By Douglas V. Gibbs
Senate Democrats have outlined specific demands regarding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, primarily focused on reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following fatal shootings and street violence between agitators and ICE agents in Minneapolis. Their demands include:
- A prohibition on federal agents wearing masks during immigration enforcement operations.
- Implementation of a code of conduct for federal agents involved in immigration enforcement.
- Independent investigations of violations by federal agents.
- “Real reforms” to ICE operations before voting for the spending bill.
- Five “non-negotiable” items to be included in the bill, the details of which have not yet been made public.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated that Democrats will not provide the votes necessary to advance the DHS appropriations measure without these reforms, and has demanded that the bill be given “a rewrite” and considered separately from other funding measures. The Democrats have indicated they are willing to pass the other five spending bills that fund departments including labor.
The standoff increases the likelihood of a partial government shutdown as the funding deadline approaches, with Senate Republicans attempting to advance all six bills as a package. Even if the other five bills are passed, and the one the Democrats are standing firm against, the partial shutdown could negatively affect federal funding of important operations including Transportation, Education, Department of War, Treasury, State Department, Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Within DHS, a loss of funds would also negatively affect FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which would negatively influence air flights as we saw last November. Some reports indicate that Senate Democrats are considering a short-term funding measure for DHS to allow time for negotiations on their proposed reforms, but the other departments and agencies affected by the bill may still face shutdown.
Senate Democrats are leveraging their opposition to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill to demand significant restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, but the Democratic position faces practical limitations since immigration agencies have already received substantial funding through previous appropriations like through the One Big Beautiful Bill, including the $64.4 billion allocated to DHS with $10 billion specifically for ICE. The White House has rejected tying these reforms to the current funding negotiations, making the Democratic demands largely symbolic since ICE would continue operating regardless of the outcome of this specific funding battle.
The request to prohibit agents from wearing masks would be particularly dangerous. Without masks, their identity becomes available for all to see, and considering how violent anti-ICE operatives have become, including hunting them down at hotels where they are staying, removing their masks also places their families at risk and opens up the opportunity for the anti-ICE activists to attack the homes and neighborhoods of the ICE agents. Mandating body cameras is not only fine, but a recommended action that should be supported by both sides. The POV of the ICE agent would minimize the misinterpretation of confrontations by providing more video context. It took additional videos, for example, to disprove the false information being provided by the media regarding Renee Good, and the shooting of Pretti. The call for coordination with local authorities and a code of conduct is backwards. The law already requires coordination, and federal agents already have a federal code of conduct they are required to follow. The recommendation is an attempt to allow outside agencies or groups to dictate the actions of federal agents, and force the agents to follow the lead of local demands in the name of “coordination.” Sanctuary Laws prohibit coordination from the other direction, but they demand it from theirs. You can’t have it both ways. What the Democrats are calling for is that local authorities set the limitations and that ICE must follow those demands – a violation of the Constitution since immigration laws which are made in pursuance of the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. Regarding investigations of alleged violations by federal agents by independent investigators, I believe a compromise ought to be reached on that one – a joint investigation with independent investigators and federal investigators working together.
In an interesting twist in the story, the Democrats stood against increased state authority regarding immigration law in 2010 under the Obama administration. Arizona SB 1070 was a state immigration law that sought to expand state and local authority to enforce federal immigration laws rather than giving all authority to the federal government. The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act required Arizona law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of anyone they had “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally during routine stops. This law essentially mandated state-level enforcement of federal immigration statutes, creating new state immigration-related crimes and broadening the authority of local law enforcement.
The Obama administration challenged this law in court, arguing that immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal responsibility, and that states could not interfere in immigration enforcement in any way, citing the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court struck down three key provisions of SB 1070 but upheld the “reasonable suspicion” clause, though its implementation has been limited by subsequent court challenges and injunctions.
The irony is thick in today’s political landscape. Democrats who once argued against state enforcement of immigration laws are now facing a situation where the federal government under the current administration has dramatically increased immigration enforcement through the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which provided unprecedented funding for federal immigration agencies. In a complete reversal of their position during the Obama administration, Democrats are demanding reforms to “rein in ICE” and limit federal enforcement powers. This creates a situation where the same party that once fought to keep immigration enforcement exclusively at the federal level is now trying to limit that very federal authority they previously defended.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Well I guess my opinion is, if the Dems can “demand” that ICE agents not wear masks perhaps that should go both ways. Any “peaceful” protester wearing a mask, be it a cloth or a real gas mask, should be considered as someone not peacefully protesting. Any one attending a “peaceful” protest should be showing their faces also. But perhaps they are afraid of their identity being shown for public scrutinty?
It to me just shows how the Dems/left seem to show more everyday how they will just throw a tantrum against anything the current administration does, while seeming to forget what “their” administration did on the same issues. And correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Obama administration deport a lot higher number of illegal immigrants than Trump has?