This is transcript of WUWM's Status Pending podcast. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Jimmy Gutierrez: It has been an eventful few weeks.
First, we had the midterms. Across the nation, a blue wave of elected candidates changed the balance of power in Congress for the rest of Trump’s presidency.
And speaking of Trump, he signaled, for whatever it’s worth, that he’s willing to compromise on immigration policy — even saying that some of his recent enforcement tactics have gone too far.
And all of this buildup points to a movement that has been in the making for the past few years — the movement to abolish ICE.
Inside an 'Abolish ICE' fundraiser with Comité Sin Fronteras
JG: In Milwaukee, there may be no one organization that has done more to call for the abolition of ICE than Comité Sin Fronteras. The group is a collection of mixed-status young folks who organize in a bunch of creative ways.
A few months ago, on Mexican Independence Day, they organized an Abolish ICE happy hour fundraiser.
Jenny: This is a week of independence for a lot of different countries in Central America, but also Mexico. And so, we just wanted something simple to bring awareness to it.
JG: This is Jenny from Comité Sin Fronteras. We’re only using her first name for fear of reprisal, but she’s one of the organizers.
Jenny: There isn't a question about reform when it's just this horrific thing that is relatively new and almost like a head that grew up from the carceral system that exists and how we criminalize the existence of certain people. So, yeah, abolish it all day!
JG: Jenny says she’s seen fear throughout the community — the “kidnappings,” as she calls it, and kids losing their parents. But on nights like tonight, it’s all about joy and connection.
Jenny: We're all volunteers, but we joyfully do things like this. And we stand up and put ourselves out there in the crosshairs, because no one is going to silence us. Like, you have to keep living in joy. And I don't know. I hope that it motivates other people to, like, not give up.
Maria: I mean, if there's a little time for peace within the chaos, let's do it. If you ever come to any of these events, just know you're in a safe space that you don't ever have to worry about the chaos ever coming.
JG: This is Maria. She’s also a part of Comité. And she is a DACA kid. She’s also an educator, and she works with a lot of students and families who are mixed-status or undocumented.
Maria: That's always a concern about my students' well-being. So, it's not just for the now. They're eventually going to be an adult, and if the world could just be just a little bit more peaceful, then I'll take it.
JG: This movement is not just a Milwaukee movement. If you’ve been traveling across the state — like, I don’t know, let’s say a state rep that campaigned to become Wisconsin’s next governor, you would’ve heard the calls for abolition across the state.
Francesca Hong on the movement to abolish ICE
Francesca Hong: It’s not a stretch to say that fascism is in full force and the enforcers of fascism was ICE.
JG: This is Francesca Hong.
FH: And, I think, in parts of the country, people are being radicalized still by the fact that their government is capable of doing this.
JG: She’s heard this from people in different zip codes, from different parties — all horrified by the brutal enforcement campaigns in places like Minneapolis and Chicago: detaining people waiting on asylum applications, deporting people that don’t have a criminal record, or any record at all, even killing U.S citizens.
FH: It was important that legislators understood that these systems were failing to protect our communities. And so, when systems fail, communities show up. And elected officials have a responsibility to respond by supporting the communities that were actually doing the work and keeping people safer.
JG: This is Status Pending, I’m Jimmy Gutierrez. Over our last few episodes we’ve looked at ICE. We’ve traced the roots of this agency into what it’s become today. We’ve pulled back the mask on who’s doing the job. And we’ve looked at the conditions and the horrors of detention centers — and why it’s so hard to report on them.
Today, we’re looking at something else: the long push to abolish this agency, the community power and grassroots organizing that has always been present, just as long as the agency existed.
I talked with Francesca Hong, who openly campaigned in her bid for the governor's seat to abolish the agency. But before we get there, I talked with someone else.
Harsha Walia is an organizer and award-winning author based in Vancouver. She’s organized and written all about migrant justice and border imperialism. Earlier this year she wrote an essay titled “How Not to Abolish ICE,” which traces the problems with this movement and what it would take to get to a world without ICE.
