Angie Nixon and Ashley Moody offer sharply different approaches to immigration enforcement in Florida’s U.S. Senate race. Nixon proposes abolishing ICE and rebuilding enforcement, while Moody supports expanding the government’s capacity to detain and remove people subject to immigration law. Their positions reach beyond the border to local policing, federal spending and the future of immigrants living and working in Florida. The choice concerns both who should be allowed to remain and how the government should determine who must leave.

This episode examines their proposals alongside actions already taken in office. Nixon has a Florida House voting record and has publicly opposed a local ICE partnership. Moody has a Senate voting record and has introduced legislation expanding removal authority and support for participating police agencies. Those records help separate campaign language from the decisions each candidate would bring to Washington.

Would Angie Nixon Abolish ICE?

Nixon’s campaign platform explicitly calls for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and rebuilding immigration enforcement under accountable civilian oversight. It also proposes a deportation moratorium pending an enforcement audit and a swift path to citizenship for Dreamers and undocumented residents. Her position therefore involves replacing an agency and changing enforcement policy, rather than simply altering its leadership. The platform says legitimate enforcement functions would continue under a rebuilt system.

That proposal requires an operational explanation. Voters should know which agency would inherit responsibility, who would lead it and how investigations and pending cases would continue during the transition. ICE’s work includes interior immigration enforcement as well as investigations of trafficking, child exploitation, financial crime and transnational criminal organizations. Any replacement plan must explain how those functions would be preserved and supervised.

Nixon’s Deportation Moratorium Raises a Public-Safety Question

A pause in deportations during an audit would change the government’s immediate response to people otherwise eligible for removal. Nixon’s published proposal does not spell out its duration or detailed exceptions. The practical question is whether such a pause would include people convicted of serious crimes or identified as security threats. Its effect would depend heavily on those boundaries.

An audit could identify errors, unlawful practices or failures of supervision. A moratorium also requires rules for detention, release and cases already moving through the system. Nixon should explain what would trigger the pause, what would end it and which removals could continue. Those details determine whether her proposal operates as a targeted safeguard or a broad suspension of enforcement.

Ashley Moody Proposes Broader Expedited Removal Authority

Moody introduced the Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act, S. 1827, in May 2025. The introduced text would require detention and expedited removal when the Department of Homeland Security determines that a noncitizen falls within specified categories. Those categories include criminal-gang membership, membership in or material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization, and convictions for listed offenses. The conviction provisions cover any felony and several additional categories, including sexual offenses, domestic violence and crimes against children.

The proposal does not rely exclusively on criminal convictions because its gang and terrorism provisions create separate grounds. It also would make covered individuals ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. These are substantial proposed changes to the removal process, not merely a statement that serious offenders should leave. Voters should examine both the public-safety rationale and the safeguards for challenging an incorrect classification.

Moody describes the legislation as a means of removing dangerous people more quickly and supporting President Donald Trump’s immigration priorities. That position contrasts directly with Nixon’s proposed pause and restructuring. The central implementation question is how authorities would establish the relevant facts and correct mistakes before removal. Speed is a policy objective; accurate identification and lawful procedure remain essential measures of whether the policy works.

What Their Immigration Voting Records Show

Nixon voted against Florida’s SB 2-C on February 13, 2025, according to the official House roll call. The legislation passed the House 85–30 and became Chapter 2025-1. It created a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, established coordination and grant responsibilities, and addressed several other immigration-related matters. Her vote records opposition to that package, although it does not establish her motive regarding every provision.

Moody voted for the Senate’s amended H.R. 1 on July 1, 2025. The Senate divided 50–50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the deciding vote. The enacted reconciliation law includes substantial immigration-enforcement spending, including funding for ICE personnel, removal operations and expansion of 287(g) partnerships. Moody’s vote therefore supported a funded enforcement expansion, although the legislation also contained many unrelated provisions.

These are different bills passed by different legislative bodies, so they are not identical head-to-head votes. They nevertheless provide evidence of the candidates’ choices alongside their current platforms. Nixon opposed Florida’s enforcement package, while Moody supported federal legislation that increased enforcement resources. A fair comparison should describe the full measures and avoid treating a package vote as agreement or disagreement with every individual provision.

Should Florida Police Help ICE Enforce Immigration Laws?

