'Abolish ICE' Is Not a Plan. It’s an Irresponsible Gamble With Public Safety.

My daughter Katie was 20 years old when she was killed on January 19, 2025, in Urbana, Illinois.

She was visiting friends at the University of Illinois, sitting in the back seat of a car stopped at a red light.

An intoxicated illegal immigrant slammed into that vehicle at nearly 80 miles per hour.

Two young women died. Three others were seriously injured.

For politicians, immigration policy can be a talking point.

For my family, it became a grave.

Katie was not a statistic in an immigration debate.

She was on the other side of the ledger.

That's why when I hear politicians, activists and partisan voices demand the abolition of ICE, I don't hear a solution. I hear a question:

Then what?

What comes next when you dismantle a federal law-enforcement agency? Who assumes its responsibilities?

Language this reckless needs to be precise.

You don't dismantle a federal law-enforcement agency and leave the consequences for someone else to figure out.

That's not a plan. It's an irresponsible gamble with public safety.

Before we abolish anything, we should understand what we are actually proposing to dismantle. Much of the rhetoric surrounding ICE treats it as though its sole purpose is deportation.

It isn't.

ICE is involved in both immigration enforcement and criminal investigations involving transnational crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, violent gangs, child exploitation and national-security threats.

That matters because “abolish ICE” is a sweeping demand to dismantle an institution with responsibilities extending well beyond removals.

But there is another fundamental problem with this debate: ICE is downstream of policy.

ICE did not create the immigration policies it is now being asked to enforce. Politicians and policymakers make decisions about border security, enforcement, detention, release, vetting and cooperation between federal, state and local authorities.

Those decisions create conditions.

Then ICE is asked to deal with the consequences.

If you want to question ICE, start with the politicians behind the pen, the people who created the policies ICE is now being asked to enforce.

And here's where the argument becomes incoherent.

Some of the same political voices that helped write, defend or enable these policies are now demanding that the laws not be enforced, or that the agency responsible for enforcing them be abolished.

You cannot write the rules and then declare the rules illegitimate when someone actually follows them.

If you believe a law is wrong, change it through the legislative process. If you believe an enforcement action is unlawful, challenge it in court. If an officer or agency violates the law, hold them accountable.

But the same standard must apply to the people behind the pen.

If policymakers make decisions that foreseeably contribute to lawlessness, disorder or conditions that can lead to death and destruction, they have a responsibility to answer for the consequences. That is not assigning them legal responsibility for every individual act that follows. It is holding policymakers accountable for the foreseeable consequences of the choices they make.

The contrast between the Biden and Trump administrations makes this especially clear. They pursued fundamentally different approaches to immigration enforcement. Under President Trump, enforcement priorities shifted toward restoring enforcement and addressing the consequences left behind.

That doesn't mean every action by either administration was right. It means we should debate which policies work, rather than pretending enforcement itself is the problem.

Those who supported policies that contributed to disorder do not get to oppose the cleanup and then claim the moral high ground when the cleanup gets difficult.

And there is an inconvenient truth about government:

Back-end cleanup is almost always harder than getting the front-end process right.

We've seen this political instinct before.

First came “Defund the Police.”

Now comes “Abolish ICE.”

Different institutions, but a familiar instinct: discredit the institution, demonize the people doing the work, restrict their ability to operate, and then point to the resulting problems as evidence that the institution itself is the problem.

Accountability is necessary. Misconduct should be investigated. Bad tactics should be challenged.

But accountability is not delegitimization.

Which brings me to another favorite word: “tactics.”

We hear constantly about ICE tactics.

Fine. Let's talk about tactics.

Some of the most consequential tactics don't happen on the street at all.

They happen quietly, in policy decisions, enforcement priorities, selective application of the law, weakened safeguards and decisions to look the other way.

Those tactics may never make the evening news. They may never go viral. But they can do far more damage than the single enforcement action being amplified today.

And there are other tactics we cannot ignore. Individuals make choices, too. Some exploit weaknesses in the system, disregard the law or engage in reckless and criminal behavior that can bring extraordinary agony to ordinary Americans. Criminal organizations exploit those same weaknesses on an even larger scale.

Those choices have consequences, too.

Yet too often, we scrutinize the tactics of the people cleaning up the mess while barely examining the tactics that helped create it, or the people who exploited it.

That's backward.

We should examine the entire chain.

What policies created the conditions? Who exploited them? What did those choices produce? And who ultimately paid the price?

There is another question the media should be asking.

If someone says “Abolish ICE,” ask:

“What replaces it?”

Not someday. Not eventually.

What replaces it when the work needs to be done tomorrow?

Who investigates criminal organizations operating across borders? Who disrupts trafficking networks? Who pursues foreign fugitives? Who handles immigration enforcement? Who removes people who have no legal right to remain here?

If those responsibilities are transferred, tell us where they go and how they will be handled.

If government says its policies are working, show us the data.

How many entered? How many were apprehended? How many were released? How many were removed? How many had criminal histories? What were the outcomes? What were the unintended consequences?

And if the claim is that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, show us that data, too.

Collect it. Standardize it. Make it transparent.

If the data support the claim, those making it should be the first ones demanding that the public see it.

Facts should not be hidden because they are inconvenient to either side.

The press should be an aggressive watchdog, not a political lapdog, and not only when the other party controls the White House.

Follow the policy. Follow the data. Follow the consequences.

Follow the whole story.

Ultimately, this isn't just about ICE. It is about responsible government.

Before you change immigration policy, know the consequences. Before you abolish an agency, know what it does and what fills the void.

Because the people holding the pen may never set foot on the street where the consequences unfold.

That doesn't mean their policies don't reach it.

Katie's death taught me that policies have consequences long after the people who write them have moved on to the next political argument.

So when I hear “abolish ICE,” I keep coming back to the same question:

Then what?

What if eliminating or weakening ICE means removing one of the federal government's tools to identify dangerous people, disrupt criminal organizations, enforce immigration law and help prevent future victims?

What if the next victim is another 20-year-old sitting at a red light?

We should know the answer before we tear anything down.

Katie was on the other side of the ledger.

The question is whether our policies will help keep the next Katie from ever getting there.

“Abolish ICE” is not a plan.

If there is no serious answer to “then what?”, it is an irresponsible gamble with public safety.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left's lies, new legislation wasn't needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Help us continue to report the truth about the president's border policies and mass deportations. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.