An interview with author and organizer Harsha Walia
JG: If we're starting off with the history of this movement, it feels like almost as soon as we see the creation of ICE, we see calls to abolish ICE. So, in those early years, what is it that people are resisting or pushing back against?
Harsha Walia: Yeah, I think it is important to highlight that the origins of “abolish ICE” are in 2003. And this is important because it originated as an “abolish ICE” framework that happened after 9/11. And so, it was deeply connected to, one, the understanding that ICE was entirely new. And so, when an organization is new, it is much easier to call for its abolition because it has not yet been solidified in our imagination.
The second is that it was tied to the entire security apparatus. So it understood that ICE was part of this new Department of Homeland Security, which was also new — and that it was part of this larger securitization agenda. It wasn't just about one kind of rogue agency, but it was this larger securitization agenda that was being pushed through after 9/11.
That meant, you know, increasing surveillance, increasing racial profiling, expanded enforcement powers, more and more border buildup, and really, again, honed in on this dynamic of how immigration was increasingly being viewed through the lens of anti-terror and security measures.
‘How Not to Abolish ICE’
JG: Your piece is called “How Not to Abolish ICE.” And, like a lot of abolitionists, I think there's this aim that's taken at reforms. I mean, politicians introduced this. And even some of the ways that they introduced reforms, they use the language of abolition. I'm thinking of Shri Thenader’s Abolish ICE Act.
HW: Shri's act, for example, is a good example, because what the proposal was, was to take the enforcement powers away from ICE, but just kind of redistribute it within DHS. And so, you know, my central argument in “How Not to Abolish ICE” is really to understand that ICE is not just a rogue agency, right? It is operating as part of a structure of border policing. And so, we could get rid of ICE in name and have all of its enforcement powers just redistributed, and that wouldn't change the violence.
So it's important to understand that ICE is not a rogue agency that is otherwise located in a somewhat, you know, liberal and acceptable form of border policing and policing generally, but to understand ICE as a symptom of a system of violence. And we're seeing that, right? A lot of times, Democrats in particular — or people who are much more liberal — are horrified at the violence of ICE, as we all should be, but interpret that to mean that ICE is a singularly bad kind of cop agency, rather than understanding it as a very extreme but logical extension of all policing that has become normalized.
And so, for me, that is the central argument that I'm trying to make is that, you know, of course we have to abolish ICE, but that's the base. That's the floor, right? It's not the ceiling. And so that helps us then discern between reforms that might just be fixated on, “OK, yeah, let's abolish ICE. But that doesn't mean we're going to transform immigration enforcement; it just means we're going to reshuffle it.” And maybe it'll look less spectacularly violent. But the effect is still people being deported and detained, right? So, that's the focus is: are people safe, are people able to stay with their families, are we actually reducing detention and deportation with the aim of eliminating it entirely?
ICE and 'techno-solutionism'
JG: One of the things that jumps to my mind is body cameras. And I'm thinking, in Milwaukee, in 2014, Dontre Hamilton, there was this man who was killed by Milwaukee police after he was sleeping on a park bench. A year later, officers instituted the body camera policy within the force. And there have been calls for ICE to do the same, for ICE agents to have to have body cameras. Getting into the business of reforms, there are business ventures that are supported by the movement to abolish ICE — whether it's, like, ankle monitors or detention centers or body cameras. The government is invested and private industry is invested in reforms, when we’re talking about “abolish ICE.”
HW: Yeah, definitely. And I think, particularly, the kind of industry of techno-surveillance and techno-solutionism merge quite perfectly. You know, the agenda is actually expanding surveillance markets and weaponry of all kinds. But it gets framed as techno-solutionism, right? That we have quote-unquote, “decarceral” solutions like ankle monitors and more intense tracking that then becomes part of the surveillance network. And so, absolutely, the kind of state and capital interests reinforce each other.
