BLOG

Statement on the Prairieland Protesters

By Free Migration Project staff

Published July 9, 2026

 

 

Free Migration Project is in solidarity with the Prairieland defendants, immigrant rights protesters who have been unjustly targeted by the federal government using anti-terrorism laws to punish their political speech. The defendants were arrested and convicted after participating in a protest at Prairieland Detention Center in Texas in July of last year. Last month they were issued sentences ranging from 15 to 100 years in prison. According to the Guardian:

"The demonstrators arrived late at night with a plan to set off fireworks as part of a noise demonstration to show solidarity with those detained inside. A few of the protesters spontaneously broke off from the main group and vandalized cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van and broke a security camera. When a police officer arrived on the scene and drew his weapon, one of the activists fired an AR-15, hitting the officer in the shoulder. The officer survived."

The activist who fired the weapon, Benjamin Song, said in a statement that he had fired at the police officer because the officer had his weapon drawn and Song believed he was about to shoot a protester. The officer admitted during trial his weapon was pointed at the back of a person who was fleeing the parking lot. None of the other defendants fired a weapon.

The Guardian described the defendants as “a collection of activists who were loosely affiliated with one another through a local leftwing book club and gun group,” while the Department of Justice referred to them as the “North Texas Antifa Cell.” Song was sentenced last month to 100 years in prison. The other defendants received sentences of imprisonment ranging from 15 to 70 years.

In light of the Trump administration’s policies aggressively expanding anti-terrorism laws to target nonprofits and activists, this case is a test of how far the government can go in its mission to subject dissenters to political repression. The sentencing  judge stated he issued these egregious sentences to send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.

This unjust prosecution, while especially harsh, is not an isolated occurrence. From the 2020 George Floyd Uprisings to organizing for a free Palestine, the United States has a long record of using anti-terrorist laws to crush resistance and solidarity movements. The policies used in the Prairieland case are extensions of war-on-terror anti-terrorist laws, overseen by the same DHS responsible for immigrant kidnappings and detention across the country today.

As an abolitionist organization that promotes freedom of movement for all people and the end of immigration detention and deportation, we recognize that the Prairieland case is not the first nor will it be the last of these attacks. As an immigrant justice organization, we support the Prairieland defendants and call for the abolition of the unjust deportation system they challenged. We support our peer organizations fighting for immigrant justice who condemn the persecution of the Prairieland defendants, including Muslims for Just Futures and the Muslim Legal Fund of America.

"Abolish ICE" in the Current Moment

By David Bennion, Executive Director

Published March 31, 2026

 

 

We have seen widespread public anger with ICE in the wake of the public murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by DHS officers in Minneapolis in January. Half of people polled this month now support abolishing ICE, with only 39% opposed (10% undecided). Democrats in Congress responded to public anger at ICE by withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security until the administration agrees to implement cosmetic reforms to the agency’s procedures. Arguably this defused public outrage with ICE at a critical moment and deflected momentum towards actually abolishing the agency. This is consistent with the national Democratic Party’s steadfast support for ICE and Border Patrol, funding both agencies with billions of dollars, including during periods of unified Democratic control of the White House and Congress.

But let’s talk about abolishing ICE. A common argument for abolishing ICE is that the agency didn’t exist prior to 2003, so we could resolve most of the problems with ICE by simply turning the clock back to before the Department of Homeland Security was established. But abolishing ICE must mean more than cosmetic reforms and a new name. There is no fair or moral way to deport people since being subject to deportation is nearly always outside of a person's control. We have no choice over where we are born or who our parents are, and most people who need to move to survive did not choose to leave their homes.

Yet country of citizenship is a critical determinant of life opportunities, for individuals and communities. Assigning opportunity, safety, and liberty based on a factor no one can control is unjust. This is why freedom of movement must be a human right and there is no moral justification for deportation.

The true reasons for deportation policies are racism and other forms of bigotry. The Immigration Act of 1924 which created the framework for immigration laws today was created by eugenicists for explicitly eugenicist purposes. That purpose has not changed in 2026.

History shows us that any government deportation agency will violate human rights, regardless of which political party is in charge. Some examples in the U.S. include:

  • 1882-1943: Chinese Exclusion Act bans Chinese people from immigrating or becoming citizens based on their race.
  • 1942-46: INS & other federal agencies incarcerate people of Japanese descent in camps, deporting many.
  • 1954-55: INS deports hundreds of thousands of people of Mexican descent in Operation W****** including US citizens.
  • 1994: INS implements Operation Gatekeeper to drive migrants into the desert to die.
  • 1997: a Marine patrolling the border in Texas shoots & kills 18 year old US citizen Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
  • 2002: INS implements NSEERS program to detain & deport Muslim immigrants
  • 2010: Border Patrol agents beat Anastasio Hernandez Rojas to death, with DOJ clearing all agents involved in 2015.
  • 2014: In response to kids & families migrating, DHS begins policies including metering (restricting access to asylum at the border), increasing fear interview denial rates, presumptive detention instead of parole, family detention, & in some cases family separation.
  • 2021: Border Patrol agents attack Haitian migrants at the border, no agents involved are fired & one is awarded in 2024.
  • 2023-24: Biden closes the border to most asylum-seekers.

Immigration restrictions are by design and effect racist, and there is no valid moral justification for deportation. 150 years of US history, under both Democrats and Republicans, have demonstrated there is no way to implement deportation policies without violating human rights. “Immigration enforcement” is just a euphemism for deportation. We have not yet heard a plausible theory of how to do “immigration enforcement” without deporting people.

As a practical matter, you cannot deport people trying to survive, or prevent them from entering the country, without imprisoning them under the threat of violence. There is no “humane” way to deport or exclude someone seeking survival for themselves or loved ones.

ICE and Border Patrol cannot be reformed because their purpose and function is reprehensible and morally illegitimate. When we say #AbolishICE, we mean all deportation and detention must be ended. ICE and Border Patrol must be abolished not just in form but in function. This is why we do not support the cosmetic and ineffective reforms proposed by the Democrats, since not only will these reforms not be implemented, but they actually serve to protect ICE from increasing public support for abolishing the agency entirely.