Abolition, Not Reform
Context
On Thursday, January 29, 2026, the US Senate voted on H.R.7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which would grant more funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if passed.
The bill failed with a vote of 45-55. Senate Democrats, including Sen. Patty Murray of WA, believe the path forward is to 1) separate out other spending from DHS to prevent a government shut down, and 2) make a deal to only approve the DHS spending on the condition of reforms.
The Democrats' strategy of 'reform' is out of touch with what people are actually asking for: the abolishment of ICE. A department that murders, brutalizes, and deports people is unworthy of taxpayer funding and is beyond reform.
Skip to the Action if you believe in abolition, or if you are still on the fence, please read on to the FAQ.
FAQ
It is common for people who have only known the US to have immigration laws to believe that they must exist in some form. Below is a brief FAQ to challenge that assumption.
"But we need immigration laws."
No. All immigration laws and enforcement are tools for scapegoating and terrorizing yet another population. The first immigration law in the US was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Its purpose was in its name: to exclude Chinese people, who were already vilified, from immigrating to the US. The Patriot Act of 2001 enabled the creation of DHS and ICE. They did not exist before then and they do not need to continue to exist.
"But immigration enforcement keeps us safe."
No. Data from the FBI revealed that it is home-grown far-right extremists who have committed more ideologically-motivated homicide than outside far-left or radical Islamist extremists. Yet it is the latter and other people of color who are surveilled, brutalized, and killed by DHS and its agencies in the name of counter-terrorism. ICE should not be murdering anybody, regardless of their criminal history.
"But we need closed borders."
No. Prior to 1964, migrant farm workers were able to travel to the United States to work and then return to Mexico during the off-season as part of Bracero programs. The end of the seasonal worker programs trapped migrant workers inside the United States. They would be at risk of capture upon trying to return home or they would be unable to return to the US if they tried to enter again; it would make more sense to stay and settle. There is much more nuance to discuss on this topic for a later post.
"But DHS still needs funding."
No. The Big Beautiful Bill Act from 2025 already gave $190 billion for DHS, including $75 billion for ICE and $65 billion for CBP. ICE has allocated $180 million of that funding to hire bounty hunters and skip tracers to stalk immigrants. Contracts would start at $250 with a ceiling as high as $90 million. They have already received too much money and do not need more of our tax dollars to conduct their violence.
"But ICE can be reformed."
No. Democratic leadership is strategizing to make a deal with Republicans in which they offer their votes to fund DHS with conditions for reform:
- Requiring body cameras
- Prohibiting facial coverings
- Requiring judicial warrants
Body cameras have hardly resulted in justice in cases where a cop has murdered a civilian and so they will not curb violence by immigration enforcement. All the world may see the footage if it is released years later, yet there are often no repercussions to the officer involved in the shooting. Body cameras are merely more taxpayer dollars spent on police budgets for surveillance that will more likely be used against citizens than to hold cops accountable.
Prohibiting facial coverings is ineffective. Congress would be permitting ICE to continue its violence as long as they do not wear face coverings; that does not solve the violence. ICE may even circumvent this requirement by updating their 'official' uniform to include a gaiter. And such a law requires the cooperation of law enforcement who have already been brutalizing protestors. It is unclear whether police would continue to rout protestors or enforce the no-face covering law on ICE if they even arrive on a scene in time.
ICE has always required a warrant signed by a judge to enter a private home or business. It is infuriating that Democrats would make this a bargaining piece when it is already law. The memo by the acting head of ICE saying that administrative warrants are adequate does not change the actual law. And it is actually unconstitutional as it violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Action
Contact your elected officials to reject their deal-making to 'reform' ICE and to demand the abolishment of ICE.
Use 5calls.org or manually search for your elected officials. If you are not sure what to say, feel free to use the script below. It is brief this time to keep it as simple as possible since there may be a large volume of calls going in. Your purpose is to leave a tally and be done.
Script
Hi {title and name},
My name is {your name} and I am your constituent in ZIP code {your zip code}.
I have learned that members in Congress want to strike a deal that would still give funding to DHS and ICE with conditions for 'reform'. But ICE has murdered and deported our neighbors and cannot be reformed.
I am contacting you to vote NO on all bills that would directly or indirectly grant more money to ICE, including revisions to H.R.7148. Do not strike any deals that would give another cent to ICE. Understand that any compromise will enable ICE to murder another American.
I am demanding that you join others in Congress to abolish ICE.
Thank you for your time.