The guinea pigs for a lot of AI testing in the imperial core and in Europe were migrants, when it came to decision making. So, for example, a lot of the initial AI that was tested around decision making in the legal context was around immigration, right? To say, “Well, AI will be more ‘neutral’ and will have no bias when it comes to legal decision making." And so, there are these kind of countless examples of the ways in which reforms are being touted that actually just reinforce the system again — rather than any moves towards dismantling it.
How communities organize to protect their neighbors
JG: And thinking about how we got here, we are at a moment in time where a majority of people do support abolishing ICE. I'm not sure if they have read your piece and know maybe what that looks like. But that feels like more support than it's had, based on recent reports.
If you look at what's galvanized this movement, besides either the terror that people see in their communities or the family separations, are also people confronting ICE head-on — putting their lives on the line in between the state and their neighbors. Is this a new moment in the abolish ICE movement that you're seeing?
HW: Absolutely. I mean, I think it is indisputable that what is propelling people, regardless of how they might be interpreting “abolish ICE,” is incredible. And I think, at its core, it is refusing the logic of the border, because when we see people as our neighbors, you know, we don't necessarily see them as migrant or not — which I don't mean in a kind of neoliberal, liberal way. I mean, actually, you know, fascism wants us to believe that migrants are “others,” that they are not our neighbors, that they belong elsewhere, that they must be expelled, that they're a threat, that they’re a drain — you know, all this horrific scapegoating. So, when we refuse the logic of that scapegoating, when we refuse that othering, and we say, “No, these are our neighbors. They belong here. Their children get to go to school here,” it is a profoundly solidaristic kind of expression.
And I think, you know, the way in which our consciousness is being transformed by being on the street, by engaging in mutual aid, by people literally putting their lives on the line, by people giving their time and their care and their labor to defending their neighbors, I think it is remarkable. And you don't go back from that, right? Like, you don't suddenly retreat from that ethical orientation. And so, I think people's consciousness has been transformed forever. Even as movements may ebb and flow, I think the way in which we are oriented towards that political project of emancipation and solidarity is forever etched in people's memory and their consciousness and how we move going forward.
'Abolitionist imagination'
JG: I just wanted to get to this, because something that I've often heard about the trouble with abolition is a trouble of imagination. And thinking about living in a capitalistic society where we've had such heavy-handed enforcement across the parties, what are the challenges in making something like this happen in this country at this moment?
HW: Yeah, I mean, I think particularly when it comes to abolishing the border, people feel like it's incredibly utopic. But I do think it's a very practical project — you know, again, defending one's neighbors, refusing the kind of dehumanization of migrants, even things that seem small but are hugely significant, like ensuring that undocumented kids can safely go to school, or access healthcare, or all of the kind of underground networks of healthcare and child care provision.
These are all disrupting the border, because they disrupt the logic of the border. And I think, for me, the most profound way to understand how easy it is in our imagination to refuse the border is to actually look at the movement of migrants themselves — the fact that, despite this multi-billion dollar industry around the world that is aimed at deterring migrants through literal death traps.
The whole logic of bordering is to deter people by creating zones of death. The Mediterranean is the world's deadliest border, right? Thousands of people die in the Mediterranean. Not because crossing the Mediterranean is inherently risky — like, cruises go through there all the time. It's because migrants are deterred from there. Movement on the Mediterranean is highly criminalized. People are forced into more and more dangerous situations. Same with border crossings around the world. Yet, millions of people move, right? They refuse the border violence. They refuse to believe that they cannot have the freedom to move. They take immense risks to seek freedom and stability and a better life for themselves and their family.
And that, to me, is the most profound way to understand an abolitionist imagination is to actually see it all around us already — the fact that people are crossing borders, despite knowing the risks, despite knowing the violence that is coming for them, still do it. And that, to me, is incredibly profound.
