Public Debate Intensifies Over the Future of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Public debate regarding the future of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has intensified, marked by shifts in public opinion, new legislative proposals, and internal divisions within the Democratic Party. Recent polling data indicates that support for abolishing ICE has surpassed opposition for the first time, coinciding with increased scrutiny of the agency and a significant expansion of its budget and operational capacity.
Shifting Public Opinion on ICE
Recent polling data from The Economist and YouGov indicates a shift in public sentiment regarding ICE. Forty-six percent of respondents reported supporting the abolition of ICE, while 43 percent expressed opposition.
This marks the first instance where support for abolition has exceeded opposition in this poll.
Support is notably higher among individuals under 30, with nearly 7 in 10 in this demographic expressing some level of support for eliminating the agency. A private memo from the Democratic firm Blue Rose Research found high voter awareness of the reported shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent and support for measures requiring warrants for ICE arrests and banning agents from wearing masks.
However, polling also suggests that while "abolish ICE" has support, the broader concept of abolishing interior immigration enforcement is not widely popular.
A separate poll indicated less than a third of respondents supported abolishing U.S. Border Patrol, and 55% approved of a smaller enforcement effort targeting specific criminal offenses rather than a broader scope.
Legislative Proposals and Reform Efforts
Amidst increased criticism, several Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislative proposals aimed at regulating or abolishing ICE:
- Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.): Proposed a bill that would mandate QR codes on agent uniforms, displaying agent information.
- Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas): Introduced the "ICE Oversight and Reform Resolution," which would mandate body cameras, de-escalation training, and prohibit masks for agents.
- Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.): Proposed legislation to reverse recent ICE funding increases and redirect those funds to healthcare premium tax credits.
- Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.): Introduced the "Abolish ICE Act," which seeks a total rescission of ICE funding and the agency's abolition within 90 days.
Proponents of abolition argue that some of the proposed regulatory measures would have minimal impact.
They suggest that significant change would require stripping ICE of its funding and its authority to arrest and detain individuals.
Other Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called for ICE to be "totally reorganized" and "torn down to the studs and rebuilt," while Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) supports "defund and abolish ICE."
Background and Agency Expansion
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Department of Homeland Security, consolidating existing immigration enforcement functions. Historically, ICE frequently collaborated with local police departments, a practice that contributed to an increase in deportations during the Bush and Obama administrations, according to Silky Shah, executive director of Detention Watch. Many communities subsequently ended these partnerships.
However, a budget bill passed in July of the previous year significantly increased ICE's budget, reducing its reliance on local partners. This legislation allocated funds for the development of a large-scale, federally owned and operated immigration detention system.
Calculations from the Center for American Progress project ICE's budget to grow from an annual $4-5 billion to over $8 billion this year, with potential growth up to $16 billion by 2028.
Draft solicitations obtained by The Washington Post detail plans for a "deliberate feeder system" designed to distribute immigrants to seven large facilities, potentially holding up to 80,000 detainees at a time.
Internal Democratic Debate and Political Considerations
The reported killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis, alongside the shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent, have intensified the internal debate within the Democratic Party regarding immigration enforcement and the political viability of advocating for ICE's abolition.
Progressive candidates and organizers, including Darializa Avila Chevalier and Mai Vang, have made abolishing ICE central to their campaigns. Justice Democrats, a political group supporting progressive candidates, also endorses candidates pledging to abolish ICE, viewing the agency itself as the core issue. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been a prominent voice in efforts to limit ICE's power through funding cuts, noting that healthcare cuts could be used to fund ICE's expansion.
Conversely, many elected Democrats in Congress advocate for reforms within ICE, expressing caution about a stance that might be perceived by some voters as out of step with desires for strong immigration law enforcement.
Centrist think tanks, such as Third Way and Searchlight Institute, have advised Democrats against renewing calls for ICE's abolition, suggesting it could be politically challenging and recommending a focus on "Reform and Retrain" instead.
Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way, drew parallels between the "abolish ICE" slogan and the "defund the police" movement of 2020, warning of potential political detriment. Republicans, including White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, have linked calls to abolish ICE with the "defund the police" movement, questioning the strategy of "attacking law enforcement agencies."
Community Opposition and Advocacy
Communities where new ICE facilities are proposed, such as Social Circle, Georgia, and Merrimack, New Hampshire, are organizing to prevent their construction. This community-level opposition reflects broader advocacy efforts to limit ICE's power and influence.