Listen to the article
Democratic Representative Maxine Dexter drew controversy during a weekend town hall in Oregon when she compared U.S. immigration enforcement actions to “terrorism” and vowed to dismantle Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if Democrats regain political power.
“The frank terrorism that is being invoked – when we call that out and stand together, I think people will continue to not want to do that work,” Dexter told attendees gathered at Wy’east Middle School. She added, “I’m not supposed to get political, but if there’s a change in political will, then we can absolutely dismantle and abolish ICE altogether.”
Dexter, a freshman progressive lawmaker, has emerged as a vocal critic of ICE operations amid growing tensions over immigration enforcement nationwide. Her comments come during a period of heightened scrutiny of the agency, particularly following two fatal shootings involving immigration officials in Minneapolis earlier this year.
The incidents in Minnesota catalyzed opposition among progressive Democrats to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding without significant reforms to ICE, which operates under the department’s umbrella. Dexter was among the first legislators to take a hard stance against DHS funding without such reforms.
What began as a position championed primarily by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and members like Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has gained broader support within the Democratic Party. The escalating dispute over ICE reforms has contributed to the ongoing partial government shutdown that began on February 14, when Senate Democrats blocked advancement of DHS funding legislation.
Democrats have articulated a list of ten specific reforms they want implemented at ICE. These include ending roaming patrols, prohibiting agents from wearing masks, requiring visible identification for officers, and imposing stricter warrant requirements for detaining undocumented immigrants in public spaces. If enacted, these changes would represent the most significant intervention into ICE operations since the agency’s formation in 2003.
Republicans have firmly rejected these proposals, arguing they would severely undermine the administration’s immigration enforcement capabilities. The standoff highlights the increasingly polarized perspectives on immigration policy and enforcement mechanisms within the United States.
The dispute occurs against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, which has intensified deportation efforts and enforcement actions nationwide. This has sparked protests in affected communities, particularly in urban centers with significant immigrant populations.
In Minneapolis, where the fatal shootings occurred, community activists have organized neighborhood alert systems, including using whistles to warn of ICE activity. These grassroots responses reflect the growing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local communities.
ICE’s operational practices have faced mounting criticism from progressive lawmakers and immigration advocates who argue that the agency’s tactics are often excessive and lack adequate oversight. Critics also contend that aggressive enforcement actions disrupt communities and separate families without addressing underlying immigration system issues.
Conversely, supporters of the agency maintain that robust enforcement is necessary for national security and upholding immigration laws. They view proposals to reform or dismantle ICE as undermining the rule of law and border security.
Dexter’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the nature of her remarks, including whether they represented a campaign promise or details about the town hall’s funding and organization.
As the partial government shutdown continues with no immediate resolution in sight, the debate over ICE’s future and the broader question of immigration enforcement approaches remains at the center of a contentious political battle between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Comparing immigration enforcement to ‘terrorism’ is inflammatory rhetoric that is unlikely to foster productive dialogue. While reforms may be warranted, such charged language is counterproductive.
I’m interested to see how Dexter’s proposals for reforming or replacing ICE are received. While bold, they may resonate with some constituents. Thoughtful debate on this complex issue is important.
This is a complex and politically charged issue. While I can appreciate Dexter’s concerns, it’s important to consider all sides and find solutions that balance security, compassion, and the rule of law.
I’m curious to hear more details on Dexter’s specific proposals for reforming or replacing ICE. Abolishing the agency entirely seems drastic, but there may be valid concerns that merit serious consideration.
Dexter’s comments reflect the deep divisions on immigration policy. While her concerns may have merit, the ‘terrorism’ label is counterproductive. Constructive dialogue is needed to find balanced solutions.
This is a complex issue without easy solutions. I appreciate Dexter’s passion, but ‘abolishing ICE’ is a radical proposal that deserves careful analysis of the implications and alternatives.
Interesting perspective from Rep. Dexter, though ‘terrorism’ is a strong word to use. Abolishing ICE is a bold proposal, but it’s unclear if it would address the underlying issues around immigration enforcement.
As an immigrant myself, I have mixed feelings about Dexter’s comments. While I understand the concerns, the ‘terrorism’ label seems hyperbolic. A more balanced approach is needed.
Dexter’s comments highlight the ongoing tensions around immigration policy. Reasonable people can disagree on the best approach. Hopefully this debate can lead to constructive reforms, not just political posturing.