Proud Anchor Baby Congresswoman Introduces Bill to Abolish ICE

United States Capitol dome against clear blue sky — Photo: MDart10 / Shutterstock

A sitting Homeland Security subcommittee leader just proposed abolishing the very department she helps oversee—and replacing it with a new “community safety” agency built from scratch.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Delia Ramirez unveiled the Reimagining Safety Act in Chicago.
The bill would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
Funding would shift to social services and local “collective safety” programs.
Republican critics warn this would weaken crime-fighting and interior enforcement.

What Ramirez Put On The Table

Rep. Delia Ramirez introduced the Reimagining Safety Act and said it would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, and redirect their budgets to community safety, social services, and a new “human- and community-centered” department. Her office framed the move as shifting away from surveillance and detention toward prevention and care. Local outlets reported the plan as a sweeping overhaul, not a tune-up or narrow reform.

The proposal aims to keep some emergency and cyber functions by moving them elsewhere. Reporting described a plan to relocate the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, while customs functions and airport screening would shift to other federal homes. This is a structural tear-down paired with a rebuild. It is less “defund and walk away,” more “break apart and redistribute parts with a new center.”

The Money And The Promise

Coverage highlighted a large promised reinvestment into communities if Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection go away, with one report citing estimates that the bill would route tens of billions toward housing, mental health, youth jobs, and violence prevention. Ramirez and allies argue that safety grows when people trust police and have stable homes, not when agents focus on interior sweeps. The bill’s pitch uses a simple bet: prevention outperforms detention over time.

Supporters also lean on research that questions whether tougher interior enforcement cuts crime. Several studies find little change in crime rates when local-federal enforcement agreements expand, while some evidence shows lower crime reporting by Hispanic victims and higher victimization in those periods. One summary finds victimization of Hispanic people rose after a major interior program expanded, likely because fear kept victims from calling police. That research base fuels the claim that trust, not raids, is the better safety engine.

Why The Backlash Landed Fast

Republican leaders and Trump administration officials blasted the idea. They argue that abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement would cripple efforts to remove criminal noncitizens, investigate cross-border crime, fight trafficking, and partner with sheriffs and police on dangerous cases. From a conservative view, government’s first duty is to protect citizens. Pulling the main interior enforcement tool without a proven replacement looks like wishful thinking, not reform. That critique hits hardest in cities already strained by migrant surges.

Even some Democrats have kept distance from the “abolish” frame. One member told Politico he does not support abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and believes there is a role for the agency. That signals a real split: activists push for a clean break, while swing-district members want fixes without pulling the plug. Voters hear two stories—one about dignity and prevention, one about removing predators—and they care which one keeps their families safe fastest.

The Practical Hurdles Ahead

Turning this blueprint into working law would be hard. Congress would need to unwind the Department of Homeland Security, stand up a new department, and reassign border, customs, and transport screening across the federal map. Agencies do not move like furniture. Missions, data systems, unions, and cross-border agreements all must realign. Past scholarship warns that reorganization alone does not fix detention or due process problems, which often stem from policy choices, not org charts.

The decisive test is operational. Can a new model catch cartel smugglers, remove repeat violent offenders, and track child exploitation networks at least as well as today’s system—while also boosting trust so victims call sooner? Conservatives will demand clear chains of command, measurable removals of serious offenders, and strong cooperation with local police. If the plan cannot show that on paper and in practice, it will stall on arrival. If it can, the politics might change faster than experts expect.