Alex Pretti's murder has triggered a huge backlash against America's Gestapo, but as long as Miller remains in charge of US immigration policy, there will be no real change in what ICE is doing.
Everywhere I look, there is this false dichotomy between the 'woke' surge that 'cost us the election' and the unpalatable compromise of drifting to the center. These are not the only choices.
Take a look at Minneapolis right now. A surge in community activism that is not about identity politics, but about community. As Shaun says here: citizens are turning protesting into protecting. This is "the politics of care"-- which both satisfies constitutional values and goes well beyond them. It pushes the concept of what it means to belong to a country back into hopeful territory.
"this approach: it fundamentally misunderstands and lets stand Stephen Miller’s project of ethnic cleansing, which the entire Republican party has been backing since day one."
Great piece. I read today that Minnesota has turned protesters INTO protectors. The two killed were protecting vs protesting. We are all becoming protectors of the nation and democracy.
Thank you. This is by far the best commentary and analysis of the events in Minnesota to date. That includes those in “legacy media “, such as the NY Times.
Nunez-Neto's assumption that immigration enforcement would be impossible without an entity called "ICE" is truly bizarre.
Germany seems to manage law enforcement perfectly well without either a Gestapo or a Stasi. And the United States managed to enforce immigration and custom laws in the years before 2003, when ICE was founded.
I think when a 23-year-old agency goes all-in on kidnapping and disappearing people based on the criterion that they aren't white, that's an agency that America will do fine without!
Most Americans believed Trump was only going to deport violent criminals - "the worst of the worst." How many undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes each year - maybe 10,000? That's 1% of Stephen Miller's annual quota of 1,000,000.
In fact, violent criminals get arrested by local police and put in jail awaiting trial. While in jail, they aren't committing more crimes. (I doubt many judges are releasing violent undocumented immigrants on bail.) If they are convicted, they can be handed over to federal authorities for deportation. That authority could be CBP, TSA, FBI or U.S. Marshalls - all fully capable of handling criminals in handcuffs. We don't need a massive secret police force called "ICE" to take people in handcuffs from jails to airplanes.
What about undocumented immigrants who commit crimes but have not yet been arrested? That's what local police are trained to do. If local police can't handle it, they can call state troopers or the FBI. Again, we don't need "ICE."
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful, informative piece!
This is one super meaningful nugget among many: "Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara went on Face the Nation to declare 'people have had enough' after Alex Pretti’s killing. He added, 'The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year, recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn’t shoot anyone. And now this is the second American citizen that’s been killed, it’s the third shooting within three weeks.'"
The crusade: Stigmatizing, marginalizing, and terrorizing groups the apostles deem lesser.
The conventional wisdom among democrats that, "...the reason we are facing the rise of fascism in America is because the left got too strong and too woke" isn't wisdom. It's dangerous misdirection that paves the way for the regime by diverting attention, time, and effort from what's caused the rise of fascism in the first place: Both the republican and the democratic party have been corrupted by unlimited corporate political donations. Both parties serve corporate donors first and foremost, before they serve We the People.
Fascism in America under Trump, like fascism in Germany under Hitler and in Italy under Mussolini, is corporate-sponsored. One hand washes the other. Corrupted politicians and their corporate donors lather each other up, while the dirty water from it all inundates the public at large below.
Schumer's "reform" demands are pathetic in the face of fascism as you describe. Even so, Trump won't agree to them so a shutdown is likely. Then Trump and the GOP will aggressively blame Democrats for shutting down TSA and the other DHS agencies. Democrats learned how to win shutdown fights by repeating their core position ("Obamacare tax credits") ad nauseum. This time it will be "ICE reform." When polls show Democrats winning the battle, John Thune will promise a Senate vote on "ICE reform" and the #SelloutSeven will surrender. When Thune finally allows a vote, it will fail on party lines.
Bob: I think these two Josh Barro pieces are probably the best short summary of where the Democrats went wrong on immigration and the challenge the party now faces:
I like Gallegos plan too (and Gallegos generally). But it doesn't call for abolishing ICE. And I'm not seeing how it really differs from the plan in the Searchlight memo.
