I reject the premise that ICE must incarcerate these people. Instead of continuing to hold people in camps with inadequate facilities, ICE could have changed their detention policies when faced with reduced funding. After all, that is clearly the intent of Congress, whose duty it is to set policy priorities via budgetary allocations.
> I reject the premise that ICE must incarcerate these people.
When your boss tells you "do X" and you don't agree with it you have choices. Do it, or don't do it and face the consequences.
There are very few people in ICE who can actually make this sort of decision and not risk consequences. Most of the people who COULD set this sort of policy are politically appointed, they aren't the (more or less) apolitical staffers who simply do as they are told (assuming it is respectful of the law).
> After all, that is clearly the intent of Congress
The intent of congress and the president interpreted by the courts, NOT individual ice agents, or for that matter you or I.
> whose duty it is to set policy priorities via budgetary allocations.
Again, that isn't how it works. Budget can be guiding but it is not always absolute, and sometimes it is (earmarks, pork) but in this case the "cut" isn't a "removal of the underlying law that is to be enforced".
