The solution our government is using is not the correct one. ICE is a tool that should never be used as a quick fix.

Most people can feel it:

something about the way the country is operating right now feels tense, rushed, and unstable.

Rights that once felt dependable feel uncertain.

Policies feel harsher.

Explanations don’t quite line up with outcomes.

It’s easy to argue about who is to blame.

It’s harder — and more useful — to ask why the system is behaving this way at all.

This Isn’t About One Policy or One Group

When large systems come under pressure — whether they’re technical systems, economic systems, or governments — they don’t usually fail all at once. Instead, they shift into emergency mode.

Emergency mode prioritizes:

speed over fairness

control over comfort

reaction over planning

That doesn’t mean leaders wake up wanting to be cruel.

It means they’re using tools designed for short-term crises to manage long-term change.

And that’s where things start to break down.

Technology is quietly reshaping the economy faster than most institutions can adapt.

Automation and AI aren’t just changing jobs — they’re reducing the number of people needed to keep the system running. That puts pressure on:

employment

tax revenue

housing

social services

public trust

This kind of shift is rare and disruptive. Historically, when societies face it, governments struggle to respond smoothly.

In moments like this, governments tend to rely on tools that are:

fast

visible

legally flexible

immediately effective

Enforcement fits those criteria.

It’s not because enforcement is the best solution — it’s because it’s the only one that works quickly when deeper solutions take time.

The problem is that enforcement tools were never designed to manage social transitions. They were designed to handle specific violations, not system-wide change.

The Cost of Using the Wrong Tool

When enforcement becomes a stand-in for adaptation:

fear increases instead of cooperation

stress spreads beyond the intended targets

trust erodes

anger grows in all directions

Even people who aren’t directly affected feel unsettled — because unpredictability signals instability.

From a systems perspective, that’s not success.

It’s a warning sign.

People tolerate limits surprisingly well when those limits are:

clearly explained

consistently applied

visibly fair

tied to a future plan

What people struggle with is randomness, silence, and mixed signals.

communicates clearly

degrades gracefully

spreads load evenly

prepares users for change

Human systems are no different.

There Is a Better Way Forward

It requires:

honest communication about what’s changing

early preparation instead of last-minute enforcement

universal policies rather than targeted fear

economic adaptation before social control

These approaches don’t deny reality — they manage it more effectively.

It’s understandable that people are upset.

It’s also understandable that leaders feel cornered.

But when we step back, what we’re seeing isn’t chaos for chaos’s sake.

We’re seeing a system under strain, relying too heavily on emergency tools because long-term solutions weren’t built in advance.

That’s not a reason to panic.

It’s a reason to redesign.

When a system starts using emergency measures all the time, the problem isn’t the emergency — it’s that the system never planned for change.

The question isn’t whether control is necessary.

The question is whether control is being used where adaptation should be.

That’s a conversation worth having — calmly, clearly, and before the stress gets worse.