Gallego wrote his plan before ICE started murdering American citizens with impunity. That's why ICE needs to be abolished for as long as Trump is President. A Democratic President can create a new agency that fully upholds our Constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
Below is the latest from Gallegos. Sounds to me like what Searchlight was calling for. But to the extent that they're different, I'd be fully on board with what Gallegos is calling for and his strategy. I trust him on this issue.
"We need to refocus ICE’s resources away from Trump’s PR stunts and back toward actually keeping communities safe.
The Homeland Security funding bill heading to the Senate does not go far enough to restrain the agency’s unchecked authority. I will not vote to give ICE more taxpayer money to terrorize our communities.
Instead, we need reform that makes ICE targeted, professional and focused on actual security threats — not political quotas and news soundbites. That means clear use-of-force standards that prioritize de-escalation, limits on dangerous tactics, mandatory body cameras and meaningful reporting and oversight.
That’s why Senator Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and I introduced the Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act of 2026, which would bring much-needed accountability and restraint to Trump’s ICE. It establishes new accountability, professionalism, and conduct requirements, like use-of-force standards and other common-sense measures. It’s a simple principle: enforce the law, but do it lawfully — and do it in a way that makes America safer, not angrier."
"Ethnic cleansing" is absolutely the correct language. Thank you for naming the goal and the person driving it. I've cross-posted to my list. It's that important. I also recommend this podcast episode published Monday about Stephen Miller https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/front-burner/id1439621628?i=1000746668137
I think you're exactly right, and that voters believe Democrats are just as beholden to their donors as Republicans, which is why democrats have an enthusiasm problem. Any move to the center now might be even worse than it was in the 90s. How do we get them to pay attention to us and not the searchlight folks?
I really think the second half of this piece is very wrong.
I fully agree with everything in the Searchlight memo you linked to. It accurately describes both the mistakes that brought us to where we stand now and what needs to change. If you disagree with the substance of the memo, it would be interesting to hear what you think it gets wrong.
Meanwhile, I either don't understand the alternative you're proposing or think it's a complete fantasy.
You wrote: "That Searchlight memo has clearly been read in the offices of Senate Democrats, who are dealing with intense demands from grassroots activists that they block any new funding for ICE and impeach and remove DHS Secretary Kristi Noem...If Senate Democrats use this package to justify voting for more DHS funding, there will be no clawback of the whopping $75 billion in extra funding ICE was granted through 2029 in the Big Bad Bill. People like Noem and Miller, who both called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” immediately after his murder, will face no accountability."
But how in the world do "grassroot activists" think they are going to achieve the goals of blocking ICE funding, impeaching and removing Kristi Noem (or Stephen Miller) and clawing back with a Republican controlled Senate, House, and Presidency still in place?
What is the actual plan? Is the idea to shut down the government until that is agreed to? Do you believe that shutting down the government with these demands is winning politics?
Yes, Gordon, Senate Dems have real leverage and shining a bright light on Miller's whole project moves the public in their direction. What's different here, compared to the fight Senate Dems chose to pick in September over health care, is that millions of people will come out into the streets to support them over demands like: Fire Miller, fire Noem, shrink ICE back to its pre-2025 size. The $75 billion that was appropriated to fatten ICE through 2029 includes $45 billion for concentration camps (polite people call them detention centers but these places will soon be like Abu Ghraib if ICE is allowed to keep managing them -- read this Newsweek piece with firsthand reports from women inside ICE's largest detention center now https://www.newsweek.com/women-inside-america-largest-ice-detention-center-camp-east-montana-11428121). Again, the key difference between now and last fall is the way the issue of ICE brutality is burning in people's hearts everywhere. I'm seeing local meetings and rallies taking off everywhere. Dems choosing to cut a deal now are being stupid and shortsighted; first build more power, then cut a deal that actually stops ICE for real.
"What's different here, compared to the fight Senate Dems chose to pick in September over health care, is that millions of people will come out into the streets to support them...Dems choosing to cut a deal now are being stupid and shortsighted; first build more power, then cut a deal that actually stops ICE for real."
I think this gets at the crux of our disagreement and what I don't understand. How does putting millions of people on the street "build power"? The height of street protests in America were the Vietnam years, and it ended not with power but with Richard Nixon elected twice.
