The Democrats’ Efforts to Rein in ICE

Senate Democrats scored a victory on Friday by passing a compromise budget bill with Republican support, funding all major departments, including Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Defense, Labor, and Transportation. But he Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was included in a separate bill, a continuing resolution (CR), that maintained the department’s current spending levels for only two weeks.

Democrats will use this time to negotiate new rules governing immigration enforcement operations conducted by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection). Federal agents from ICE killed Renee Good, and CBP agents killed Alex Pretti.

The legislation is currently before the Republican-controlled House and must pass without amendments to avoid returning to the Senate. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who had killed past attempts to rein in ICE, announced that he will hold a vote in the House on Tuesday, February 3^rd.

He continues to adhere to President Trump’s instructions, and in this case, Trump publicly supported the House’s passage of the compromised bill. Trump likely realized he could benefit from a couple of weeks of negotiations. He wasn’t committing to anything, but he could always blame the Democrats if there is no agreement in two weeks.

Trump pulled back from his usual attacks on protesters when he and Republicans reluctantly recognized that ICE’s aggressive and likely illegal actions have sparked a tsunami of protests across the nation. The day after Pretti was killed, YouGov conducted a poll and found that a majority (57%) of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of the way ICE is handling its job. That finding aligned with a Fox News Poll taken around the time Pretti was killed, which found that 59% of voters say ICE is too aggressive.

However, opposition to passing the budget bill and the CR is coming from right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats. If they succeed in blocking a vote, the government will not have the funds to operate any of the major departments. Still, ICE will receive approximately an additional $20 billion per year for operations and detention costs under the previously approved Big Beautiful Bill.

Two dozen conservatives previously opposed parts of the spending package when the House approved it last month, with some specifically objecting to additional immigration reforms.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, speaking at a Friday press conference, expressed support for the legislation. However, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the center-left New Democrat Coalition issued a statement that gives some teeth to the Senate’s strategy of negotiating a compromise over the two-week period. They made it clear that any “new funding for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security” would require reforms. CPC Chair Greg Casar wrote on X this weekend, “My Progressive Caucus colleagues and I have been clear: not another cent to ICE until we stop the chaos and the lawlessness.”

Although polls show that Trump’s MAGA base overwhelmingly supports ICE’s behavior, a large swath of independent voters does not. These are the folks who can swing November’s congressional elections toward Democratic victories – perhaps enough to capture control of the House. And ICE’s reputation is so bad that nearly half of Independents (47% vs. 35%) would support eliminating ICE, according to a poll from YouGov.

It appears the Democrats have popular support for their four modest demands that the two DHS agencies adopt procedures common in many police departments.

First, they must use judicial warrants, not administrative warrants. The latter are issued by personnel appointed as administrative judges, often with no prior experience in civil administration. The Department of Justice removed the requirement that such judges have specific, extensive experience in immigration law, allowing the Department of Defense to use its officers as judges. This practice allows DHS agents to bypass civil court to obtain approval to enter a home without the owner’s permission.

DOJ asked for 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges for six-month stints, which can be renewed. If it is argued that this practice was necessary because there are not enough immigration judges available, it must be noted that the Trump administration has fired dozens of immigration judges, even as the immigration courts face a backlog of nearly 3.5 million cases, according to data collected by a Syracuse University research center.

Second, the agencies must cease their roving patrols that search for anyone they believe might be an immigrant, and therefore possibly undocumented. Often, they base their stops on a person’s skin color. Consequently, American citizens have been detained without due process unless they can quickly prove they are citizens.

Critics of the DHS site argue that the extremely high number of immigrants Trump wants DHS to deport serves as an incentive to maximize detentions and arrests. Given numerous examples of citizens being pulled from their cars, workplaces, and homes without evidence that they pose a threat to public safety, the agencies need to maintain a public record of each incident.

Third, there must be a universal code of conduct to govern federal law enforcement officers’ use of force. In this demand, it’s unclear how this code would differ from the protocol that agents ignored when they shot and killed Pretti and Reed. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said the agents had not followed it. Did Miller assume there was one, or did he read it and know they had violated it? When the negotiations occur, Miller should be invited to share what he suggests for the code, since he believed their conduct was in violation of some kind of rules.

Fourth, federal officers should not wear masks and should be required to wear body cameras and proper identification. To be effective, these requirements must clearly specify the conditions under which they apply. Body cameras must be left on during any action that initiates a detention or arrest. Officers must wear visible, identifiable name tags on their vests. Many cities have adopted these practices for their police officers, subject to reasonable exceptions.

While these negotiations are essential to mitigate ICE practices, they will not address the dire conditions in privately operated detention centers. Over the past 13 months, 32 ICE detainees have died, most due to a failure to provide medical and mental health care. Of the 66,000 detainees, approximately three-quarters had no criminal convictions, and many who do are convicted of only minor offenses, such as traffic violations. The Cato Institute’s review of ICE bookings shows that only 5% of all detainees had a violent criminal conviction.

The problem the Democrats face is that while 57 percent of voters disapprove of how ICE enforces immigration laws, those voters are unlikely to be from the rural districts, which are the Republicans’ voter base. Additionally, no polls show that the majority of voters oppose enforcing immigration regulations, even though a bare majority recently would support eliminating ICE. Voters are outraged by ICE tactics, but it would be a stretch to believe they do not want some restrictions on immigration.

Democrats have recognized this distinction in Biden’s attempt to rationalize the immigration process, which Republicans opposed. Meanwhile, Republicans have shown that they feel comfortable breaking laws to advance mass deportations of immigrants.

There is an opportunity now for Democrats to be the reasonable party that offers workable, just solutions for integrating immigrants into America. Even if Democrats succeed in altering ICE practices, they need to continue challenging the assumptions and misinformation Trump uses to promote a narrow nationalist agenda that disregards basic American values.

The post The Democrats’ Efforts to Rein in ICE appeared first on CounterPunch.org.