The federal 287(g) program delegates specified immigration functions to trained state and local officers under ICE supervision. Moody introduced the RIPPLE Act to expand eligible reimbursements for participating agencies, including personnel costs. Her approach makes local police a larger part of the enforcement system. It also raises practical questions about training, supervision and how participating departments allocate officers.

Nixon joined advocates pressing Miami to end its 287(g) agreement in August 2026. WLRN reported that opponents were concerned immigration enforcement could discourage residents from contacting police. Her involvement demonstrates opposition to a particular local partnership, alongside her national proposal to replace ICE. It does not establish that she opposes every form of information sharing between police and federal authorities.

The competing approaches should be judged by measurable outcomes. Supporters of cooperation should explain how it improves public safety and how officers avoid unlawful stops or mistaken detention. Opponents should explain how police would handle encounters involving people subject to valid removal orders or serious criminal allegations. Both should address whether victims and witnesses can report crimes without losing confidence in local law enforcement.

Haitian Temporary Protected Status Creates a Specific Florida Divide

Temporary Protected Status allows eligible people from designated countries to remain temporarily and obtain work authorization; it does not automatically provide permanent residence or citizenship. In a July 29 notice, E-Verify reported that Haiti’s TPS designation had terminated effective July 27, 2026. The notice instructed employers to reverify affected workers’ employment authorization. A person may have another basis for remaining or working, so the end of TPS does not establish every individual’s immigration outcome. wlrn.org

On October 2, Nixon called on Florida’s senators to advance S. 4814 to restore protection for Haitians. The introduced bill would require Haiti’s TPS designation to continue until three months after January 20, 2029. Nixon argues that removing affected residents would endanger families and disrupt Florida communities and workplaces. Her statement establishes support for this specific protection, rather than only a general objection to deportation.

Moody’s broader support for Trump’s enforcement agenda does not supply a recorded vote on every TPS proposal. Nixon’s demand that Moody support S. 4814 likewise does not establish that a floor vote occurred. Moody should explain her position on that bill and the country conditions relevant to returning people to Haiti. Nixon should explain how temporary protection would be reviewed and how it relates to her separate proposal for permanent legal pathways.

Citizenship, Asylum and Criminal Convictions Are Different Questions

Immigration enforcement involves several distinct legal categories. An undocumented resident, a person applying for asylum, a lawful permanent resident and a U.S. citizen do not have the same status or face the same proceedings. Seeking asylum is a request for protection under federal law, not automatic approval to remain permanently. TPS is another separate protection, with its own eligibility rules and duration.

The same care is required when discussing crime. An accusation is not a conviction, and an immigration violation does not establish that someone committed a violent offense. Conversely, the absence of a violent-crime conviction does not automatically establish eligibility to remain. Public safety and due process both depend on identifying the actual legal issue rather than substituting a broad political label.

Immigration Enforcement Also Requires a Spending Plan

The reconciliation law Moody supported appropriates $29.85 billion in one ICE funding section for purposes including staffing, transportation, facilities and 287(g) agreements. That figure is one appropriation within the law, rather than the total cost of all immigration or border provisions. The statute also provides resources for immigration adjudication and state and local participation. Enforcement policy therefore includes decisions about courts, personnel and reimbursement as well as arrests. govinfo.gov

Moody should explain how additional resources would be evaluated through lawful removals, accurate decisions and public-safety outcomes. Nixon should explain what replacing ICE would cost, which functions would move and how the transition would be funded. Both should address delays in deciding cases, because enforcement and humanitarian protections require functioning adjudication systems. A credible plan needs a budget and administrative capacity behind its promises.

What Nixon and Moody Would Change in the U.S. Senate

Nixon’s proposals would redirect federal policy toward broader legal pathways, an enforcement audit and a rebuilt immigration agency. Moody’s record supports greater enforcement capacity, expanded police partnerships and broader expedited-removal authority. Those priorities would influence legislation, appropriations, oversight and the officials each senator supports for confirmation. Neither candidate could implement every promise through a single Senate vote.

The practical choice is how to combine enforceable immigration rules with accurate decisions and protection against unlawful government action. Nixon needs to specify the limits of her moratorium and the structure of her replacement agency. Moody needs to explain the evidence standards and review mechanisms accompanying faster removal. Florida voters deserve those answers alongside each candidate’s statements about compassion, security and the rule of law.

We Welcome Your Thoughts.

More From The Nixon. vs Moody Series