1. United States
2. Ohio
3. Letter

I am writing as your constituent to express my firm opposition to the current reconciliation funding bill for ICE and CBP. I am deeply concerned that this legislation is moving forward without the most fundamental safeguards required for a constitutional democracy. The amendments requested by Democratic legislators—specifically requiring judicial warrants for home entries, mandating body cameras, and ensuring agents are clearly identified by badge and name—are not radical or partisan wish-list items. They are the baseline standards for law enforcement accountability in a nation governed by the rule of law. The 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship status. By allowing ICE to enter private homes using only internal administrative warrants rather than judicial ones, the administration is bypassing the neutral magistrate requirement that is the very cornerstone of our Constitution. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a direct conflict with established constitutional law. Furthermore, the data regarding these agencies contradicts the public narrative that they are "targeting the worst of the worst." TRAC data consistently confirms that the vast majority of individuals detained by ICE have no criminal record. When an agency’s own data refutes its public justification for enforcement, we are no longer discussing security policy—we are discussing a disconnect from reality. The persistent, categorical refusal to implement these minimal safeguards suggests that the safety and rights of immigrant communities are being treated as expendable. When you reject laws requiring agents to identify themselves, use cameras, or respect the 4th Amendment, you are prioritizing a system that operates in the shadows—a system that disproportionately targets specific ethnic and national-origin groups. This creates an enforcement regime that relies on racial profiling rather than legitimate, constitutional law enforcement. A policy that functions to target protected classes under the guise of enforcement cannot be reconciled with our nation’s commitment to equal protection under the law. I am not asking for a boilerplate response that repeats the rhetoric about law and order. I am asking that you acknowledge the facts: 1. The 4th Amendment applies to all. Administrative warrants are not a substitute for judicial oversight. 2. Enforcement data does not match the rhetoric. The majority of detainees are not violent criminals. 3. Accountability is mandatory. If an agency is not willing to wear uniforms with identification or allow body cameras, it is because they intend to act without accountability. I urge you to vote against any funding package that does not include these critical, common-sense guardrails. My vote and my support in the upcoming election cycle will be determined by whether you act to protect the Constitutional rights of everyone in this country, or if you continue to support a system that prioritizes unchecked executive power over the rule of law.