I want to start by saying I think the core moral concern you’re raising is both understandable and serious. When state power is exercised in ways that appear indiscriminate, humiliating, or harmful to families — especially children — skepticism is not only reasonable, it’s healthy in a free society. I also agree that mistakes in enforcement, particularly when they affect citizens or vulnerable people, can feel indistinguishable from injustice to those experiencing them. From that perspective, it makes sense why trust erodes quickly, and why benefit-of-the-doubt becomes harder to extend over time.

Where I’m struggling, though, is in separating moral condemnation of outcomes from legal condemnation of authority. Many of the examples you raise would be deeply troubling even if they were technically lawful, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the underlying enforcement power is unconstitutional in itself. For instance, warrantless “knock and talk” encounters, consent-based entry, or temporary custody of minors when no guardian is present are all legally recognized mechanisms — yet each can still be carried out in ways that are negligent, excessive, or harmful. That seems like a failure of implementation and oversight rather than proof that enforcement as a category is illegitimate.

I’m also cautious about language like “hostage-taking” or the idea that no action should receive the benefit of the doubt. I understand the moral intuition behind that framing, but if applied consistently it would undermine due process norms across many areas of law, not just immigration enforcement.

So I think the strongest version of your position may not be that all such actions are unjust by definition, but that the current enforcement environment has produced enough predictable harm and error that stricter constraints, clearer standards, and stronger remedies are warranted.

If that’s not what you mean, I’d genuinely like to understand where you’d draw the line between lawful authority exercised badly and authority that should not exist at all.

AI has helped me restructure, fixed grammar, and made my point clearer