Top Democrats are rebelling against a bipartisan bill that would provide steady funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite its proponents touting it as the best deal they could do.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced on Wednesday that he will vote against the bill in a final vote, citing concerns about its impact on marginalized communities. His stance is being echoed by other Democrats who fear that the bill would provide too much leniency to an agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws with a long history of human rights abuses.
Civil rights advocates are particularly wary of the bill because it keeps ICE's funding flat, which they believe will embolden the agency to continue its aggressive and often violent tactics against migrant families. The ACLU has described the funding as "a stamp of approval" on ICE's "bad behavior."
Despite efforts by Democratic leaders in Congress to spin the bill as a compromise that includes some oversight provisions, critics argue that these measures are insufficient to address the systemic problems with ICE.
One Democrat who is standing firm against the bill is Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who was part of the negotiations that led to the bipartisan deal. While she acknowledged that Democrats have limited tools to block funding for ICE, she expressed skepticism about the proposed oversight provisions and suggested that they may not be effective in preventing abuses.
On the other hand, some centrist Democrats are open to voting for the bill, citing its incremental approach as a way to build momentum on immigration reform. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said he would support the bill because it includes some oversight provisions and funding for body cameras.
However, critics argue that these measures will do little to curb ICE's worst abuses. The ACLU warned that the body-camera funding is "toothless" and that ICE can still shift funds within and between agencies with relative ease.
As the debate over the bill intensifies, Democrats in Congress are being forced to confront the reality of their own role in perpetuating a system that has led to countless human rights abuses. The question on everyone's mind now is whether they will find the courage to challenge ICE's status quo or simply go along with the party line.
The stakes are high for Democrats who support this bill, as it may lead to a backlash from progressive voters who are increasingly demanding action against ICE and its practices. For those who oppose the bill, however, the decision is clear: they will fight to defund or abolish ICE, even if it means taking on their own party leaders.
The outcome of the debate over this bipartisan bill will be telling for Democrats who care about justice and equality in America's immigration system. Will they stand up against a system that has failed countless families and communities? Or will they continue to support a status quo that perpetuates harm and injustice?
Ultimately, it is up to each individual Democrat to decide where their values align with the bill before Congress votes on it next week.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced on Wednesday that he will vote against the bill in a final vote, citing concerns about its impact on marginalized communities. His stance is being echoed by other Democrats who fear that the bill would provide too much leniency to an agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws with a long history of human rights abuses.
Civil rights advocates are particularly wary of the bill because it keeps ICE's funding flat, which they believe will embolden the agency to continue its aggressive and often violent tactics against migrant families. The ACLU has described the funding as "a stamp of approval" on ICE's "bad behavior."
Despite efforts by Democratic leaders in Congress to spin the bill as a compromise that includes some oversight provisions, critics argue that these measures are insufficient to address the systemic problems with ICE.
One Democrat who is standing firm against the bill is Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who was part of the negotiations that led to the bipartisan deal. While she acknowledged that Democrats have limited tools to block funding for ICE, she expressed skepticism about the proposed oversight provisions and suggested that they may not be effective in preventing abuses.
On the other hand, some centrist Democrats are open to voting for the bill, citing its incremental approach as a way to build momentum on immigration reform. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said he would support the bill because it includes some oversight provisions and funding for body cameras.
However, critics argue that these measures will do little to curb ICE's worst abuses. The ACLU warned that the body-camera funding is "toothless" and that ICE can still shift funds within and between agencies with relative ease.
As the debate over the bill intensifies, Democrats in Congress are being forced to confront the reality of their own role in perpetuating a system that has led to countless human rights abuses. The question on everyone's mind now is whether they will find the courage to challenge ICE's status quo or simply go along with the party line.
The stakes are high for Democrats who support this bill, as it may lead to a backlash from progressive voters who are increasingly demanding action against ICE and its practices. For those who oppose the bill, however, the decision is clear: they will fight to defund or abolish ICE, even if it means taking on their own party leaders.
The outcome of the debate over this bipartisan bill will be telling for Democrats who care about justice and equality in America's immigration system. Will they stand up against a system that has failed countless families and communities? Or will they continue to support a status quo that perpetuates harm and injustice?
Ultimately, it is up to each individual Democrat to decide where their values align with the bill before Congress votes on it next week.
Like, yeah, keeping ICE's funding flat is not ideal, but are we really gonna let that be our only negotiating chip? 
It seems like it'd take more than just oversight provisions to fundamentally change the agency's behavior. 
And what about all those Democrats who say they'll support this bill because of its incremental approach? Can't they see how that sounds kinda... weak? 
So like, according to Pew Research Center, in 2022, 64% of Americans supported increasing funding for ICE, while only 27% were in favor of reducing funding 
. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll found that 71% of Democrats opposed the Republican plan to increase funding for ICE last year 
Fun fact: The bipartisan bill would provide $1.5 billion in annual funding for ICE 
. To put that into perspective, here's a rough breakdown of ICE's budget over the past few years:
If we assume the bipartisan bill becomes law and provides $1.5 billion annually, that's a significant reduction in funding compared to recent years 
.
. So yeah, it's not like we're talking about a tiny fraction of the budget here 
ICE is literally scaring people and families are getting destroyed because of it 
. What's the point of having a bipartisan bill that still benefits ICE? It's just gonna embolden them to do more harm 
. And don't even get me started on the ACLU's "toothless" body-camera funding 
. Can't they just cut off the funding and be done with it? It's time for some real change 
.
and I'm still trying to figure out how to use it 
I was watching this news about ICE and I have no idea what's going on with all these Democrats and their bills 
does anyone know if I can just get a refund if I don't like my phone? 
I mean, some people are saying that the oversight provisions aren't enough to address systemic problems, but others see them as a step in the right direction 
The problem is, whatever decision they make, there's gonna be someone who's upset about it 
And honestly, I think that's just part of the job - finding common ground and making tough decisions when they're not popular 
. Can't believe some Democrats are willing to compromise on this one. It's like they're saying "meh" to human rights abuses and just want a stable budget. Newsflash: stability doesn't mean ignoring the atrocities that ICE commits daily 
. It's clear that some Democrats are just trying to save face and pretend like they care about justice, but it's time for real change 
.
I totally get why Rep. Rosa DeLauro is skeptical about those oversight provisions - they just don't seem strong enough to stop ICE's human rights abuses 
! On the other hand, I do think some centrist Democrats are being super reasonable by supporting the bill, but we gotta hold them accountable too 
. They have this crazy-juicy patty made from plant-based ingredients, and their sweet potato fries are to die for 
. But you know what's even crazier? The fact that some politicians actually think the current immigration system is fine 
. And don't even get me started on body cameras for ICE agents... yeah, good luck with that