‘Proud Anchor Baby’ Congresswoman Introduces Bill to Abolish ICE

United States Capitol building under a blue sky — Photo: W. Scott McGill / Shutterstock

A sitting Homeland Security subcommittee leader just introduced a bill to abolish the very department she helps oversee—and to scrap two frontline immigration agencies with it.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Delia Ramirez unveiled the Reimagining Safety Act to dismantle Homeland Security and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
The plan would shift billions to local services and create a new community-centered federal department.
Technology and disaster units would move or remain elsewhere, including cyber security and emergency management functions.
Republican and Trump officials warn abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement would endanger public safety.

What Ramirez Proposed, In Plain Terms

Rep. Delia C. Ramirez announced the Reimagining Safety Act in Chicago. The bill would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, and redirect funding into social services and community safety programs, while forming a new human-centered department. Ramirez framed the plan as a reset from punishment to prevention. She argued the current system “terrorizes” immigrants and harms trust between families and police, and said communities need housing, mental health care, and jobs more than immigration raids.

Reporters and advocates at the rollout highlighted a large reinvestment promise, with one outlet citing a $150 billion shift to communities. Ramirez’s team also described a bureaucratic reshuffle that would keep or relocate key pieces once under Homeland Security. Reporting indicates cyber security, disaster response, transportation screening, and some customs functions could shift to other agencies or stay intact under new management. Her office had not released full bill text at the time of initial coverage, a reminder that details on authorities, timelines, and staffing still matter for any verdict.

The Public Safety Stakes That Will Decide This Fight

Ramirez’s core bet is simple: move dollars from enforcement to prevention and trust will rise, crime will fall, and compliance will improve. Research on interior enforcement supports part of that case. Studies of the Secure Communities program found crime reporting by Hispanic victims dropped, and victimization rose for Hispanic residents after enforcement expanded. A 2024 research brief also found higher enforcement correlated with a 16 percent rise in Hispanic victimization, which raises flags about unintended harm. Those findings help explain why reformers lean into a prevention-first model.

Conservatives and many local sheriffs see a different map. They argue Immigration and Customs Enforcement handles the hard jobs that local police need help with: removing criminal noncitizens, disrupting cross-border crime, combatting human trafficking, and tracking missing migrant children. They warn abolition would cut that lifeline and leave dangerous offenders in communities longer. From that vantage point, dismantling a federal partner without a proven replacement plan looks reckless. The prudent path, they say, is fix what is broken, do not blow it up.

Can You Abolish an Agency Without Abolishing Its Work?

The debate now turns on function, not label. Past proposals to “abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement” often reassign tasks to other agencies. The Brennan Center points out that even if one agency closes, other parts of the government will still handle gang, drug, and human trafficking investigations, as well as removals ordered by courts. That model asks: could a new structure separate immigration services, border management, and serious-crime investigations in a way that boosts trust and keeps predators off the street? That is the test Ramirez must pass.

Political headwinds are real. Some Democrats distance themselves from “abolish” branding and say there is a role for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, echoing voters who back both humane treatment and firm enforcement. For conservatives focused on rule of law, the hierarchy is clear: sovereignty, safety, then services. Any plan that guts interior enforcement must prove, in numbers not slogans, that crime does not rise, removals of violent offenders do not stall, and local police do not get stranded. Common sense says show the blueprint, the budget, and the backup plan before you swing the wrecking ball.