I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint.

Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year.

It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".)

Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE.

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.

I don't disagree.

Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think?

I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is.