Commentary: Abolishing DHS doesn't reimagine safety. It undermines it

Democrats are still searching for an immigration agenda that transcends the cruelty we’ve seen in our communities under President Donald Trump and the chaos we witnessed at the border under President Joe Biden. Chicago U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez’s recent legislative proposal to abolish the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with a Department of Community Safety misses the mark.

I spent more than a decade at DHS serving under presidents of both parties — including, most recently, as the acting deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy. I can tell you from experience that Ramirez’s bill, the Reimagining Safety Act, which would dismantle DHS and replace it with a “new human- and community-centered federal department that promotes collective safety,” while simultaneously stripping away the government’s authority to enforce our immigration laws, would inevitably lead to another migrant crisis such as the one that overwhelmed Chicago just a few years ago.

Make no mistake. I’m also deeply concerned with what has happened to DHS under Trump’s cruel and reckless direction. I grew up in Chicagoland and regularly visited the neighborhoods where our Latino brothers and sisters were terrorized by masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents in pursuit of senseless deportation quotas during Operation Midway Blitz.

I take these offenses personally — not just as a former DHS official, but also as a Latino whose brown family could just as easily fall victim to these indiscriminate attacks.

However, in trying to overcorrect for the sins of the Trump administration, Ramirez goes too far in suggesting that we simply get rid of essential government immigration functions.

Her proposal calls for abolishing multiple government agencies that are critical to safeguarding our national security without providing definitive alternatives that would ensure their missions continue. For example, imagine what would happen if we were to abolish Customs and Border Protection and split its customs and immigration functions between different departments, as Ramirez suggests.

Decentralizing these functions would decimate the government’s coordinated inspection capacity to manage the flow of goods and people through ports of entry and, in effect, abolish CBP’s Office of Field Operations. The OFO, which screens hundreds of millions of travelers and their cargo annually at land ports of entry and airports, would see their authorities distributed across multiple government agencies — essentially re-creating the flawed construct that was exploited by terrorists to carry out the devastating attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Today, OFO officers are charged with determining whether a noncitizen meets the legal requirements to be admitted to the United States and whether they pose a threat to public safety or national security. When someone is found to be inadmissible, CBP can detain them and initiate the removal process.

Ramirez’s bill would also hinder the government’s ability to refuse entry to noncitizens identified as suspected terrorists by rescinding the terrorism-specific grounds used to find them inadmissible, which include terrorist activities, associations and the providing of material support to designated terrorist groups.

Similarly, the government would no longer be able to apply these grounds as a basis to remove somebody already in the United States and must terminate all official designations of foreign terrorist organizations. The bill would further impede the government’s ability to fund strategic national security tools that are used to monitor and prevent the travel of people whom the government reasonably suspects of terrorist activity.

Unbelievably, it would also require that the removal of any noncitizen — including those who pose a threat to the American public — be initiated by the attorney general or their deputy, and then approved by a joint resolution of Congress.

For perspective, when ICE removed about 59,000 people from the United States in fiscal year 2021 — a historic low as the Biden administration prioritized detaining those with serious criminal convictions and were still navigating operational challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic — Congress would potentially have needed to debate and agree on 59,000 separate actions.

Together, these changes would produce an almost unimaginable result: If a suspected terrorist were to arrive at a port of entry seeking entry to the United States, the government would likely be required to allow them into the country. The individual could not be detained because the bill rescinds the authority to hold anyone in immigration detention, meaning they would ultimately be released and free to remain in the country until Congress — a body notoriously known for gridlock that hasn’t passed significant immigration legislation in decades — voted to authorize their removal.

Ramirez is right to call for significant changes to rein in the Trump administration’s extreme nativist policies. I wholeheartedly agree with her that we need to hold those responsible for these atrocities accountable, including people such as former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and former Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino. I applaud efforts of groups such as the Illinois Accountability Commission that are diligently working to do so. But this legislative proposal is not the answer and would seriously undermine public safety and national security.

While this bill has no chance of ever becoming law, it sends the wrong message to voters about the sort of immigration policies Democrats want to implement. As approval for the president reaches historic lows and the public grows increasingly wary of his reckless pursuit of a xenophobic and chaotic immigration agenda, Democrats such as Ramirez have a rare opportunity to build consensus and pursue the kind of balanced and sensible reform that has the support of the American public.

We deserve a functional immigration system that is both firm and fair, and that is consistent and humane. One that secures our border, safeguards public safety and national security, and welcomes those seeking an opportunity to enhance American prosperity and contribute to the rich diversity that makes this country great.

We can make this American dream a reality, but only if and when Congress finds the courage to act in a way that aligns with the needs and demands of the American people.

_____

Daniel Delgado is a Chicagoland native and former acting deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy at the Department of Homeland Security. He is currently a senior fellow for immigration policy at the Searchlight Institute in Washington, D.C.

_____