From the party of COVID mask mandates to the hysteria over ICE agents’ masks now, the arc of Democratic policies is never dull. In the president’s immigration crackdown, nothing has emerged as quite so divisive as the uniform of federal agents, as this month’s explosive House hearing made quite clear. But which side is right? Are the face coverings of federal agents escalating an already dangerous situation — or are they necessary to protect officers and their families from harassment? And is there such a thing as middle ground?

It certainly didn’t seem that way on Capitol Hill, where Democrats hurled personal insults like the next Olympic sport. As if calling the agency a bunch of fascist Nazis wasn’t enough, Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) turned to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons at one point and asked if he thought he was going to hell (a question he refused to answer). “Well, how do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?”

Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-N.Y.) may have been less offensive, but his points were still factually challenged. “In America, we shouldn’t have secret police,” he argued. “We shouldn’t have masked government agents executing citizens in the streets. The Constitution does not give your agency the right to hide their faces while they kill Americans. People who are proud of what they do aren’t hiding their identity.”

And while the masks are only one part of the Democrats’ laundry list of objections to ICE, they continue to be a major flashpoint in the negotiations over Homeland Security funding. Both House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have demanded a “cameras on, masks off” approach to these deportation operations — and while congressional Republicans are largely opposed to the latter, there are some conservatives who don’t think the GOP should dismiss the idea outright.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who served as a police officer for 10 years, sees both sides. On Wednesday, he sat down with Justin Smith, a former Colorado sheriff, who now serves as CEO of the National Sheriffs Association, to try to have a thoughtful discussion about the pros and cons of masking ICE.

Pointing to the 1,300% spike in violence against ICE officials, Perkins acknowledged that there are some significant issues here as it relates to the safety and well-being of these agents. “I understand all of that. We only had our last name on our uniforms. They didn’t have the first name. So, they make it a little harder to track down. But on the flip side, there [are] some valid points made against the masking of federal agents — that it kind of incites fear.”

Smith agreed, but he also noted that we’re living in different times, and online harassment is a very real threat. “Doxing is relatively new,” he pointed out. “Back 20 years ago, 10 years ago … getting somebody’s personal information on the web and threatening them and their families [wasn’t an issue].” That’s a concern, he reiterated. “But on the other side of it, there’s a recognition as police officers, as human beings, we read other people’s faces. We pick up cues and things like that. And so, I recognize that when the public cannot see the face of an officer, it does create some discomfort. We get that. There’s a reason that in local policing, we limit the use of masks.”

Of course, there are also instances, Smith explained, “sometimes undercover officers [who] were involved in searching or serving warrants, sometimes SWAT teams for protection during the cold,” when law enforcement needs anonymity. “But we are cautious in general about when and where you might cover your face. So I understand that’s an issue.”

If we’re being honest, Smith said, “The real issue here is we need … transparency and accountability. I think the mask thing is a little bit of a diversion. I think there [are] ways to make sure you can still have that accountability and recognize the need to protect these employees and their families from doxing.”

Exactly, Perkins agreed. “There are circumstances where it makes sense [to cover your face]. But as a routine part of your uniform and equipment in normal policing,” he emphasized, “it’s problematic.” Obviously, there are circumstances where this is necessary — violent riots, for one — but when they’re doing routine things on the streets, the FRC president argued, “I think it’s something we have to look at very, very, very closely. … I think the way law enforcement dresses affects the way they act. And I just think with their masks, there’s a sense of anonymity. … [And] it concerns me.”

Some of it, he continued, is “professionalism.” As an officer, “how you come across to somebody [matters]. You want to show authority, but you also want to show respect. And there has been a lot of debate about how we dress, how we look. And certainly the hiding of the face, it makes people nervous. Look through COVID and see how we talked about [all of the children who had] issues because they couldn’t read faces. It was a developmental issue.”

Smith nodded, acknowledging that anything that even seems to lack transparency “further degrade[s] public trust.” And yet, addressing the Democrats’ comments, he pointed out, “One of the things we keep in mind is [that] these officers and agents are up against protesters who are also wearing masks to hide their identity. So it’s a two-way street.”

That said, Smith suggested, there are ways to compromise. “Any office I’ve ever known or any department, the standing rule, typically in state statute, [is] if a citizen comes up and asks, you have to identify yourself and give a unique ID number. So if they have an issue, [if they’ve] got a question, they have a complaint, they can tie that to a person,” he explained. “I recognize we’re in a different time, but I’ve heard suggested by other sheriffs that if they had a unique ID number that was prevalent on their uniform that might suffice to know who that individual is. Now, you still have to be careful about doxing.”

At the end of the day, though, there’s a real danger in this back-and-forth on the Hill, the former sheriff cautioned. “I think Congress has to be careful [that] they’re not politicizing this — that they’re really getting down to the accountability.”