I've been recommending this Substack to friends and family because I think it's central insight, that good political organizing is about leveraging relationships and not leaflets or texts or mail or TV, is spot on. And I fully agree that the Democratic Party needs to incorporate that insight into how it organizes itself.
At the same time, what I find frustrating is what I think is a lack of recognition that this kind of organizing will ultimately only succeed by leveraging relationships to get folks in the middle to vote for Democrats. The idea that there is a some pool of voters on the left that is waiting to be mobilized is a fantasy. Mamdani is a genuine political talent, his opponents were god awful, the race was in NYC, and he still barely reached 50% of the vote.
Putting in this a separate comment to avoid making the previous one too long and to make it possible to make a conversation about immigration specifically a different thread. But here is my take:
Immigration is genuinely a tough issue for Democrats (I think the best short explanation for why can be found in these two Josh Barro pieces:
https://www.joshbarro.com/p/democrats-need-to-re-learn-the-valid ), and I believe the Searchlight memo you linked to does a great job of trying to make policy in light of those challenges. It's a political approach aimed at both stopping the abuses of ICE and also delivering on an approach to immigration that will resonate with most Americans.
So when you use it as an example of bad advice for the Democratic Party, it makes me skeptical of your theory of power. The polling for Trump on immigration is terrible right now because ICE is creating chaos (https://www.calmdownben.com/p/there-are-no-statues-for-the-whistle). But that's not going to on indefinitely.
Is there really anything you actually disagree with in these paragraphs from the Searchlight memo (or what they then go on to recommend)?
"In confronting this broken system, the Trump Administration sidestepped Congress and instead weaponized immigration enforcement, pushing ICE and CBP to take actions that are at odds with the rule of law—including refusing to identify themselves or their agencies in public and wearing masks, lying to judges about use of force, and routinely violating court orders.
In doing so, they are setting a trap for Democrats. Responding to this kind of
lawlessness by saying you want to “Abolish ICE” is exchanging one kind of lawlessness for another. It means that you support getting rid of the agency responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws, creating a lawless system where people who enter the country illegally can stay here indefinitely, leaving no agency charged with finding and removing them. This will, inevitably, incentivize others to come to the United States illegally. “Abolish ICE” is not some proxy for more humane immigration enforcement, or to change ICE’s culture to adhere to due process, or to impose accountability on rogue officers. It’s advocating for an extreme.
Unless you truly believe that the United States should not have an agency that enforces immigration and customs laws within our borders, and you want to increase illegal immigration, you should not say you want to abolish ICE.
Americans want and deserve enforcement, not cruelty. Most Americans believe that we need to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States, but they want that enforcement to be professional, humane, and effective. Despite Trump’s overall slide in popularity, public support for his immigration policies has been much more durable than support for other key sectors (such as his economic and trade policies), and polls continue to show that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle immigration policy. Even now, “Abolishing ICE” remains an unpopular proposition for most Americans.
ICE needs to be reformed, modernized, and professionalized. Many of the specific measures people often lump under the slogan “Abolish ICE” are both good policy and quite popular, such as banning the use of masks, ending performative immigration raids, and requiring strict adherence to due process rights. Figuring out how to enforce our laws in a way that builds trust with our communities is not a new proposition—in fact, Sir Robert Peel laid out the core principles of modern policing almost two centuries ago.
Chief among them were the ideas that the police need to garner the trust of the public and minimize the use of force in order to be effective. We need concrete reforms to ensure that ICE adheres to these core principles—not to get rid of it."
Everywhere I look, there is this false dichotomy between the 'woke' surge that 'cost us the election' and the unpalatable compromise of drifting to the center. These are not the only choices.
Take a look at Minneapolis right now. A surge in community activism that is not about identity politics, but about community. As Shaun says here: citizens are turning protesting into protecting. This is "the politics of care"-- which both satisfies constitutional values and goes well beyond them. It pushes the concept of what it means to belong to a country back into hopeful territory.
"this approach: it fundamentally misunderstands and lets stand Stephen Miller’s project of ethnic cleansing, which the entire Republican party has been backing since day one."
