By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
AUSTIN, Texas — The Democratic National Committee approved a nonbinding resolution calling on congressional Democrats to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, exposing a widening divide over whether the federal agency should be eliminated or reformed.
The resolution was adopted Saturday during the DNC’s summer meeting in Austin. It urges Democratic members of Congress to write legislation abolishing ICE while establishing pathways to citizenship, protecting immigrant workers and promising “dignity” for people affected by immigration enforcement.
The proposal also declares that immigration detention is civil rather than punitive and argues that people should not be jailed solely for a civil immigration violation.
Breitbart characterized the measure as an effort to “defund ICE” and release migrants who have not committed violent crimes. The resolution does not directly cut ICE’s funding, but eliminating the agency would necessarily end its current funding and operations.
The DNC simultaneously adopted a competing resolution calling for “concrete reforms” to ICE rather than abolishing it. The opposing measures reveal that Democrats remain divided between the party’s progressive activists and members who fear the “Abolish ICE” movement will cost them moderate and independent voters.
The votes are nonbinding and do not determine the party’s official national platform. That platform will be adopted at the 2028 Democratic National Convention. Democratic candidates and members of Congress are not required to follow either resolution.
Still, the DNC’s willingness to approve a measure abolishing the country’s principal interior immigration-enforcement agency is significant.
ICE is responsible for investigating immigration violations, arresting removable noncitizens and enforcing final deportation orders. Its Homeland Security Investigations division also investigates human trafficking, child exploitation, drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, money laundering and other transnational crimes.
Abolishing the agency without presenting a detailed replacement would create immediate questions about who would assume those responsibilities.
Michele Johnson, a DNC member from Louisiana, introduced the abolition resolution. Johnson argued that Democrats must take a clear position instead of relying on language shaped by polls and focus groups.
Other DNC members warned that the resolution could satisfy one faction of the Democratic base while driving away voters concerned about border security, crime and enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Yvonne Reeves-Chong, who opposed the abolition measure, urged the party to focus on winning elections so Democrats would have the power to implement policy.
DNC Chairman Ken Martin said Democrats are united in their opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement tactics, even if they disagree about whether ICE should be abolished or changed.
That explanation does not resolve the central question: If ICE disappears, who will enforce the immigration laws already passed by Congress?
A nation cannot maintain a meaningful border if crossing it illegally carries no enforceable consequence. It cannot protect lawful immigration while rewarding those who disregard the same process legal immigrants were required to follow.
There is also a tremendous difference between demanding accountability from a law-enforcement agency and eliminating that agency altogether.
Any officer accused of misconduct should be investigated. Any agency using unconstitutional tactics should be corrected. Due process applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.
But reform and abolition are not the same thing.
Ending detention for broad categories of migrants would also make immigration enforcement far more difficult. Individuals released into the country may receive future court dates, but federal officials have repeatedly struggled to locate and remove people who fail to appear or ignore final deportation orders.
The resolution’s supporters describe immigration detention as a civil matter rather than punishment for a crime. That is legally relevant, but it does not mean the government lacks authority to detain someone during immigration proceedings or before removal.
Immigration detention is intended to ensure that certain individuals appear for court hearings, protect the public when necessary and carry out lawful removal orders. Whether detention is appropriate should depend on the facts of each case — not a blanket political promise that detention itself must end.
The DNC’s competing resolutions demonstrate a party attempting to speak in two directions at once. One faction wants ICE reformed. Another wants it abolished. Both measures were approved.
Democratic leaders may attempt to dismiss the abolition resolution as symbolic, but political resolutions reveal the direction activists want their party to take. Today’s nonbinding declaration can become tomorrow’s campaign pledge, funding blockade or federal legislation.
Americans should demand a direct answer from every candidate: Do you support enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, and if ICE is abolished, what agency will do the job?
Border security is not hatred. Deporting individuals who have received due process and final removal orders is not extremism. A sovereign nation has both the right and responsibility to decide who may enter and remain within its borders.
The DNC has now placed abolition of ICE inside its official national debate. Voters must decide whether that represents compassion — or the abandonment of one of the federal government’s most basic responsibilities.
The Real News with Lucretia Hughes — bringing the receipts, defending families and telling the truth the establishment would rather ignore.
Original article
Comments