Please believe me when I say I believe in the enforcement of our immigration laws. I believe in secure borders, public safety, and an orderly immigration system. None of those principles, however, requires us to accept the proposition that the federal agencies charged with enforcing those laws should be handed tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars without meaningful oversight or accountability.
Yet that is essentially the debate we are having today, and it’s a problem.
In June 2026, Congress approved nearly $70 billion in additional funding for immigration enforcement, including tens of billions of dollars for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This comes on top of enormous sums already appropriated for immigration enforcement during the second Trump administration.
Supporters argue that the additional funding is necessary to enforce the immigration laws, secure the border, detain individuals subject to removal, and carry out the administration’s deportation agenda. Those are legitimate subjects for political debate.
But there is another question that should transcend politics: when the government gives an agency extraordinary resources and extraordinary power, shouldn’t it also demand extraordinary accountability?
Enforcement and accountability are not mutually exclusive
Immigration enforcement agencies exercise enormous authority. Their officers can arrest people, detain them, separate them from their families, and initiate proceedings that may ultimately result in their removal from the United States.
That power carries serious consequences when mistakes are made or legal boundaries are crossed.
Federal courts have issued ruling after ruling, finding that individuals were unlawfully detained by ICE. Reports have documented U.S. citizens being wrongfully detained during immigration enforcement operations. There have also been deaths in immigration custody and controversial uses of force by federal immigration officers, generating additional scrutiny and litigation.
These should concern us regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum.
Supporting immigration enforcement should not require ignoring unlawful detention. Supporting border security should not mean abandoning constitutional protections. And supporting the men and women who perform difficult law-enforcement jobs should not mean that their agencies are exempt from meaningful oversight.
Indeed, the opposite should be true.
What are we buying for $70 billion?
There is also a basic question of fiscal responsibility.
Congress is committing approximately $70 billion more to immigration enforcement through the remainder of President Trump’s term. That funding follows extraordinary increases in immigration enforcement spending already approved during this administration.
Taxpayers are entitled to ask what they are receiving in return.
Are these resources primarily being used to identify and remove individuals who pose genuine threats to public safety? Are detention facilities operating safely and humanely? Are constitutional and statutory protections being observed? Are enforcement priorities producing measurable improvements in public safety? And what mechanisms exist to identify and correct abuses when they occur?
Those questions are not “anti-enforcement.” They are the questions we should ask whenever government is given enormous amounts of money and, dare I say, coercive power.
What does “law and order” actually mean?
The phrase “law and order” is frequently invoked in the immigration debate. But law and order cannot mean simply enforcing immigration laws against immigrants.
It must also mean that the government follows the law while doing so.
It means respecting constitutional protections. It means complying with court orders. It means recognizing that American citizens and noncitizens alike have legal rights. And it means holding government officials accountable when those boundaries are crossed.
That principle should not depend upon which political party controls the White House.
The economic consequences matter too
There is another part of the enforcement debate that receives considerably less attention, at least in the mainstream media.
Large-scale immigration enforcement does not occur in an economic vacuum. Agriculture, food processing, hospitality, construction, health care, manufacturing, and numerous other sectors depend heavily upon immigrant labor. Removing substantial numbers of workers from those industries can affect employers, consumers, and American workers as well.
I live in a community that depends heavily on immigrant labor, particularly during the summer months. I see the consequences firsthand. Businesses are struggling.
That does not mean immigration laws should not be enforced because enforcement has economic consequences. It does mean that policymakers should acknowledge those consequences rather than pretending they do not exist.
A serious immigration policy should consider border security, enforcement, labor needs, family unity, due process, and economic reality together.
We can demand both
Our immigration debate too often presents Americans with a false choice: either support aggressive immigration enforcement or oppose enforcement altogether.
There is another position.
We can insist that our immigration laws be enforced while also insisting that the government obey the law. We can support secure borders while demanding due process. We can provide immigration agencies with the resources necessary to perform their legitimate functions while requiring transparency and meaningful oversight of how those resources are used.
And when Congress appropriates tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to agencies possessing extraordinary power over people’s liberty and lives, asking for accountability is not radical.
It is called a responsible government.