California Democrats hope to push the incoming Congress and Biden administration to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the coming year with a new state bill.
Democratic lawmakers in the California Assembly and Senate introduced this week the Abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bill, a joint resolution that calls for the federal agency at the Department of Homeland Security to be shuttered. A state legislature does not have the legal ability to take apart a federal agency — only Congress has that authority. Two assemblymembers who spoke with the Washington Examiner believe Democrats in Washington are motivated to move on the liberal wish list item now.
“The only way we can move past the real damaging impact of ICE is to completely get rid of it and move on. I think with the Biden administration, there’s an opportunity to do that,” said Assemblyman Ash Kalra, one of 15 co-authors. “We’re calling on Congress to act in conjunction with the federal administration.”
“I am hopeful that President-elect Biden will take our plea very seriously and take immediate action to cease ICE’s actions and create a system that treats all immigrants with dignity and respect, more importantly, one that respects human rights,” Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia wrote in an email.
ICE investigates cross-border criminal enterprises, including drug cartels and human smugglers, as well as enforces immigration laws within the United States. It is the sole federal agency that deports immigrants.
The bill’s text states the agency “failed miserably in controlling and treating” the spread of the coronavirus in its detention facilities. ICE has released the majority of illegal immigrants who were in custody prior to the pandemic’s arrival earlier this year. As of mid-2019, more than 52,000 detainees were being held by ICE. As of Dec. 4, 16,377 people were in custody. More than 7,800 detainees have tested positive for the coronavirus, including 492 at present, according to ICE data.
It is not the first time that a state lawmaker has introduced legislation to get rid of ICE. In 2018, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a New York Democrat, unsuccessfully introduced a similar bill.
President-elect Joe Biden has not promised to close the federal agency but to bring more oversight following criticism during the Obama and Trump administrations of the responsibilities it is charged with and how it operates. The American Immigration Lawyers Association’s senior director of government relations, Greg Chen, said the bill reflects public concerns with the agency’s conduct over the past four years.
“This California bill echoes the concerns of many Americans about the inhumane, reckless and destructive enforcement policies of the Trump administration, many of which are already in the crosshairs of President-elect Biden who has specifically pledged more oversight of both ICE and Customs and Border Protection, more sensible enforcement priorities, and a halt to enforcement near churches, schools and other sensitive locations,” Chen wrote in an email.
State activity on immigration has increased over the past 15 years. More than 180 immigration-related laws were enacted in 2019, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. California led all other states with the most immigration bills.
The Bipartisan Policy Center think tank’s director of immigration and cross-border policy, Theresa Cardinal Brown, said this new endeavor is a long shot.
“Resolutions from state legislatures urging the federal government to do something have no force of effect,” Brown wrote in an email. “They are like a ‘sense of Congress’ resolution. It expresses an opinion and is a marker, but doesn’t have any legal effect.”
While the bill urges the federal government to shutter the agency, it does not specify who should be responsible for the laws that ICE’s 20,000 employees enforce. A similar effort in Congress was unsuccessfully attempted in 2018 by Rep. Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat. Democrats in California remain optimistic about their request.
“If ICE was a person, it wouldn’t even be old enough to vote yet,” said Kalra. “This is not a historic institution that dates back to the start of the country.”
