Dems’ 10 Demands: ICE CRIPPLED!

>> Continued From the Previous Page <<

At the top of the list is a demand to end what Democrats label “indiscriminate arrests.” Under the proposal, ICE agents would be required to confirm that a suspect is not a U.S. citizen before making a detention—even when agents already possess administrative warrants issued by immigration judges.

Mask Bans, Identity Requirements, and Sensitive Location Restrictions

Democrats also want to ban face coverings for ICE agents during operations. Agents would be required to display their names and badge numbers at all times and verbally identify themselves upon request.

Another provision would sharply limit where ICE can operate. Immigration enforcement would be barred near hospitals, schools, churches, polling places, and courts unless agents obtain judicial warrants.

Private property is also addressed. Democrats want to prohibit ICE from entering such locations without judicial warrants, dismissing the authority of administrative warrants issued by immigration judges.

Expanded Use-of-Force Rules and Local Control

The proposal accuses ICE agents of racial profiling, alleging enforcement decisions are based on language, accent, race, or ethnicity. Democrats insist future actions be grounded solely in prior evidence.

They also call for expanded use-of-force policies, including mandatory removal of agents from field duty following any incident pending investigation.

State and local governments would gain new oversight powers, including the ability to investigate and prosecute federal agents for alleged misconduct. Perhaps most striking, ICE would need state or local consent before conducting large-scale enforcement operations outside of narrowly targeted actions.

Body Cameras—With Strings Attached

Democrats support mandatory body cameras for ICE agents during public interactions. However, they also prohibit agents from tracking or maintaining databases on individuals involved in First Amendment activities.

The list further demands that ICE abandon what Democrats describe as “paramilitary” equipment and adopt a softer, more civilian appearance.

The final demands are openly political: the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and a full drawdown of ICE operations in Minnesota.

Republicans See a Strategy, Not Reform

Senator Lindsey Graham immediately recognized what Democrats were attempting. The South Carolina Republican secured a commitment from Senate Majority Leader John Thune to hold a vote on legislation that would end sanctuary cities by criminalizing willful violations of federal immigration law by state and local officials.

While Graham acknowledged Democrats “have some good ideas,” he made clear his priority is confronting jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE.

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt was even more direct, accusing Democrats of trying to “kneecap law enforcement and stop deportations.”

Sanctuary Cities Gain Veto Power Under Democratic Plan

Republicans point to the state and local consent requirement as proof of Democratic intent. In Minnesota, that would mean ICE needing approval from Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.

This is the same governor who celebrated “Renee Good Day” following an ICE-related shooting, and the same mayor who told ICE to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”

Across the country, twelve states now maintain sanctuary policies that obstruct federal immigration enforcement. Democrats spent years building this infrastructure. Their new proposal would give those jurisdictions formal authority to block ICE operations altogether.

The Warrant Trap

The warrant requirement is another sticking point. Democrats insist on judicial warrants rather than administrative warrants issued by immigration judges.

Republicans argue this would cause massive delays and undermine enforcement even when ICE already knows an individual is in the country illegally.

Speaker Mike Johnson summarized the problem succinctly.

“They want to add an entirely new layer of warrant requirement,” Johnson said.
“They want to have a judicial warrant on top of the immigration judge warrant. And we can’t do that.”

Why “Sensitive Locations” Become De Facto Sanctuaries

The so-called sensitive locations ban appears reasonable on its surface. But critics warn it would turn large swaths of cities into safe zones.

Illegal immigrants already understand how sanctuary rules work. Concentrating near protected areas would effectively shield them from enforcement, creating mobile sanctuaries wherever they go.

This is not a new tactic—it’s an expansion of a strategy Democrats have relied on for years.

Sanctuary Policies Have a Track Record—and It’s Not Pretty

California’s SB 54 turned the entire state into a sanctuary jurisdiction in 2017. Illinois followed by barring arrests based solely on immigration status.

In New York, an illegal immigrant assaulted a victim with a machete and attacked police officers. ICE sent a detainer and said agents would arrive in 78 minutes. Instead of waiting, Tompkins County released him.

That is sanctuary policy in action.

Some jurisdictions quietly reversed course in 2024 after public outrage over repeat offenders. Montgomery County, Maryland, began giving ICE 48 hours’ notice before releases. Baltimore County followed suit.

Even acting ICE Director P.J. Lechleitner admitted some cities resumed cooperation after released offenders committed new crimes.

Minneapolis Tragedies Reveal the Real Problem

The Minneapolis shootings that triggered this debate underscore the consequences of non-cooperation.

Renee Good was shot January 7 during an immigration operation. Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, was killed January 24 while filming federal agents. Both were American citizens. Both deaths were tragic.

What Democrats omit is that Minneapolis police were not providing crowd control during ICE operations. Sanctuary policies kept local law enforcement away, leaving federal agents isolated in hostile environments.

That vacuum led directly to chaotic street confrontations.

Stephen A. Smith, hardly a Trump ally, said the quiet part out loud.

“The question is, why has that cooperation not existed?” Smith asked.
“Either Trump is engaging in a whole bunch of stuff that is considered unconstitutional, or the local and state officials in sanctuary cities specifically are being impediments to laws being executed and exercised.”

The Real Endgame

President Trump acknowledged adjustments were needed, telling NBC News, “maybe we can use a little bit of a softer touch.” Border czar Tom Homan pulled 700 agents from Minneapolis, and Secretary Noem ordered body cameras.

But Democrats want far more than reform. They want ICE unable to function in blue states.

Their demands would expose agents to criminal penalties, require identification in hostile crowds, and force federal officers to seek permission from officials who have openly compared them to Nazis.

Republicans see the strategy clearly: a two-tier immigration system—strict enforcement in red states, sanctuary by design in blue ones.

With the DHS funding deadline looming on February 13, Democrats are threatening another shutdown. Schumer claims Republicans are blocking “common-sense reforms.”

Republicans know better. These aren’t reforms. They are restrictions designed to make immigration enforcement impossible where Democrats hold power.

One side is going to lose this fight—and voters will remember who stood for the rule of law.