Turning ICE and Immigration into a Home-Field Advantage

I started to write in the comments of Mister Mix’s last post, but I thought it would be worthwhile to write my own post in response.

I’m writing this from the perspective of having been a candidate for federal office. I freely admit I don’t have all the answers, and this post is really meant to stimulate thoughts on how deal with a clearly rogue Administration’s rogue agency - ICE (and to some extent, DHS).

I preemptively implore everyone not to react viscerally, but to respond constructively in an effort to come to some consensus on positive ideas for messaging/action that will achieve - in my view - two key goals: 1) ensuring that Dems return to the majority in the House, and, yes, maybe even the Senate, and 2) eliminating and/or reining in ICE/DHS.

First, let me be clear. I was against the knee jerk creation of the Department of Homeland Security and its sub-department U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) post-9/11. As a reminder, ICE, in theory, combined the functions of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and U.S. Customs - they were functioning just fine. As I’ve written before, even using the word “Homeland” conjures up a connection to “blood and soil”, which is the opposite of the American ideal. Plus, as is soooo obvious, ICE was ripe for abuse by a power-mad leader.

So, yes, I do believe that ICE - and probably DHS - need to be abolished as they are now constituted.

The question is how do we get there? This might be a little scattered, so bear with me.

Mister Mix thinks we won’t get there mainly because 1) Dem leadership is rigid in its messaging, relies too much on polls and still focuses on “it’s the economy, stupid”, and 2) Dems are scared of looking weak on immigration.

He’s right on both accounts. But from a candidate’s perspective, I’d propose it’s not that simple.

Maybe you remember my post on Home Field Advantage? Well, historically, Dems talking about immigration is not playing on our home field. It’s an away game and we generally end up playing prevent defense (which most football fans will tell you rarely works; ahhh more football terminology…). Any Dem candidate who runs on abolishing ICE WILL be inundated with attacks calling them soft on immigration and WILL be attacked as allowing “illegal immigrants” to commit vicious crimes against real Americans. And let’s be honest with ourselves, those types of attacks have been very effective in the past (all the way back to, and before, Willie Horton).

On the flip side, what ICE is doing is clearly illegal, morally and ethically wrong, and incredibly unpopular with the general population - this is just one poll of many.

So how can a candidate be insulated from these types of attacks while pursuing justice? How do we make talking about ICE and immigration a “home game” instead of an “away game”?

• One way would be for Dem leadership to re-propose legislation similar to the Border Act of 2024 that provides for more resources for immigration judges and asylum adjudication, and, yes, strengthens border control. This would provide some critical political cover for Dem candidates, who could also point out that Republicans and Trump killed the bill for their own partisan gain.

• Dem leadership could also hold continuous “unofficial” hearings on ICE abuses, keeping the Administration’s conduct continually in the news (a la the Republicans’ “Clinton Libya” and “her e-mail” hearings).

• Dems candidates should insist that this is about the Rule of Law: any possible unlawful action should be investigated, and any law-breaking federal agent should be duly held accountable.

• Most “illegal immigrants” are law abiding and duly employed. Candidates should push for - and politically lead with - laws that hold owners/CEOs of organizations that knowingly hire undocumented workers criminally liable for their actions (let me be clear: I believe we economically need immigrants who want to work and should push for laws that allow for such or allow for temporary work visas so immigrants can move back and forth). Also, let’s use e-verify. Again, if an employer does not use it, they should be punished at the organization level and the owner/CEO level.

• Candidates should always stay on message by emphasizing certain aspects of ICE that the public dislikes: i.e., protesting is protected by the 1st Amendment and violently treating protestors is unacceptable, wearing masks is unacceptable, having an agency dressed in military fatigues with military grade weapons on the streets of America is unacceptable, not identifying themselves as law enforcement is unacceptable, “disappearing” anyone is unacceptable, arresting American citizens is unacceptable, and no one should ever die or be shot when immigration agents of any type are conducting an operation.

Those are just a few ideas. I don’t claim they are the end all be all, and I’m sure there are more. It’s easy for all of us to Monday Morning Quarterback (dammit - more football talk…) and/or criticize candidates without ever having dealt with trying to run a race for office and actually win. Trust me, it’s complex and dynamic and there are a million tactical decisions that need to be made on short notice.

So yeah - candidates can run on abolishing ICE, but they better have authentic reasons that resonate with the public AND a plan to deflect the attacks that WILL come from the opposition.

I mean this constructively and seriously as a group exercise: I would love to hear how y’all, as a potential candidate, would respond to an attack that you are weak on immigration, want “open borders”, and are allowing foreigners to commit unspeakable crimes against innocent Americans.

Thx for letting me brain dump and - yes - even vent a bit…

PS - lots of articles on how Dems should respond and what they should do: