There are moments when a society must stop asking whether a system can be fixed and instead confront a harder, more honest question: Should it exist at all?

This is one of those moments.

 

For more than two decades, ICE has operated under a mandate rooted in fear, punishment, and political expediency—not justice. Created in the aftermath of 9/11, the agency was designed as an enforcement apparatus, not as a civil institution grounded in due process or humanitarian principles. Its purpose was clear: detain first, deport fast, and ask questions later.

 

What we have witnessed since is not a series of unfortunate mistakes. It is a pattern.

 

Families torn apart without warning. Long-standing community members disappeared into detention centers. Children left behind. Workers removed from jobs that sustain entire local economies. Medical neglect. Lack of legal access. Retaliation against those who speak up. These are not exceptions—they are symptoms of a system functioning exactly as it was built to function.

 

For years, we have been told that reform is coming. New guidelines. New leadership. New rhetoric. Yet the outcomes remain the same across administrations. When harm repeats itself regardless of who is in power, the problem is structural. And when a structure consistently produces injustice, it must be dismantled.

 

Abolishing ICE does not mean abandoning immigration law or border management. That is a false narrative meant to shut down honest debate. It means rejecting a militarized, detention-driven model and replacing it with a civil immigration system that respects due process, human dignity, and community stability. It means investing in immigration courts instead of private prisons; in legal representation instead of indefinite detention; in humane, community-based alternatives that are proven to work.

 

Independent media has a responsibility to say what others will not—especially when fear is used to justify cruelty and silence is treated as compliance. At The Weekly Issue El Semanario, we have documented the human cost of these policies for decades. Our communities are not abstractions. They are families, workers, students, and elders who contribute, belong, and deserve to be treated as human beings.

 

This is not about politics. It is about values.

It is about whether we accept a system that normalizes trauma as policy.

It is about whether we believe that accountability still matters.

 

Abolition is not radical when the status quo is indefensible.

It is a moral response to a moral failure.

 

If this article informed you, moved you, or gave you pause, we invite you to SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA and share it widely. We are on the front lines, and sustaining this work requires an engaged and committed community.

 

— Chris M. Fresquez
Publisher
The Weekly Issue El Semanario