By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While the “Defund the Police” movement faced political setbacks, “Abolish ICE” may see a different trajectory. ICE’s net approval rating has plummeted, and the agency is increasingly viewed with hostility, in part due to its perceived overreach under the Trump administration. Unlike local police forces, ICE lacks historical support or an emotional connection with the public. With a shift in public sentiment and increasing criticism of ICE’s tactics, Democrats are likely to find political advantage in advocating for reduced funding or the agency’s complete abolition, and possibly with little or no political backlash.
Read the original article here
Trump Is Making ‘Abolish ICE’ a Mainstream Position
It’s become increasingly clear that the conversation around immigration enforcement has shifted dramatically, and a key element of that shift is the growing acceptance of the “Abolish ICE” position. It seems that the actions and the very existence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have come under intense scrutiny. It’s hard to ignore the sentiment that ICE, established in 2003, is an institution ripe for reevaluation. The point of view that America managed for decades without it is compelling.
The core of the argument revolves around accountability. The calls for prosecuting agents who have violated constitutional rights, and extending that accountability to the entire chain of command, are becoming more common. The feeling is that training and reform around the edges are not enough. The idea of holding individuals responsible for the lives impacted and the potential harm caused by ICE’s actions appears to be gaining traction. The emphasis is on dismantling the current structure, rather than just tweaking it, and on pursuing justice for those who have suffered due to perceived abuses.
The debate also extends into how immigration itself should be handled. There’s a push to return to immigration being a civil issue, one primarily dealt with by local police focusing on actual criminals. It is hard to miss the argument that ICE has become an entity that is seen by many as actively working against the interests of justice and human rights. This feeling is intensified when looking at certain rhetoric coming from political figures and the perception of their actions.
The concerns about ICE aren’t just about the institution itself but also about the perceived lack of accountability and oversight. The desire for an independent commission and trial system to ensure justice is served, and to prevent the current judicial system from protecting wrongdoers, is quite pronounced. The repeated references to holding individuals responsible for their actions, and prosecuting those who cover up wrongdoing, underscore the depth of the distrust.
A common thread throughout the discussion is the frustration with the current state of affairs and the perceived inaction from certain political figures. The feeling is that the opposition isn’t taking a strong enough stance on the issue. This has created a sense that those who are supposed to be advocating for change aren’t doing enough, and that it is the actions of specific political groups that have made this position the standard.
There is a sense that the debate about the issue is already in motion. The argument is whether or not there should be an agency dedicated to processing immigration when a department already exists. The shift in thinking about the roles of certain institutions is undeniable. The need for an agency such as ICE seems unneeded to many.