Yes!
Great piece. I read today that Minnesota has turned protesters INTO protectors. The two killed were protecting vs protesting. We are all becoming protectors of the nation and democracy.
This isn't the women's march anymore.
Thank you. This is by far the best commentary and analysis of the events in Minnesota to date. That includes those in “legacy media “, such as the NY Times.
Great piece, thank you!
Nunez-Neto's assumption that immigration enforcement would be impossible without an entity called "ICE" is truly bizarre.
Germany seems to manage law enforcement perfectly well without either a Gestapo or a Stasi. And the United States managed to enforce immigration and custom laws in the years before 2003, when ICE was founded.
I think when a 23-year-old agency goes all-in on kidnapping and disappearing people based on the criterion that they aren't white, that's an agency that America will do fine without!
Most Americans believed Trump was only going to deport violent criminals - "the worst of the worst." How many undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes each year - maybe 10,000? That's 1% of Stephen Miller's annual quota of 1,000,000.
In fact, violent criminals get arrested by local police and put in jail awaiting trial. While in jail, they aren't committing more crimes. (I doubt many judges are releasing violent undocumented immigrants on bail.) If they are convicted, they can be handed over to federal authorities for deportation. That authority could be CBP, TSA, FBI or U.S. Marshalls - all fully capable of handling criminals in handcuffs. We don't need a massive secret police force called "ICE" to take people in handcuffs from jails to airplanes.
What about undocumented immigrants who commit crimes but have not yet been arrested? That's what local police are trained to do. If local police can't handle it, they can call state troopers or the FBI. Again, we don't need "ICE."
Dear Micah (and Baratunde),
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful, informative piece!
This is one super meaningful nugget among many: "Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara went on Face the Nation to declare 'people have had enough' after Alex Pretti’s killing. He added, 'The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year, recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn’t shoot anyone. And now this is the second American citizen that’s been killed, it’s the third shooting within three weeks.'"
Thank you for sharing!
Love
Myq
Bravo
The unholy trinity: Flood the zone with shit
Ethnic cleansing
Concentration camps
The apostles: Trump, Miller, Kennedy
The crusade: Stigmatizing, marginalizing, and terrorizing groups the apostles deem lesser.
The conventional wisdom among democrats that, "...the reason we are facing the rise of fascism in America is because the left got too strong and too woke" isn't wisdom. It's dangerous misdirection that paves the way for the regime by diverting attention, time, and effort from what's caused the rise of fascism in the first place: Both the republican and the democratic party have been corrupted by unlimited corporate political donations. Both parties serve corporate donors first and foremost, before they serve We the People.
Fascism in America under Trump, like fascism in Germany under Hitler and in Italy under Mussolini, is corporate-sponsored. One hand washes the other. Corrupted politicians and their corporate donors lather each other up, while the dirty water from it all inundates the public at large below.
Schumer's "reform" demands are pathetic in the face of fascism as you describe. Even so, Trump won't agree to them so a shutdown is likely. Then Trump and the GOP will aggressively blame Democrats for shutting down TSA and the other DHS agencies. Democrats learned how to win shutdown fights by repeating their core position ("Obamacare tax credits") ad nauseum. This time it will be "ICE reform." When polls show Democrats winning the battle, John Thune will promise a Senate vote on "ICE reform" and the #SelloutSeven will surrender. When Thune finally allows a vote, it will fail on party lines.
So nothing will change until progressive candidates run on "Abolish ICE" and win in November. Meanwhile you can join over 63,000 activists urging Congress to Abolish ICE here: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-congress-to-abolish-ice-2/
Bob: I think these two Josh Barro pieces are probably the best short summary of where the Democrats went wrong on immigration and the challenge the party now faces:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/opinion/democrats-immigration-trump.html
https://www.joshbarro.com/p/democrats-need-to-re-learn-the-valid
Curious what, if anything, you think he gets wrong and what you think the Searchlight memo gets wrong as well?