An interview with Francesca Hong
Francesca Hong: This moment is a movement moment, and it is a clear indication that people across Wisconsin and across the country are ready and open to transformative change.
JG: If you’re in Wisconsin, you might know this voice: State Representative Francesca Hong. She’s a democratic socialist who was this close to becoming the state’s Democratic nominee for governor. She’s also someone who ran on a platform to abolish ICE.
FH: ICE is a rogue agency, and they no longer serve any sort of safety. Abolishing ICE is a meaningful policy if we want to keep each other safe.
Campaigning on ICE abolition
JG: I wanted to know if running so openly on abolition impacted her campaign.
You know, when you were out campaigning and talking about abolishing ICE and DHS and kind of highlighting all of the the operations that were happening in Chicago and in Minneapolis, across the state. Did you have to walk back your stance at all? Were there people that were telling you, or in your ear talking about the electoral feasibility of a position like that? I'm thinking not just from your team, but maybe even establishment Dems.
FH: No, because we were also campaigning with concrete legislation that the state could implement to help protect communities. Regardless of if I was in Mauston, Wisconsin, Madison, Milwaukee, or Hudson, or Hammond, Wisconsin, people were in agreement and supportive of the calls to abolish ICE — that this wasn't just a suburban issue or a rural issue. This is every community feels the threat.
And so, outside pressures about problems with electability in calling for abolishing ICE, I think in fact, we were able to show, show up with the receipts that we were in communities where I was asked about it — that if I hadn't brought it up, there were people who already knew about our bill package for Keeping Families Together.
And it really was a moment where many people first began organizing with their community, in response to fighting back against ICE and being consistent with having our policies being shaped by the people on the ground. It was the appropriate response, the one that called and received lots of support.
And I think that, even with people who may be seen as more moderate, they will tell you that even law enforcement… I would talk about how to have local law enforcement being controlled by federal agents and told what to do with federal agents, that in itself is a problem when it's local law enforcement that is trying to build relationships with communities. And so, we didn't see it as a potential, a threat or undermining the campaign. If anything, it emboldened more communities to see that their candidates and their elected officials were actually responding to their demands.
Responses across Wisconsin
JG: You know, from Mauston to Hudson, thinking about the messages that you were hearing from people all across the state, that might be surprising to people who live in either rural communities that depend on a lot of immigrant labor — whether it be dairy farms or some sort of manufacturing — or in urban centers that just have a large Latino population. Were there surprising things that you'd heard along the way?
FH: We had organized an event in northwest Wisconsin, and we wanted to support an immigrant-owned small business. And a couple days before the event, we found out that there was an ICE raid at this restaurant. It was chilling. But the community response, the community organizing that happened, to make sure that the families who were most impacted, dual-language educators and social workers at the schools who had trusted relationships with the families, that they knew the ways in which, how to make sure that we were getting resources to folks without compromising security or safety and identity of people, it was a very sophisticated system of community organizing.
And I think that we often underestimate the difficulties in rural organizing, purely because of distance, at times, and how to get resources to people, that things like needing more mechanics or helping people to find housing or to help people get rides to work. I mean, these are all things that are in consideration. And I think that, for such a small community that we were going to go visit, for there to be these systems of organizing that are happening, because people are responding with pure care and recognizing that how important it is to not just care about your neighbor, but someone that you may never know, someone that you may never meet.
I was surprised to get asked about my position on ICE in town halls in northern Wisconsin, in smaller communities. And I think it's because it became so personal to folks. And again, such a clear indication of what an authoritarian government is capable of doing — that this wasn't an exaggeration, and that this was truly happening. It was happening across communities and didn't matter what your zip code was.
Of course, there were some folks who wanted a different vocabulary or thought calling for abolishing ICE, or that disinvesting from law enforcement wasn't going to be something that would benefit the campaign. But, ultimately, this is about how community keeps each other safe and that safety is a human right. And where do we need our elected officials to take stronger positions, to make sure that safety is guaranteed for everyone? And I think dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and abolishing ICE is an important first step in actually guaranteeing safety for everyone.
