124 Democrats Introduce Bill Seeking to Restrict ICE Arrests, Prompting Fierce National Backlash

A new immigration proposal introduced in Congress has immediately ignited a political firestorm, after 124 House Democrats signed onto a bill aimed at sharply limiting the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. The legislation, which supporters call a “modernization” of federal enforcement practices, has been described by critics as a “desperate attempt to dismantle ICE authority.”

The bill, unveiled at a press conference on Capitol Hill, seeks to restrict ICE from conducting arrests in locations such as hospitals, schools, places of worship, and community centers—areas proponents refer to as “sensitive spaces.” It would also require ICE officers to obtain judicial warrants for most enforcement actions, something immigration officials have long argued would slow operations and compromise their ability to act quickly.

Democratic sponsors framed the proposal as a necessary response to what they describe as “over-policing” in immigrant communities. They argue that aggressive enforcement discourages undocumented residents from reporting crimes, accessing health care, or sending their children to school. One of the bill’s lead sponsors stated, “Our immigration system must protect public safety without terrorizing families who have lived here for years. This legislation restores dignity and limits abuses of power.”

The announcement was instantly met with pushback from Republicans, who blasted the measure as dangerous and irresponsible. Several GOP lawmakers warned that restricting ICE’s authority would encourage illegal immigration and undermine public safety at a time when the southern border remains a top national concern. One Republican congressman declared that the proposal “turns ICE into a powerless observer while criminal cartels and traffickers operate freely.”

ICE officials, while refraining from commenting directly on pending legislation, have historically opposed similar restrictions. Agency representatives have repeatedly argued that limiting arrests in certain locations only forces ICE to conduct more operations in public spaces, increasing risks for officers, targets, and bystanders. They also point out that most arrests begin with local criminal charges, not random enforcement.

Immigration advocacy groups, however, celebrated the bill as a major step forward. They say the legislation would help reduce family separations, prevent deportations of long-term residents with strong community ties, and bring federal practices closer to local “sanctuary” policies adopted by cities across the country. “This is not about weakening law enforcement—it’s about preventing unnecessary harm,” said one advocacy leader during the unveiling event.

Despite the enthusiasm from progressive circles, the bill faces an uphill battle in a closely divided Congress. Republican leaders have already vowed to block the measure, and several moderate Democrats are expected to distance themselves from it to avoid political backlash in competitive districts.

Still, the proposal has succeeded in reigniting national debate over ICE’s power, the role of federal immigration enforcement, and the future of U.S. border policy. With both parties gearing up for intense election-year messaging, the battle over this bill is likely to become a defining flashpoint in the broader immigration wars.