Misguided calls for abolishment of agency
THE continuing protests over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, particularly “zero tolerance” on the border, include calls from a growing number of Democrats to do away with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. This “Abolish ICE” movement is likely to hurt Democrats’ cause more than help it.
Actress Cynthia Nixon, who is running for governor of New York, recently called ICE a “terrorist organization.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a political newcomer and self-proclaimed democratic socialist who stunned a 10-term incumbent congressman in a recent New York primary, made abolishing ICE part of her campaign. Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wants the “ugly and wrong” agency dismantled. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says she wants to “get rid of it and start over.”
These calls may play well to the activist base of the party, but as USA Today noted in a recent editorial, abolishing ICE “is not a message the mainstream will buy.”
This is because while people on all sides of the political spectrum may be bothered by the separation of children from their parents, images of which dominated the news for weeks, many also want the country's immigration laws followed, and ICE plays a key role in helping to ensure that.
According to the agency’s website, during fiscal year 2017, following President Trump’s executive order enhancing public safety related to immigration, ICE conducted 143,470 administrative arrests, the highest number in the past three fiscal years.
Of those arrests, the agency says, “92 percent had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, were an ICE fugitive or were processed with a reinstated final order.” In other words, agents found a sizable number of bad apples who had made their way into America.
ICE also carried out 226,119 deportations. That was a slight decrease from the prior fiscal year, which ICE says, “shows the deterrent effect of strong interior enforcement.”
Critics of ICE say it has grown into something far larger than anticipated when it was created by Congress in 2003 as a post-9/11 means of focusing on interior immigration enforcement. They also are uncomfortable with the fact it answers to the president. But as The Washington Post noted, eliminating the agency won't change the immigration laws opponents dislike. "It won't work any more than eradicating the IRS would make taxes disappear," the Post said.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., made a similar argument recently when he said that abolishing ICE would accomplish nothing unless Trump’s policies are changed. This is where liberals upset about ICE’s practices should expend their energies — on trying to win the next presidential election. In the meantime, USA Today suggests, “It would be better to advance a mend-don’t-end approach.”
Instead, many on the left seem intent on a scorchedearth strategy that ultimately will fail and could wind up bolstering Trump’s chances for re-election two years hence.