By PSA Newsroom Staff
State Representative Jermaine Johnson has ignited a storm in South Carolina politics with his bold anti-ICE messaging, urging supporters on social media to say “F#CK ICE” and framing federal immigration enforcement as a threat to local communities. While his rhetoric energizes voters frustrated with Washington, experts caution that rejecting cooperation with ICE could create real-world challenges for law enforcement and public safety in the state.
In Friday’s reel, Johnson said he wanted South Carolinians to stand together “against an agency that tears families apart,” calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a force that “terrorizes communities that have already been left behind.” For many voters who feel unheard by state and federal leaders alike, that kind of passion resonates.
But as Johnson stakes much of his message on a rejection of ICE, some observers are asking a practical question: what would it actually mean to disentangle South Carolina from cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — and is that feasible for a governor?
Deportation Numbers: Obama vs. Today
Looking at historical context helps explain why ICE is such a flashpoint. Over the eight years of President Barack Obama’s administration, more than 2.7 million people were deported, earning Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief” among critics of his immigration policies. Even though his administration emphasized deporting criminals, the sheer scale of removals left lasting scars on immigrant communities.
Under the Joe Biden administration, deportations have continued at high levels. In fiscal year 2024 alone, ICE deported about 271,000 people, marking a 10-year high that surpassed peaks under both the Obama and Trump administrations. These numbers highlight that immigration enforcement remains a major federal operation regardless of which party holds the presidency.
Why Enforcement Matters in Practical Terms
ICE does more than deport undocumented immigrants. The agency coordinates investigations into human trafficking networks, drug smuggling corridors, and transnational crime rings that often cross state lines. Local law enforcement relies on that federal coordination to tackle complex cases, especially when criminal justice and public safety intersect.
A state government refusing all cooperation with ICE wouldn’t just signal defiance — it could create gaps in operations that local law enforcement finds difficult to fill. Immigration enforcement isn’t just about removing people from the country; it’s about integrating state and federal resources to keep communities safe, protect citizens, and support vulnerable immigrant populations.
Balancing Passion with Practicality
Johnson’s anti-ICE rhetoric clearly resonates with voters frustrated by the federal government’s handling of immigration and those concerned about the human toll of deportations. But critics say fiery slogans alone don’t address the practical realities of governing: ensuring public safety, preventing crime, and maintaining the rule of law.
In South Carolina, a governor cannot directly control ICE, but the office sets the tone for cooperation with federal authorities. Voters will have to weigh Johnson’s passion against the real-world implications of policies that could disrupt established law enforcement networks.