When you call for "abolishing ICE", do you really not want any enforcement of immigration laws? And if that's not what you mean, what do you mean?
https://open.substack.com/pub/theconnector/p/you-cant-stop-ice-by-ignoring-stephen?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=206751227
If you want a comprehensive Democratic plan, Ruben Gallego's is a good place to start. (Barro doesn't mention it.) https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/ruben-gallego-immigration-border-security-plan-00341242
I like Gallegos plan too (and Gallegos generally). But it doesn't call for abolishing ICE. And I'm not seeing how it really differs from the plan in the Searchlight memo.
Gallego wrote his plan before ICE started murdering American citizens with impunity. That's why ICE needs to be abolished for as long as Trump is President. A Democratic President can create a new agency that fully upholds our Constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
Below is the latest from Gallegos. Sounds to me like what Searchlight was calling for. But to the extent that they're different, I'd be fully on board with what Gallegos is calling for and his strategy. I trust him on this issue.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-ruben-gallego-i-wont-fund-rogue-ice-shoots-first-calls-law-enforcement
"We need to refocus ICE’s resources away from Trump’s PR stunts and back toward actually keeping communities safe.
The Homeland Security funding bill heading to the Senate does not go far enough to restrain the agency’s unchecked authority. I will not vote to give ICE more taxpayer money to terrorize our communities.
Instead, we need reform that makes ICE targeted, professional and focused on actual security threats — not political quotas and news soundbites. That means clear use-of-force standards that prioritize de-escalation, limits on dangerous tactics, mandatory body cameras and meaningful reporting and oversight.
That’s why Senator Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and I introduced the Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act of 2026, which would bring much-needed accountability and restraint to Trump’s ICE. It establishes new accountability, professionalism, and conduct requirements, like use-of-force standards and other common-sense measures. It’s a simple principle: enforce the law, but do it lawfully — and do it in a way that makes America safer, not angrier."
"Ethnic cleansing" is absolutely the correct language. Thank you for naming the goal and the person driving it. I've cross-posted to my list. It's that important. I also recommend this podcast episode published Monday about Stephen Miller https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/front-burner/id1439621628?i=1000746668137
I think you're exactly right, and that voters believe Democrats are just as beholden to their donors as Republicans, which is why democrats have an enthusiasm problem. Any move to the center now might be even worse than it was in the 90s. How do we get them to pay attention to us and not the searchlight folks?
I really think the second half of this piece is very wrong.
I fully agree with everything in the Searchlight memo you linked to. It accurately describes both the mistakes that brought us to where we stand now and what needs to change. If you disagree with the substance of the memo, it would be interesting to hear what you think it gets wrong.
Meanwhile, I either don't understand the alternative you're proposing or think it's a complete fantasy.
You wrote: "That Searchlight memo has clearly been read in the offices of Senate Democrats, who are dealing with intense demands from grassroots activists that they block any new funding for ICE and impeach and remove DHS Secretary Kristi Noem...If Senate Democrats use this package to justify voting for more DHS funding, there will be no clawback of the whopping $75 billion in extra funding ICE was granted through 2029 in the Big Bad Bill. People like Noem and Miller, who both called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” immediately after his murder, will face no accountability."
But how in the world do "grassroot activists" think they are going to achieve the goals of blocking ICE funding, impeaching and removing Kristi Noem (or Stephen Miller) and clawing back with a Republican controlled Senate, House, and Presidency still in place?
What is the actual plan? Is the idea to shut down the government until that is agreed to? Do you believe that shutting down the government with these demands is winning politics?
Yes, Gordon, Senate Dems have real leverage and shining a bright light on Miller's whole project moves the public in their direction. What's different here, compared to the fight Senate Dems chose to pick in September over health care, is that millions of people will come out into the streets to support them over demands like: Fire Miller, fire Noem, shrink ICE back to its pre-2025 size. The $75 billion that was appropriated to fatten ICE through 2029 includes $45 billion for concentration camps (polite people call them detention centers but these places will soon be like Abu Ghraib if ICE is allowed to keep managing them -- read this Newsweek piece with firsthand reports from women inside ICE's largest detention center now https://www.newsweek.com/women-inside-america-largest-ice-detention-center-camp-east-montana-11428121). Again, the key difference between now and last fall is the way the issue of ICE brutality is burning in people's hearts everywhere. I'm seeing local meetings and rallies taking off everywhere. Dems choosing to cut a deal now are being stupid and shortsighted; first build more power, then cut a deal that actually stops ICE for real.