Immigration and party strategy
JG: This is also at a time where now we have, at least nationally, Stephen Miller as the [White House] chief of staff. I do want to ask you, you know, a lot of the advocates and immigrant rights advocates that I've talked to have called out the Dems’ culpability in this world that we live in now.
We talked about Stephen Miller as the chief of staff, but basically kind of creating the water for an anti-immigrant environment in this country. Tammy Baldwin has, during the ‘24 election cycle, also called for the removal of immigrants who have committed crimes. The same party who, under Obama, had a clear path to pass the DREAM Act and couldn't get it done. Thinking of some of those touchpoints, is abolition something that will happen within the party as it is? What are the challenges to getting this done, even if there is a clear path?
FH: I think the challenges are within a consulting class system and the money that is to be made off of elections and politics. And that the politics of fear and identifying the wrong villains has a powerful cultural impact across voters when things in their lives are difficult. And we're grappling with an affordability crisis that it's often easier to point to a neighbor from a vulnerable community as the problem, as opposed to a broader system, because it feels like a solution to address that system is less feasible than targeting vulnerable communities.
It gets harder and harder for folks to imagine, you know, a world where there isn't an over-reliance on policing. But there is a case to be made that shows that when we invest in systems of policing like ICE, we have seen so much more harm come — not just to the people who are directly impacted, but to the economy, to the our political systems.
And so, there has to be less fear-mongering as an electoral strategy and more campaigning on policy that will help people reimagine a different system that actually works to achieve community safety. You know, Medicare For All is community safety. Fully funding public schools is community safety. Making sure that there's childcare and paid leave and healthcare, that we see these as the human rights, because they allow people to have their own economic freedom and prosperity to pursue the lives that they deserve. And so, I think there's ways in which we don't have to scapegoat and throw under the bus vulnerable communities and actually focus on solutions. And it's on our elected officials and our candidates to tell people that it's okay to reimagine a different world, that it's possible, especially when we have more of us demanding it.
And it was policy that drove a lot of electoral wins this cycle. And I think that — as opposed to infighting around strategy and which candidates won in more rural areas, and, “Is it because they went in a direction that was away from socialism?” — well, socialist policies won in rural areas. And so, I think to be able to avoid the cultural infighting of the factions and dependency on consultants whose message-testing around issues that are not solution-oriented, not policy-oriented, we can actually move both electorally, culturally and within policy to actually achieve the type of government where people can see that it can work for them, because the government is actually working for them.
Members of Comité Sin Fronteras imagine a world without ICE
Educator 1: A world without ICE is the closing of all the detention camps that every child that has literally been kidnaped and is sitting in Dilley.
Educator 2: I think a world without ICE is reminiscent of my childhood. I was born and raised on the border, and it was freedom to travel to and from Mexico, and travel to and from Juárez and go shopping and feel safe and feel free.
Educator 1: Families are able to be united and to be safe and to sing and to dance and to gather around tables and to look forward to all of the beautiful things that they've missed out on.
Maria: I think every aspect of our existence would dramatically improve, just because there is some level of acceptance and peace day-to-day. So, instead of worrying, we have the capability of, “Oh, let's solve this problem. OK, once we solve that problem, maybe we can create a solution for the future, not just now. So, I think, without ICE, there is just more possibility and less fear within our country that there can be so much potential for goodness.
JG: That was State Representative Francesca Hong and members of Comité Sin Fronteras. Before that, you heard from author and organizer Harsha Walia. Today’s episode was produced by me, Jimmy Gutierrez, and edited by Emily Files.
Status Pending is produced by WUWM, Milwaukee's NPR — part of the NPR Network.
We will be back in two weeks — and we’re going to get festive. We’re talking about food, foodways and sharing culture. Thanks as always for listening. Subscribe to Status Pending for more stories about immigration in Wisconsin and beyond.
