Both Parties Fund ICE
The difference is not values. It is how openly the system operates.
The only question that matters
After Renée Good was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Democratic leaders condemned the shooting, but avoided the one lever that changes agency behavior: funding. Reporting on the leadership response makes the pattern clear: strong statements, no commitment to use appropriations to rein ICE in.
If Democrats say ICE is out of control, then the next step is obvious. Condition the money. Cut the money. Force the fight. If they refuse to do that, then the outrage is not a strategy. It is a performance.
Deportation did not start with Trump
A lot of Americans talk like mass deportation is a Trump invention. It is not. The deportation machine has been funded and used under both parties for years. DHS publishes annual enforcement statistics in its Yearbook, and ICE publishes annual reports with removal totals.
To keep comparisons clean, the numbers below use ICE deportations (formal “removals”) by U.S. fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). Fiscal years matter because politicians love to use calendar tricks to claim credit or dodge blame.
The data: ICE removals by president era
Obama era (FY2009 to FY2016)
Obama’s early years were some of the highest modern deportation levels, then the totals declined later.
FY2009: 389,834
FY2010: 392,862
FY2011: 396,906
FY2012: 409,849
FY2013: 368,644
FY2014: 315,943
FY2015: 235,413
FY2016: 240,255
These totals are reflected in DHS Yearbook tables and related DHS enforcement reporting.
Trump first term (FY2017 to FY2020)
Trump did not consistently exceed Obama’s peak years. The key change was the public posture and the willingness to push ugly enforcement into the spotlight.
FY2017: 226,119
FY2018: 256,085
FY2019: 267,258
FY2020: 185,884
FY2020 is also a distorted year for obvious reasons, but even ignoring that, the “Trump deported more than Obama” line is not supported by removals data.
Biden (FY2021 to FY2024)
Biden starts low, then ramps back up sharply.
FY2021: 59,011
FY2022: 72,177
FY2023: 142,580
FY2024: 271,484
ICE’s FY2024 annual report and ICE press release both cite 271,484 ERO removals in FY2024.
What the numbers actually prove
Here is the part many people try to dodge. Elections change messaging. They do not automatically change the enforcement system.
The removals data shows continuity across administrations. It also shows that “Democrats are soft” is mostly branding. Under Biden, removals rose sharply by FY2024. Under Obama, removals were massive in the early years. Under Trump, removals were not uniquely high, but the posture was more aggressive and more visible.
So the honest line is not “everyone is identical.” The honest line is: both parties keep the machine funded, so the machine keeps operating.
Yes, the Obama years included family detention
This is not a partisan gotcha. It is policy history.
After the 2014 surge, the federal government expanded family detention capacity. Mothers and children were held in large facilities, and the practice drew major criticism. That happened under a Democratic administration, with Democratic messaging.
If someone thinks Democrats automatically mean humane enforcement, they are confusing better language and better process with better outcomes. Procedure can reduce visibility. It does not remove coercion.
Trump’s difference was exposure and escalation
Trump did not invent the enforcement state. He made it harder to hide.
The 2018 zero-tolerance approach led to large-scale family separations, and the political damage came from visibility, documentation, and the clear deterrence logic. That is why the issue became a defining scandal.
This distinction matters for one reason: visibility changes what the public will tolerate. That is also why institutions try to manage visibility first.
Trump isn’t using brutality by accident. He’s using visibility as a tool: it intimidates targets, energizes the base, provokes backlash he can weaponize, and protects the machine by turning every criticism into “you hate law enforcement.”
Why the Renée Good case matters now
The public reaction to Renée Good’s killing is tied to visibility and disbelief. The story did not stay inside paperwork. There was body camera footage, conflicting narratives, protests, and major reporting that kept the incident in public view.
That visibility immediately turned the situation into a budget question. Some Democrats threatened to use the DHS funding deadline as leverage, while top leadership declined to commit to any concrete funding restrictions.
This is the pattern: leadership will criticize tactics, but protect the structure.
What this is, in plain terms
Calling this hypocrisy is too easy. It lets leadership off the hook by making it sound like a personal failure.
This is functional alignment. Republicans sell enforcement as toughness. Democrats sell enforcement as responsible management. One side is loud. The other side is procedural. Both keep ICE funded, and that is why scandals rarely reach the budget line.
The closing question
If Democratic leaders say ICE is violent, why do they protect ICE funding?
If they will not use appropriations leverage after a killing in public, what exactly would force them to act?
When 150 million Americans voted for two genocidal pedos in 2024 they clearly relinquished all responsibility as citizens of a democracy embracing their Zionist cults instead. A Zionist, fascist authoritarian hell we are all in now. They set the precedent and we are all now Palestinians.
ICE is trained by and infiltrated by IDF, so to cover up that fact, the Democrats do the usual Clockwork Orange, and pretend to be against ICE, and the Republicans pretend to stand with ICE, but they both are working for giving unconstitutional power to an agency that might not have Americans’ best interest as its a goal.