By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer, support for abolishing the agency is surging, though Democrats in Congress are primarily focused on reform. Recent polls show a significant increase in public support for abolishing ICE. In response, some Democrats have proposed legislation to limit ICE’s actions and redirect funding to local law enforcement. However, it remains unclear whether these calls for reform will translate into concrete changes, especially with an upcoming appropriations deadline. Democratic leadership has thus far only called for investigations into ICE’s actions.
Read the original article here
Democratic leaders resist the call of voters to abolish ICE, and it’s a sticking point that’s causing a lot of frustration and anger. A common sentiment is that these leaders, like Schumer and Jeffries, are either corrupt, incompetent, or possibly a dangerous combination of both. The core of the issue seems to be a perceived lack of action, a reluctance to fully embrace the idea of dismantling an agency that many view as fundamentally flawed and even harmful.
The argument for abolishing ICE is often linked to the agency’s history, its methods, and its perceived transformation. Many people believe that even if ICE served a legitimate purpose initially, its current form is irreparably damaged. There’s a strong feeling that the agency’s methods, including aggressive tactics and a lack of accountability, have made it toxic. Some go so far as to suggest that ICE has become a tool of political intimidation and oppression, rather than a neutral enforcer of immigration laws.
The fact that ICE is a relatively young agency, established in 2003, is often brought up. It’s a reminder that a world without ICE did exist, and that dismantling it isn’t some outlandish concept. This leads to the question of why Democratic leaders are seemingly unwilling to take a strong stance against the agency. Some people see this as a fear of political repercussions, a worry about being labeled as soft on immigration or a fear of repeating past mistakes. The phrase “defund the police” comes up repeatedly, implying a comparison in the public perception of agencies.
A frequent criticism is that these leaders are prioritizing political maneuvering over the will of their voters. The argument is that they’re failing to represent the interests of their constituents, who are increasingly calling for the abolition or significant reform of ICE. The use of the word “complicit” is common, suggesting that by not actively opposing ICE, these leaders are enabling the agency’s actions and potentially the policies behind it.
The calls for action are clear and direct. They include primarying these leaders, voting them out, and holding them accountable. There is a sense of betrayal. The phrase “the Democrats talk about reform, but when it comes to actual structural change like abolishing ICE, they circle the wagons,” is common. This perceived inaction is a major source of disillusionment. Some people suggest these leaders are actively working against the interests of their constituents, either intentionally or through incompetence, and that they need to be replaced.
The underlying frustration is deeper than just disagreement over immigration policy. It’s a feeling that the Democratic Party is failing to live up to its promises, that it’s too beholden to the status quo, and that it’s ultimately empowering the Republican Party by not taking decisive action. There’s a growing sentiment that the existing leadership is out of touch and in need of replacement.
It’s not just about abolishing ICE, though. The discussion also touches upon a broader desire for a more just and equitable immigration system. Many people believe that the current system is overly complex, punitive, and prone to abuse. The emphasis is on due process, fair treatment, and a move away from the aggressive tactics that have characterized ICE.
In short, the resistance of Democratic leaders to the call to abolish ICE is seen as a betrayal of core values, a sign of political cowardice, and a failure to represent the will of the voters. It’s a sentiment that fuels a desire for change, a demand for accountability, and a call for a new generation of leaders who are willing to fight for the principles they claim to uphold.