"What's different here, compared to the fight Senate Dems chose to pick in September over health care, is that millions of people will come out into the streets to support them...Dems choosing to cut a deal now are being stupid and shortsighted; first build more power, then cut a deal that actually stops ICE for real."
I think this gets at the crux of our disagreement and what I don't understand. How does putting millions of people on the street "build power"? The height of street protests in America were the Vietnam years, and it ended not with power but with Richard Nixon elected twice.
I've been recommending this Substack to friends and family because I think it's central insight, that good political organizing is about leveraging relationships and not leaflets or texts or mail or TV, is spot on. And I fully agree that the Democratic Party needs to incorporate that insight into how it organizes itself.
At the same time, what I find frustrating is what I think is a lack of recognition that this kind of organizing will ultimately only succeed by leveraging relationships to get folks in the middle to vote for Democrats. The idea that there is a some pool of voters on the left that is waiting to be mobilized is a fantasy. Mamdani is a genuine political talent, his opponents were god awful, the race was in NYC, and he still barely reached 50% of the vote.
Putting in this a separate comment to avoid making the previous one too long and to make it possible to make a conversation about immigration specifically a different thread. But here is my take:
Immigration is genuinely a tough issue for Democrats (I think the best short explanation for why can be found in these two Josh Barro pieces:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/opinion/democrats-immigration-trump.html
https://www.joshbarro.com/p/democrats-need-to-re-learn-the-valid ), and I believe the Searchlight memo you linked to does a great job of trying to make policy in light of those challenges. It's a political approach aimed at both stopping the abuses of ICE and also delivering on an approach to immigration that will resonate with most Americans.
So when you use it as an example of bad advice for the Democratic Party, it makes me skeptical of your theory of power. The polling for Trump on immigration is terrible right now because ICE is creating chaos (https://www.calmdownben.com/p/there-are-no-statues-for-the-whistle). But that's not going to on indefinitely.
Is there really anything you actually disagree with in these paragraphs from the Searchlight memo (or what they then go on to recommend)?
"In confronting this broken system, the Trump Administration sidestepped Congress and instead weaponized immigration enforcement, pushing ICE and CBP to take actions that are at odds with the rule of law—including refusing to identify themselves or their agencies in public and wearing masks, lying to judges about use of force, and routinely violating court orders.
In doing so, they are setting a trap for Democrats. Responding to this kind of
lawlessness by saying you want to “Abolish ICE” is exchanging one kind of lawlessness for another. It means that you support getting rid of the agency responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws, creating a lawless system where people who enter the country illegally can stay here indefinitely, leaving no agency charged with finding and removing them. This will, inevitably, incentivize others to come to the United States illegally. “Abolish ICE” is not some proxy for more humane immigration enforcement, or to change ICE’s culture to adhere to due process, or to impose accountability on rogue officers. It’s advocating for an extreme.
Unless you truly believe that the United States should not have an agency that enforces immigration and customs laws within our borders, and you want to increase illegal immigration, you should not say you want to abolish ICE.
Americans want and deserve enforcement, not cruelty. Most Americans believe that we need to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States, but they want that enforcement to be professional, humane, and effective. Despite Trump’s overall slide in popularity, public support for his immigration policies has been much more durable than support for other key sectors (such as his economic and trade policies), and polls continue to show that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle immigration policy. Even now, “Abolishing ICE” remains an unpopular proposition for most Americans.
ICE needs to be reformed, modernized, and professionalized. Many of the specific measures people often lump under the slogan “Abolish ICE” are both good policy and quite popular, such as banning the use of masks, ending performative immigration raids, and requiring strict adherence to due process rights. Figuring out how to enforce our laws in a way that builds trust with our communities is not a new proposition—in fact, Sir Robert Peel laid out the core principles of modern policing almost two centuries ago.
Chief among them were the ideas that the police need to garner the trust of the public and minimize the use of force in order to be effective. We need concrete reforms to ensure that ICE adheres to these core principles—not to get rid of it."