This perspective is used to justify the need for ICE over TSA, suggesting that immigration enforcement is the key to preventing terrorism. However, there are counter-arguments and conspiracy theories suggesting that 9/11 was a false flag or that hijackers were given visas by CIA figures like John Brennan, undermining the premise that standard ICE enforcement would have stopped a state-sponsored plot. These discussions often delve into broader conspiracy theories about government involvement in terrorist attacks, with users questioning the official narrative and suggesting that the TSA was created for political reasons rather than security needs. The debate highlights deep skepticism about government institutions and their motives.
Users discuss the construction of new ICE detention centers, described as 'mega detention centers' and 'regional hubs' near airports to facilitate rapid intake and deportation. The 'hub and spoke' model is compared to Amazon warehouses, with users expressing support for the logistical efficiency. Some users express paranoia or conspiracy theories that these centers are being built for mass detention or other purposes. The discussion highlights the infrastructure changes associated with increased enforcement, with users noting the scale and speed of the new facilities. The 'hub and spoke' model is seen as a necessary evolution in detention logistics, allowing for more efficient processing and deportation of illegal immigrants. This subtopic reflects the broader trend of militarizing and industrializing immigration enforcement, with users generally supporting the efficiency gains despite some concerns about the scale of the operation.
Trump's threat to deploy the National Guard to airports if ICE is insufficient is discussed as a further escalation of federal enforcement. Users view this as a necessary backup to ensure airports remain secure and operational, especially if Democrats continue to block funding for TSA. The mention of the National Guard is seen as a strong signal of the administration's commitment to enforcing immigration laws and maintaining order. This subtopic highlights the potential for increased military involvement in domestic law enforcement, with users generally supporting the move as a last resort to ensure security. The threat is interpreted as a way to pressure Democrats to fund the TSA or accept ICE's presence, demonstrating the administration's willingness to use all available resources to achieve its goals.
Some users discuss the legal implications of deploying ICE to airports, including potential 4th Amendment violations and the misuse of TSA's mandate. There is speculation that the State will need to engage in legal gymnastics to justify the expanded role of ICE in airport security, which was originally intended for counter-terrorism rather than immigration enforcement. This subtopic highlights the tension between executive action and legal constraints, with users questioning the legality of using ICE to enforce immigration laws in spaces traditionally managed by TSA for security purposes. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of such deployments for civil liberties and the rule of law, with some users expressing concern about the potential for abuse of power. Despite these concerns, the majority of users seem to support the deployment, viewing it as a necessary measure to address the perceived crisis of illegal immigration.
Participants propose using confiscated assets, such as a new Somali airline, to deport illegals back to their home countries. This subtopic links 'illegals' and 'deportations' through a specific logistical strategy involving seized property, with users suggesting that confiscated assets should be repurposed for enforcement purposes. The idea is to 'fill it with Somali illegals, fly them back home, rinse and repeat,' suggesting a cost-effective method for mass deportation. This proposal reflects a desire to utilize existing resources to overcome logistical barriers to deportation, highlighting a pragmatic approach to enforcement. Users argue that confiscated assets represent a form of restitution or funding for immigration control, and that their use for deportation would be both efficient and just. The subtopic highlights a creative, albeit controversial, approach to solving the logistical challenges of mass deportation, emphasizing the potential for asset forfeiture to support enforcement goals.