Oregon — U.S. Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Ore., issued a sharply worded opinion piece this week accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of widespread constitutional violations and violent misconduct, while pledging to withhold support for agency funding unless Congress imposes major restrictions.
In the Feb. 9 editorial, Salinas describes ICE as engaging in “lawless” and “violent” enforcement actions, including racial profiling, warrantless stops, and excessive use of force. She alleges that agents are “murdering U.S. citizens” and “spreading fear,” claims presented without detailed sourcing in the piece.
Salinas cites several incidents — including the deaths of individuals in Minnesota and the detention of a family outside an Oregon hospital — as evidence of systemic abuse. She argues that these cases represent a broader pattern of misconduct under President Donald Trump’s administration.
The tone of the piece is explicitly partisan. Salinas blames Republicans, who currently control the House, Senate and White House, for refusing to impose new limits on ICE and CBP. She also frames the issue as a moral crisis, writing that ICE suffers from a “deep moral rot.”
As Congress works to finalize federal spending following a short-term extension to avoid a partial government shutdown, Salinas says she will not vote to fund ICE without specific conditions. Her demands include suspending certain enforcement operations, mandating body cameras, prohibiting agents from wearing face coverings, restricting deadly force, and redirecting funds away from detention and arrest quotas.
She also references legislation introduced with Sen. Jeff Merkley that would allow individuals to sue the federal government for alleged constitutional violations by ICE and CBP agents.
The piece does not address counterarguments from federal officials who maintain that ICE prioritizes individuals who pose public safety threats and operates under existing legal authorities and internal oversight mechanisms. Nor does it discuss ongoing federal court review processes or internal disciplinary systems.
The debate comes amid broader national divisions over immigration enforcement. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that aggressive operations are necessary to address illegal immigration and criminal activity. Critics contend that enforcement practices can lead to civil rights violations and community mistrust.
Salinas’ op-ed positions the upcoming funding negotiations as leverage to force policy concessions, signaling that immigration enforcement will remain a flashpoint in ongoing federal budget talks.
About the Author
