Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude?
Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes.
But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded.
Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year.
If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse?
It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think?