Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Democrats should make major changes to ICE, potentially replacing it with more accountable institutions, because its enforcement practices have damaged public trust and can inflict severe harm on families and communities. Advocates argue that a party committed to due process, humane treatment and equal protection should not defend an agency they see as structurally prone to abuse simply because border security is politically sensitive.

The case against

Democrats should resist calls to abolish ICE and instead pursue targeted reforms, clear oversight and lawful operational standards. Advocates argue that the public reasonably expects the government to enforce immigration law, address serious criminal conduct and manage removals, and that eliminating the agency without a credible replacement could weaken confidence in both border security and immigration reform.