On January 30, as I walked down McCosh Walk toward Sherrerd Hall, I heard a multitude of voices chanting, “Free, free Palestine!” I had learned earlier in the week that an “ICE Out” protest would be taking place, but I assumed the frigid temperature would discourage attendance. Yet, as I approached the protestors, I realized their distaste for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) trumped their desire for warmth. Over 300 protestors were in attendance, including numerous students and members of the broader Princeton community. It struck me as odd that the first chant I heard concerned the Middle East rather than ICE, but soon the protestors turned to the issue that motivated their gathering. They chanted, “Hey, hey, … ho, ho, … ICE terrorists have got to go!” Other chants included “We want freedom, all these fascists we don’t need them” and “1, 2, 3, 4, ICE terror no more, 5, 6, 7, 8, we don’t want a fascist state!”
Except for the peculiar presence of a Harris-Walz campaign sign, the protestors’ posters and flags reflected the same sentiments as their chants: “Trumpism is Fascism,” “Abolish I.C.E.,” “Fuck Ice,” “ICE IS SCUM,” and “No More Terror.” As the son of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employee and a former co-worker to dozens of illegal immigrants, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to comment on this ‘ICE Out’ protest at our university.
It seems to me that the primary argument of the protest and the broader movement it belongs to is as follows: ICE is a fascist and/or terrorist organization, therefore we must abolish the agency. But is the premise true? ICE does not kill innocent civilians for the purpose of furthering a political end. It does not aim to racially homogenize America or establish an authoritarian regime. Rather, its mission is to enforce immigration laws and bolster our national security. I have often heard that not all illegal immigrants are criminals, yet 8 U.S. Code § 1325(a) classifies improper entry of a non-citizen as a criminal offense. Regardless of your stance on the issue, deportation qualifies as a legitimate act of law enforcement.
That is not to say, however, that ICE has been performing its responsibilities irreproachably. The deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good are tragedies. ICE has also mistaken U.S. citizens for illegal aliens, as in the case of Chongly Thao. Inexcusably poor training is partially to blame for such issues. Trump’s lofty deportation goals and inadequate staffing led to a massive hiring spree that offered prospective officers an enticing package, including a $50,000 bonus and partial student loan forgiveness. Training programs for these newly minted officers were ostensibly cut short, and many ICE officers and Border Patrol agents lack experience in crowd control and urban policing. Their poor training has been exacerbated by the refusal of local law enforcement to cooperate with federal officers. In Minneapolis, for instance, Mayor Jacob Frey declared during a December press conference that the city police “will not collaborate with any federal agency around doing immigration enforcement work.” Without the assistance of local law enforcement—who have experience in urban policing and crowd control—ICE agents are left to handle the chaos alone. Americans who actively provoke officers and interfere with ICE operations have made their job more difficult.
Abolishing ICE, though, is not the proper solution. Doing so would encourage illegal entry and enable illegal presence in the United States. Countries require controlled borders and the power to deport—at a bare minimum—illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds. We often hear stories of how ICE deports blameless community members, fathers, and hard-working employees, but we rarely hear about the violent criminals ICE has apprehended. To combat the narrative of the mainstream media, the DHS has released a website detailing the crimes of more than 25,000 deportees arrested by ICE under the Trump administration. The list of criminal profiles includes rapists, MS-13 gang members, ISIS affiliates, repeat murderers, and drug traffickers, among other contemptible persons. Without deportation, these foreign criminals would remain in the country. Although we could imprison them in the United States, should our taxpayers really be responsible for funding this initiative? In my home state of Massachusetts, the cost incurred per prisoner amounts to over $280,000 annually. In New Jersey, the cost runs over $130,000. In fact, more than half of the states spend over $50,000 per prisoner annually. I cannot fathom a sensible argument for why we should want violent non-citizen criminals to remain within our borders.
It follows, then, that we need an agency responsible for catching and deporting these foreign criminals. ICE is the agency charged with fulfilling this vital role. To address the aforementioned controversies surrounding ICE, we should not abolish the agency but focus on reform. We can productively debate the best way to conduct deportations, whether we should deport immigrants whose only crime was improper entry, and the kind of oversight ICE should be subjected to. The suggestion that we abolish the agency is nothing more than a radical proposal that would prove harmful if realized. Describing ICE as fascist or terrorist not only manipulates the meaning of language but also unduly demonizes the current administration, encouraging destructive political attitudes that already plague our nation.
Image Credit: Nicholas Vickery
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.