In the push to resolve this week’s partial government shutdown, Congressional Democrats are advocating for changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They argue these changes are crucial for reform.
Yet, some of their suggestions seem aimed at significantly reducing ICE’s power, potentially paving the way for a permanent open borders policy, which many voters opposed in the last presidential election.
This appears to be part of a broader strategy from the progressive wing of the party.
Historically, under Democratic leadership, there’s been an influx of economic immigrants into the U.S., coupled with significant resistance against federal enforcement. This created political pressure, resulting in a considerable decrease in immigration enforcement—something voters had actually supported.
The proposals from the Democrats include requiring judicial warrants for the arrest of undocumented immigrants, implementing a “no-mask policy” for ICE agents despite rising violence against them, and granting local officials more control over ICE’s operations.
All these ideas could potentially support the goal of mass amnesty, a key objective for proponents of open borders.
Take the warrant requirement, for example. In 2025, ICE detained about 600,000 undocumented immigrants, most based on administrative warrants from immigration judges within the Justice Department or Homeland Security.
However, immigration judges aren’t federal judges as defined by Article III of the Constitution; they operate in a separate system.
The federal courts, with their 94 district courts and about 677 judges (some positions still vacant), are already overwhelmed. If ICE continues its activities as it did in 2025, this bill could lead to more than 6,000 warrant applications each year, which would really overburden the judicial system.
Some former Homeland Security officials have suggested that, at least constitutionally, a judicial warrant from an Article III court is necessary for home arrests. But the clarity on this is lacking.
In a 1960 ruling, the Supreme Court legitimized administrative warrants for certain immigration enforcement actions, and in 2007, the Eighth Circuit upheld the use of these warrants for searching homes of fugitive prisoners.
The mask proposal also fits into a broader open borders agenda that targets ICE. I think most people wouldn’t want law enforcement officers wearing masks—it’s unsettling, to say the least.
But with violence erupting in the streets, those who oppose ICE have shown intentions to disrupt its operations through intimidation tactics and aggressive behavior.
Threats against ICE personnel have surged by 8,000% recently, with physical assaults up 1,300%. Reports indicate that cartels have even placed bounties of up to $50,000 on attacks against ICE agents.
In such an environment, masks may become essential for federal employees to safely carry out their duties.
Additionally, Democrats intend to empower state and local officials who criticize ICE as being oppressive, giving them the ability to veto ICE enforcement actions or to pursue civil and criminal actions against ICE agents.
However, a 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States affirmed that immigration falls solely under federal jurisdiction, making these requests legally ambiguous at best.
There is certainly room for constructive bipartisan reform, such as requiring body cameras for agents and more explicit guidelines on the use of force.
But it’s vital that reason flows both ways.
A lot of the violence we’ve seen lately, especially in Minnesota, has stemmed from local authorities overpowering law enforcement while rioters targeted federal agents.
Sanctuary policies essentially nullify federal laws, allowing local officials to dismiss what voters have approved at the federal level.
This cannot be allowed to stand; state and local leaders shouldn’t be able to negate federal immigration or civil rights laws based on local ideologies.
If local overrides become permissible based on such ideologies, we risk losing a unified approach.
There’s potential for sensible bipartisan solutions here. Reasonable oversight of ICE can be established without hindering its operations.
In exchange, Republicans would justifiably be able to reconsider federal funding for sanctuary cities unless they abandon their practices that threaten public safety and disregard voter intent.
