Dem Rep Calls ICE 'Murderers,' Hannity Erupts Over Crime and Security

Paul Riverbank, 1/18/2026Congressman and Hannity clash over ICE, revealing deep Democratic divides and national immigration tensions.

“You want to abolish ICE,” Hannity said, his words as steady as his gaze. Then, for effect, he ticked off a series of grisly crimes, each one linked—he insisted—to immigrants in the country illegally. “Did you ever call any of their families?” he pressed, not so much inquiring as accusing.

Thanedar, not unused to being boxed in, shifted in his chair. His answer tried to expand the frame, reminding viewers of the fear ICE brings to immigrant communities back home. “My constituents have been terrorized by ICE,” he managed, the rest swallowed up as Hannity cut him off. “I’ll take that as a no,” Hannity replied dryly, speeding on.

Midway through, the script flipped. Conversation about immigration enforcement turned pointed, even raw, when the Minneapolis shooting came up—the one where an ICE agent’s bullet killed Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three. Thanedar grew heated, questioning whether ICE could justify 'murdering American citizens.' Around him, staffers whispered in the shadows. Hannity barely hesitated: “He defended himself. That’s where you and I see things differently.” In that studio, the schism was more than policy—it felt personal, lived-in.

If the debate seemed hostile, it’s because both men were playing to bigger audiences: Hannity to viewers who see ICE as a frontline bulwark; Thanedar to voters who fear police sweeps more than they do gangs. Each stayed locked in his own narrative, not even pausing to acknowledge common ground.

Stepping back, you can see echoes of this fight dividing the Democratic Party itself. Figures like Rep. Delia Ramirez want not only ICE but the Department of Homeland Security erased entirely, a position that electrifies parts of the party. Others flinch at the thought, worried such talk will be political poison in swing districts. The polling, as you’d expect, splits down party lines. Democrats lean toward dismantling ICE; independents waver; Republicans couldn’t be more opposed.

These rifts didn’t appear overnight. Family separations under the Trump administration cracked open wounds and old suspicions. Now, every new tragedy—like the death of Renee Good—brings it all boiling up. It’s a battle of priorities: protect immigrant families, or be seen as weak on crime? Elected officials teeter between sympathy and security, and somehow, neither side is satisfied.

Back in the studio, Hannity hammered his theme once more—and whether or not viewers agreed, his certainty had its own gravity. “You call ICE agents murderers, but they're putting themselves in harm’s way to arrest real threats. You never say thank you.” It was, for his audience, a condemnation more than a query.

Thanedar tried a counterpoint. Maybe not all these bills were as straightforward as they seem, he suggested. “Sometimes you have to vote no because of the fine print.” There wasn’t much room for nuance; there rarely is, especially when the cameras are rolling.

Moments like these don’t resolve anything. Each story, each argument, just lays another brick in the dividing wall. For some, ICE is the thin blue line. For others, it’s a looming threat. Both sides remain convinced of their own version of safety, their own brand of justice.

And when the studio lights finally dim, those lines remain, jagged and deep—no closer to a truce than when the conversation began.

The bright overheads had a way of flattening everything out—faces, voices, intentions. On one side of the studio table, Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar waited his turn. On the other, Sean Hannity seemed almost at home under the glare, launching straight in, wasting no time on formalities.“You want to abolish ICE,” Hannity said, his words as steady as his gaze. Then, for effect, he ticked off a series of grisly crimes, each one linked—he insisted—to immigrants in the country illegally. “Did you ever call any of their families?” he pressed, not so much inquiring as accusing.Thanedar, not unused to being boxed in, shifted in his chair. His answer tried to expand the frame, reminding viewers of the fear ICE brings to immigrant communities back home. “My constituents have been terrorized by ICE,” he managed, the rest swallowed up as Hannity cut him off. “I’ll take that as a no,” Hannity replied dryly, speeding on.Midway through, the script flipped. Conversation about immigration enforcement turned pointed, even raw, when the Minneapolis shooting came up—the one where an ICE agent’s bullet killed Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three. Thanedar grew heated, questioning whether ICE could justify 'murdering American citizens.' Around him, staffers whispered in the shadows. Hannity barely hesitated: “He defended himself. That’s where you and I see things differently.” In that studio, the schism was more than policy—it felt personal, lived-in.If the debate seemed hostile, it’s because both men were playing to bigger audiences: Hannity to viewers who see ICE as a frontline bulwark; Thanedar to voters who fear police sweeps more than they do gangs. Each stayed locked in his own narrative, not even pausing to acknowledge common ground.Stepping back, you can see echoes of this fight dividing the Democratic Party itself. Figures like Rep. Delia Ramirez want not only ICE but the Department of Homeland Security erased entirely, a position that electrifies parts of the party. Others flinch at the thought, worried such talk will be political poison in swing districts. The polling, as you’d expect, splits down party lines. Democrats lean toward dismantling ICE; independents waver; Republicans couldn’t be more opposed.These rifts didn’t appear overnight. Family separations under the Trump administration cracked open wounds and old suspicions. Now, every new tragedy—like the death of Renee Good—brings it all boiling up. It’s a battle of priorities: protect immigrant families, or be seen as weak on crime? Elected officials teeter between sympathy and security, and somehow, neither side is satisfied.Back in the studio, Hannity hammered his theme once more—and whether or not viewers agreed, his certainty had its own gravity. “You call ICE agents murderers, but they're putting themselves in harm’s way to arrest real threats. You never say thank you.” It was, for his audience, a condemnation more than a query.Thanedar tried a counterpoint. Maybe not all these bills were as straightforward as they seem, he suggested. “Sometimes you have to vote no because of the fine print.” There wasn’t much room for nuance; there rarely is, especially when the cameras are rolling.Moments like these don’t resolve anything. Each story, each argument, just lays another brick in the dividing wall. For some, ICE is the thin blue line. For others, it’s a looming threat. Both sides remain convinced of their own version of safety, their own brand of justice.And when the studio lights finally dim, those lines remain, jagged and deep—no closer to a truce than when the conversation began.