In the latest episode of political theater, Democrats find themselves tangled up in the ICE debate—a touchy subject that certainly stirs up emotions and sparks conversations. There’s a strategic warning echoing through the corridors of Democratic campaign headquarters: steer clear of the “abolish ICE” narrative. Wise words from some seasoned political operators suggest that rather than abolishing the agency tasked with immigration enforcement, Democrats should focus on reforms. These reformists urge making ICE more efficient and effective, a strategy reminiscent of putting new tires on a well-used, albeit vital, vehicle rather than junking it altogether.
The advice not only has the tone of common sense but also serves as a reality check—reminding everyone that President Trump hit a nerve among the electorate with his tough-on-immigration stance. This approach resonated broadly during his campaign, drawing on frustrations with perceived lapses in border control over previous administrations. It served him well then, and for the Democrats to ignore this fact now would be seen as a strategic blunder. In fact, some might say proposing to abolish ICE is akin to voluntarily walking into a political gopher hole, a place better avoided if winning a chunk of the middle-American vote is on the agenda.
Now, attitudes towards ICE aren’t the sole possession of any one political ideology. A public hearing organized by House Democrats in St. Paul produced predictable bouts of grandstanding, as detractors spewed the typical fiery rhetoric against ICE operations. However, the historical context provides an eye-opening twist: when previous administrations handled similar aspects of immigration enforcement, there wasn’t the same level of dramatic public outcry. It’s a political double standard as predictable as the sun rising—harsh criticisms reserved only for specific tenants of the White House, no matter the actions of their predecessors.
Things get downright theatrical when the Democratic National Committee chair compares the actions of ICE under Trump with Iran’s regime. Here’s where it feels like the headline-grabbing statements cross into the territory of implausible hyperbole. Iran, as commenters note, is in a league of its own concerning repression. This comparison only fuels the fire of conservative commentators, who find joy in highlighting the absurdity. Referencing a violent regime when attacking the enforcement of democratically passed laws surely wins no points with undecided voters who might still harbor warm memories of international laws imposing real consequences on rogue states.
Meanwhile, politicians left and right keep playing, rewriting rules as if conducting some experimental law enforcement ballet. Case in point: Minneapolis’s Mayor Jacob Fry, initially sounding as though he were auditioning for a role as a hardliner against ICE, later struck a surprisingly different tone, calling for peace amid protests. Yet, watching close as the news plays out, even political allies can be seen raising their brows when the conversation swings toward defying federal law openly. It’s a mixed message, emblematic of the kind of political posturing and inconsistency that sends voters’ heads spinning faster than a roller coaster at a county fair.
In all, the saga of ICE amidst midterm elections seems less an issue of performance and more a spectacle about what will stick politically, and what might slide off like water on a duck’s back. Democrats facing this tightrope walk would do well to heed the veterans cautioning reform over abolishment. After all, public perception is the real battleground, and in this arena, baseless comparisons and knee-jerk reactions lead to a sort of political theater that’s as confusing as it is entertaining.
