Candidates clash over ICE and deportation policies in high-stakes Illinois primary

Immigration enforcement has become the sharpest dividing line in Illinois’ high-stakes Democratic primary for an open United States Senate seat, transforming a contest that once centered on experience and fundraising into a referendum on how far the party should go in confronting deportation policy. The candidates are clashing over whether to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement outright or to redirect and restrain it, and over how aggressively a new senator should try to unwind former President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda.

The arguments unfolding on debate stages and in campaign ads are not only shaping the primary but also testing how Democrats in a solidly blue state talk about border enforcement, workplace raids, and the limits of federal power.

Debates that turned to ICE and Trump

The contest burst into focus during an hourlong debate hosted by the Chicago Sun Times, WBEZ and the University of Chicago, where all three leading Democrats were pressed on whether they would vote to eliminate ICE or simply overhaul it in response to Trump’s aggressive deportation targets and a series of deadly shootings involving federal agents. That televised clash, along with subsequent forums, has forced each contender to spell out in detail how far they are willing to go to rein in federal immigration officers and detention contracts that operate in Illinois.

At the center of the storm is Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, who has tried to turn the race into a choice between candidates who merely criticize Trump’s immigration record and one who promises to dismantle what she casts as a system of mass deportation and abuse. Stratton has framed the issue in moral terms, arguing that Illinois should not be an accessory to what she describes as unconstitutional raids and family separations.

Her main rivals, Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, have countered that Democrats should focus on “abolishing Trump’s ICE,” as one debate put it, by stripping away the authorities and funding that enabled his administration’s crackdown, rather than eliminating the agency itself. That distinction has become a recurring fault line as they trade accusations of inconsistency and political calculation.

Stratton’s call to cut ties with ICE

Stratton has gone on offense in recent weeks, seizing on reports that a private detention facility in Illinois holds a 30 million dollar contract with ICE to detain immigrants facing removal. She has argued that a senator from Illinois should work to end that 30 million dollar ICE contract and block any future agreements that turn local facilities into extensions of Trump-era immigration policy, casting the issue as a test of whether Democrats will back up their rhetoric with concrete action.

Her campaign has highlighted a series of deadly shootings involving immigration agents to argue that federal enforcement has become too militarized and unaccountable. In debates, Stratton has insisted that “it does not matter whose ICE it is” if agents are empowered to carry out what she calls warrantless arrests and sweeps that tear apart mixed-status families in Chicago and other Illinois communities.

Stratton’s allies point to her record in state government, where she has aligned with immigrant rights groups on driver’s license access and legal defense funding, as evidence that she would be a reliable vote to slash detention budgets. Her critics, however, say she has leaned on sweeping rhetoric about abolition without fully explaining how she would handle cross-border crime, asylum processing, and workplace enforcement if ICE were dismantled.

Krishnamoorthi’s promise to confront Trump’s deportation agenda

Krishnamoorthi has tried to occupy a different lane, presenting himself as a pragmatic progressive who will confront Trump’s deportation agenda while preserving some federal enforcement capacity. Polls cited in recent reporting show that Krishnamoorthi leads in both surveys and fundraising, a position that has made him the primary target of Stratton’s attacks but also given him a platform to define the terms of the debate.

He has emphasized his early opposition to what he calls Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional war in Iran, using that stance to argue that he is prepared to block funding not only for military action but also for any attempt to use federal forces to make warrantless arrests inside Illinois. In one televised exchange, Krishnamoorthi said he would vote against additional money for Trump’s Iran campaign and against any appropriations that expand the ability of immigration officers to detain people without judicial oversight.

On ICE, Krishnamoorthi has rejected calls for outright abolition in favor of a strategy that would “abolish Trump’s ICE” by rewriting the rules that govern enforcement. He has promised to push legislation that would bar large scale workplace raids, limit cooperation between local police and immigration officers, and redirect resources toward processing asylum claims and targeting human trafficking rather than low level immigration violations.

His message is calibrated to voters who are furious about Trump’s immigration record but wary of being painted as soft on border security in a general election. Krishnamoorthi has repeatedly argued that Democrats can oppose Trump’s aggressive deportation targets and still support a federal agency that focuses on serious crime, a distinction that some activists view as too cautious.

Kelly’s attempt to split the difference

Kelly has often found herself positioned between Stratton’s abolition rhetoric and Krishnamoorthi’s incrementalism. She has echoed many of Stratton’s criticisms of Trump’s policies, particularly family separation and detention of asylum seekers, while aligning more closely with Krishnamoorthi on the need to preserve some form of federal immigration enforcement.

In debates, Kelly has said she would support a moratorium on new detention contracts in Illinois and back legislation that sharply restricts ICE’s ability to conduct raids in schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations. At the same time, she has argued that abolishing the agency outright could create chaos along the border and inside airports, a message aimed at moderate Democrats and suburban swing voters.

Kelly’s challenge has been to break through in a race where Stratton and Krishnamoorthi command most of the attention. Strategists say her path likely depends on consolidating voters who want a strong check on Trump but are uneasy about the word “abolish,” especially in downstate and exurban parts of Illinois that have seen ICE operations but also rely on federal jobs and contracts.

Republican contrast and general election stakes

While Democrats argue over how far to go, Republicans are signaling they intend to make the race a referendum on law enforcement and border control. Jeannie Evans, a Republican candidate for the same Senate seat, has said she believes the majority of Americans agree the country needs to enforce its immigration laws, framing ICE as a necessary tool rather than a problem to be dismantled. Evans has called for permanent improvements to the system instead of abolition, a stance that previews the attack lines likely to emerge in the fall campaign.

Her comments reflect a broader Republican strategy that casts Democratic criticism of ICE as hostility to all immigration enforcement. For Democrats, the risk is that internal arguments over whether to abolish or reform the agency could be used to paint the eventual nominee as extreme, particularly once national money and attention flood into Illinois.

How Illinois became a testing ground

Illinois has long presented itself as a sanctuary for immigrants, with Chicago limiting cooperation with federal immigration officers and the state expanding legal protections for undocumented residents. That backdrop has made the Senate primary a natural testing ground for how Democrats talk about deportation in the Trump era and beyond.

Earlier this year, leading candidates for the open Senate seat met again to debate federal immigration enforcement and campaign finance, with Stratton, Krishnamoorthi and Kelly all pressed on whether they would support federal legislation to codify Illinois style sanctuary policies. The exchanges highlighted a shared desire to shield local police from immigration duties but exposed differences over how aggressively to confront federal agencies and private detention companies that operate within the state’s borders.

Voters weigh abolition versus reform

Like Fix It Homestead’s content? Be sure to follow us.

Here’s more from us:

• I made Joanna Gaines’s Friendsgiving casserole and here is what I would keep
• Pump Shotguns That Jam the Moment You Actually Need Them
• The First 5 Things Guests Notice About Your Living Room at Christmas
• What Caliber Works Best for Groundhogs, Armadillos, and Other Digging Pests?
• Rifles worth keeping by the back door on any rural property

*This article was developed with AI-powered tools and has been carefully reviewed by our editors.