The National Review editors contend that ICE is fundamentally different from the Gestapo, citing ICE's adherence to legal processes and its role in enforcing immigration laws, contrasting this with the Gestapo's historical atrocities and lack of due process. However, The Editors' argument is weakened by using fallacies such as guilt by association and weak man to discredit critics rather than solely relying on logical refutation.

The authors call out a false equivalence made by some Democrats who liken ICE to the Gestapo, which is a valid point given the significant differences between the two. ​

"Donald Trump's modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets," said Tim Walz at a May commencement address. He's not alone. Congressman Stephen Lynch, of Massachusetts, said, "... [it] does look like a Gestapo operation."

The authors are correct to challenge the false equivalence between ICE and the Gestapo, as the comparison is indeed hyperbolic and historically inaccurate. The Gestapo operated without legal due process, targeted political adversaries, and engaged in horrific acts including extra-judicial killings and torture, fundamentally differing from ICE's function of enforcing immigration laws within a legal framework, however contested that framework may be. 

The comparison exaggerates superficial similarities while disregarding profound, critical distinctions, primarily to evoke a strong negative emotional response.

However, by broadly attributing this view to "Democrats" as a whole, the authors commit a fallacy of their own.

1. weak man with sweeping generalization • By ignoring the fact that the aforementioned "Gestapo" comparison comes from only a subset of Democratic leaders, the authors are making a generalization that oversimplifies the diversity of opinions within the Democratic Party regarding immigration enforcement and ICE.

This is also a weak man fallacy because it focuses on the most extreme Democratic rhetoric (the weakest form of the anti-ICE argument) while ignoring more measured critiques about ICE’s policies, transparency, and civil rights implications.

By conflating fringe comparisons with the broader Democratic position, the authors undermine the legitimacy of substantive concerns. 

2. guilt by association • The authors attempt to discredit the "ICE is Gestapo" rhetoric by associating it directly with violent acts committed by "attackers."

These attackers evidently take the idea that ICE is an American Gestapo all too seriously.

By implying that those who use or believe this rhetoric are somehow aligned with or responsible for the violence, the authors seek to dismiss the argument itself through an undesirable association, rather than addressing its logical merits. This creates a negative perception of the rhetoric by linking it to extreme and violent behavior.

3. tu quoque with quotation out of context • The authors attempt to undermine the credibility of Tim Walz's current criticism of ICE by highlighting his past support for expanding the agency.

None other than Tim Walz supported the Lankford bill late in the Biden administration that would have brought a threefold increase in the ICE's annual budget.

This tactic shifts the focus from the substantive merits of Walz's present argument to an alleged inconsistency in his historical stance, implying that his current position is invalid due to perceived hypocrisy rather than engaging with the substance of his claims.

The tu quoque fallacy in this case is compounded by quotation out of context, making it an even stronger logical error. This is because Walz’s support for ICE funding occurred under the Biden administration, when ICE’s operations and priorities were different (e.g., more focused on targeted enforcement rather than mass raids or aggressive deportation tactics). By omitting this context, the authors misrepresent Walz’s position as if it were an endorsement of ICE’s current practices under Trump, which is a misleading framing.