Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Opinion

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.

On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.


On February 4, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) issued a list of ten demands, including prohibiting agents from wearing masks, requiring them to show IDs, and regulating the type of uniforms and equipment they carry.

These demands might have been acceptable if Renee Good and Alex Pretti hadn’t been killed; if Marimar Martinez hadn’t been shot five times by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent; if immigration enforcement agents hadn’t been detaining children, breaking into the homes of U.S. citizens, and assaulting people indiscriminately. Democrats – to the surprise of no one – are not meeting the moment.

Even if Democrats won’t push for abolishing ICE, they should be demanding far more than they are. Here’s a better list of demands:

1.Enforce existing policies and regulations

ICE officers are trained not to approach vehicles from the frontJonathan Ross violated this. Immigration enforcement agents are trained not to use deadly force unless the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury to officers – Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez violated this. Except in limited circumstances, DHS prohibits agents from detaining U.S. citizens, yet more than 170 have been kicked, dragged, and held by ICE. Before adding new policies, Democrats need to ensure that current ones are being enforced.

2.Investigations involving immigration enforcement agents must be led by a Congressional committee

To date, six federal prosecutors and an FBI agent have resigned due to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) reluctance to investigate Ross. The killings of Good and Pretti must not be swept under the rug by politically biased officials. Congress must take charge of all investigations involving immigration enforcement agents and coordinate with state and local officials.

3.Investigate and put Jonathan Ross, Jesus Ochoa, and Raymundo Gutierrez on trial for their crimes

Following the second demand, Congress must begin by immediately investigating Ross, Ochoa, and Gutierrez. They must be put on trial and held accountable for their crimes. A failure to do so only emboldens other agents to act without impunity or regard for public safety.

4.Impeach Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem

Noem has consistently, deliberately, and recklessly lied to the American public. Under her leadership (or lack thereof), ICE agents are being poorly trained and deployed at unprecedented levels across the nation. She is responsible for the chaos they have unleashed – she must be held accountable.

5.End indiscriminate biometric surveillance

Immigration enforcement agents are using facial recognition technologies like Mobile Fortify to scan citizens and immigrants alike. U.S. citizens like Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez and Mubashir (who chose only to reveal his first name to the press) have been detained by ICE because of these technologies. They must be banned.

6.End domestic terrorist lists

ICE is reportedly scanning the faces of protestors and uploading them to “domestic terrorist” lists. Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein reports that there are over a dozen “secret and obscure” watchlists that DHS and the FBI are using to track anti-ICE and other protestors. These lists must be erased entirely. Those agencies must provide proof of their deletion to Congress.

7.Fine anyone who spreads disinformation about ICE’s violence

The Trump administration immediately smeared Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists.” Noem alleged that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon. Home Security Advisor Stephen Miller called him an “assassin.” Several news outlets and political commentators amplified these lies. They must all be held accountable.

8.Protect journalists from DHS

On January 30, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were arrested by federal agents. They were charged with conspiracy and interfering with the rights of worshippers while covering an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in St. Paul.

These arrests were politically motivated. DHS has insisted that people do not have the right to record ICE agents in public – a complete lie from an administration that consistently lies to the public. At a time when journalism is under attack, Democrats must protect the rights of reporters and bystanders to observe and monitor federal agents. Americans need access to complete and honest coverage of what’s happening across the nation. We cannot allow journalists to be silenced or intimidated by the administration.

9.Restitution for victims of ICE’s violence

Tatiana Martinez was dragged out of her car by federal agents and thrown onto the ground. A masked agent then pressed his knee into her neck while she was handcuffed. She passed out from the trauma. George Retes was heading to his job in Camarillo when ICE agents smashed his car window, pepper-sprayed him, forcibly pulled him out, and threw him onto the ground. Kaden Rummler was left completely blind in one eye after being hit in the face with a projectile fired by a federal agent.

All victims of ICE’s violence must be able to seek restitution. This must include monetary compensation paid directly from ICE’s funding.

10.No additional funding for ICE

With a budget of $85 billion, ICE is currently the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency. No more taxpayer money should go to an agency assaulting, detaining, and killing U.S. citizens.

11.Everything included in the Schumer-Jeffries list

The demands made by Democrats are not inherently bad. If enforced, requiring judicial warrants, building safeguards, and protecting sensitive locations such as hospitals and schools could help curb ICE’s violence. The major problem with their list is that it’s far too modest.

ICE is increasingly unpopular. Democrats must seize this moment to take bold and meaningful steps to protect the American public from the Trump administration’s most authoritarian impulses.

Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less