New Jersey Democrats Face Backlash Over Controversially Named Immigration Bill

Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey have sparked controversy with their latest legislative effort to restrict federal immigration enforcement, introducing a bill with a deliberately provocative acronym that has drawn sharp criticism from Republican colleagues.

The “Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act,” or F—ICE Act when spelled out in practice, would allow New Jersey residents to pursue civil action for alleged constitutional violations related to immigration enforcement. The legislation emerged following a confrontation between federal agents and local officials in Jersey City.

The incident that triggered the legislative response occurred earlier this month when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents reportedly detained nearly a dozen individuals on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail in Jersey City. Jake Ephros, a Democratic Socialist councilman who arrived at the scene, was reportedly told by a federal agent, “I don’t need a warrant, bro,” when questioning the detention.

Democratic Assembly members Ravi Bhalla and Katie Brennan from Hoboken crafted the controversial bill in direct response to this encounter. Bhalla, who previously served as Hoboken’s mayor, has a history of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, having enacted a sanctuary city ordinance during his mayoral tenure.

“ICE has no place in our communities,” Bhalla stated. “Now, the stakes are even higher, and it is incumbent on all of us to use the power we have to keep our residents safe.”

Brennan defended the legislation and its provocative name, explaining she couldn’t “sit back and do nothing while they violate people’s constitutional rights.” When responding to criticism about the acronym being “unbecoming” and “unladylike,” Brennan noted that fellow Democrat State Senator Raj Mukherji had actually suggested the controversial name.

The bill is part of a larger package of legislation aimed at restricting New Jersey’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Mukherji has publicly claimed that ICE has sown “seeds of chaos” throughout the country, reflecting the sentiment driving these legislative efforts.

Republican lawmakers across the state have voiced strong opposition to both the bill’s title and its substance. Assemblyman Michael Inganamort from Chester commented on social media, “This sort of radicalism is the inevitable result of an unchecked, 25-year Democratic Majority. It’s what our Republican Minority stands against and why elections matter.”

Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia from Sussex County called the bill’s title “wild” and its premise “wilder,” suggesting it would create a pathway for people who entered the country illegally to sue over enforcement actions. She expressed concern that New Jersey taxpayers would ultimately bear the financial burden of resulting litigation.

Other Republican lawmakers took a more direct approach in their criticism. Assemblyman Paul Kanitra of Point Pleasant Beach suggested the bill should be rejected on the grounds of vulgarity, comparing it to offensive license plates that are denied or repossessed by the state’s DMV.

The controversy underscores the growing tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement. New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill has already taken executive action on this front, signing Executive Order 12 early in her administration, which restricts ICE activities on state property and creates a reporting system for residents to document immigration enforcement in their communities.

“I take seriously my responsibility to keep New Jersey residents safe and, as a Navy veteran and former federal prosecutor, my commitment to upholding the Constitution will never waver,” Sherrill stated when implementing the order.

The F—ICE Act represents the latest chapter in an ongoing national debate about the role of state and local governments in immigration enforcement, with New Jersey positioning itself as one of the more aggressive states in challenging federal authority on this issue. As the bill moves through the legislative process, it will likely continue to generate heated debate between those who view it as necessary protection for immigrant communities and those who see it as an inappropriate obstruction of federal law enforcement.