Democrats split over 'Abolish ICE' slogan ahead of elections

WASHINGTON — A growing rift within the Democratic Party over the "Abolish ICE" movement is intensifying as candidates grapple with the future of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The recent fatal shootings of two Americans by federal agents have fueled a bipartisan backlash against Trump administration immigration policies, prompting some Democrats to revive calls for the agency’s elimination.

Progressive candidates, including Melat Kiros of Colorado, argue that ICE’s controversial tactics and its role in mass deportations have made the agency beyond reform. These advocates contend that the organization must be completely dismantled.

Moderates within the party remain wary of the slogan, fearing it is politically ineffective in competitive districts where they must appeal to a broader range of voters.

Jonathan Cowan, president of the organization Third Way, said the core challenge is turning public anger into specific policy changes.

The debate is currently sharpest in Democratic primaries and in states with high levels of immigration enforcement, including California, New York, and Illinois.

Some party members have proposed more targeted reforms as an alternative to total abolition. These proposals include requiring body cameras for all ICE officers or shifting the rhetoric to focus on "defunding" or "reorganizing" the agency.

The "Abolish ICE" movement has evolved into a high-stakes litmus test for the Democratic Party, exposing a fundamental strategic divide as it seeks to counter the legacy of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda. For the party’s progressive wing, the slogan serves as a vital tool for base mobilization, offering a moral rebuke to the agency that has become the primary symbol of aggressive enforcement.

However, for party centrists, the rhetoric carries significant political liability. Moderates fear the "abolish" framing allows the GOP to paint the party as supporting an "open borders" platform, a narrative that risks alienating the independent and middle-of-the-road voters necessary to carry swing states. The debate effectively highlights a broader identity crisis: whether the path to power lies in energizing the activist left or securing the political center.

The tactical nuance in terminology—shifting between "abolish," "dismantle," and "reform"—is more than a matter of semantics; it is a calculation of electoral reach. While "abolish" functions as a revolutionary call to action for the base, "reform" offers a pragmatic, policy-oriented path designed for general election appeal. Ultimately, this internal pressure is likely to force a comprehensive re-evaluation of the mandate and authorities governing federal immigration enforcement—a shift with direct consequences for millions of people within the U.S. immigration system.

The debate over whether to abolish or reform ICE strikes at the heart of the Vietnamese-American experience. Fears of raids and deportations are a stark reality, especially for undocumented residents and pre-1995 refugees with past criminal convictions. Throughout Little Saigon and beyond, the lifeblood of the community—from the nail salon industry to family-owned phở restaurants—remains on edge due to the threat of workplace enforcement.

This issue has also highlighted a clear generational divide. For many younger, more progressive Vietnamese-Americans, "Abolish ICE" serves as a rallying cry for social justice and civil rights. Conversely, older or more conservative members of the community often view such a stance as an extreme threat to the rule of law and national stability. Ultimately, the resolution of this political debate will determine the security and peace of mind for families across the diaspora.