It would be political folly for the Democratic Party to fully embrace calls to “abolish ICE,” at least without adopting a substitute blueprint for strong immigration enforcement.
That’s not to say Immigration and Customs Enforcement hasn’t abused its power during President Donald Trump’s second term. American citizens have been harassed, detained, even killed. Immigrants with legal status or those that lived in the U.S. for years have suffered similarly, as happened yet again this month with the killings of Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas. Even the conditions and safety of detention have come under scrutiny after several in-custody deaths.
Not surprisingly, many voters have soured on ICE. Half of U.S. adults said they were at least “somewhat” supportive of “abolishing ICE,” including 77% of Democrats and 52% of independents, according to a YouGov survey published in March.
That explains why several Democratic congressional candidates are campaigning to “abolish ICE,” in upcoming midterm elections. Among them is Michigan Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed, who like many progressive Democrats pushing to dismantle ICE, has not offered an alternative agency or strategy for handling immigration enforcement. Ditto Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who is running for reelection and is a rumored 2028 contender. That’s a mistake.
Lingering suspicions
Abolishing ICE is a simplistic message that makes Democratic candidates easy pickings for Republicans. Voters’ opposition to bad immigration enforcement doesn’t mean they want lax enforcement. Failing to provide a detailed proposal for ICE’s legitimate functions after the agency were to shut down only compounds that political miscalculation. It stokes lingering voter suspicions that Democrats don’t have a problem with ICE but with the enforcement of U.S. immigration law more broadly.
That’s not just my analysis. Some veteran Democratic insiders worry the party is exceedingly vulnerable on this front: Republican campaigns are sure to air advertising this fall that accuse Democrats of opposing the deportation of immigrants in the U.S. illegally who have committed violent crimes. That’s a policy that remains popular, even as voters’ opinions of ICE, and Trump’s handling of immigration, have slumped.
I’m not questioning the sincerity of Democrats who are troubled by ICE and want the agency abolished. Nor am I suggesting politicians aren’t justified in being aghast at the agency’s misconduct. What I am questioning is the feasibility of their position. Simply put, calls to “abolish ICE” versus “reform ICE” aren’t politically viable— especially if presented without a comprehensive alternative. And Democrats should know better.
President Joe Biden’s response to Trump’s first-term immigration tactics, which never rose to the level of his second administration, was initially to reduce enforcement — at the border and within the country. The perception of chaos, crime and unfairness sent voters scurrying back to the current president.
Ultimately, voters’ dissatisfaction with Trump, the Iran war and persistent inflation may reward Democrats with control of Congress regardless of how many of them hop on the “abolish ICE” bandwagon.
— David M. Drucker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist.
