Local Activists Challenge Avelo’s Controversial ICE Contract

Several local activist organizations like the Immigrant Allies Forum, Indivisible Wilmington, and the Democratic Socialists of America’s local branch took to the street that leads to Wrightsville Beach, urging holidaymakers to consciously ‘support their beliefs.’ A protest organizer disclosed that they strategically selected this location to maximize the number of visitors informed about the controversial contract Avelo struck earlier this year with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to perform deportation flights.

A core concern expressed by protestors revolved around the allocation of county funds that have been funneled to Avelo for the promotion of Wilmington as well as other travel spots, with the intention to increase vacation travels via their services. They highlighted that while Avelo offers attractive low-fare tickets, there could be substantial human rights implications attached.

Avelo Airlines, a budget-friendly carrier that provides services across 23 states, established a new operational base in Wilmington this April. Unsurprisingly, this move led to a wave of protests surging throughout the city.

The initial protest against Avelo staged right outside the airport took place in May. However, the demonstration held this week marks a significant milestone as it aligns with the national campaign’s primary objective which is to impose commercial pressure on the airline following its ICE collaboration.

One of the campaign’s representatives expressed the nationwide nature of the endeavor, explaining that the protests are being staged in several cities across the U.S. where Avelo operates, positioning the current situation as part of a broader movement.

A protest participant shared some noteworthy details about the airline, underscoring its unique commercial contract with ICE. Avelo is chiefly responsible for operating deportation flights from Arizona to El Salvador. The key message being passed to travelers is simple – abstain from using Avelo.

The advocacy campaign faces the inherent complexity of divergent views on immigration, making it hard to change the perceptions of certain individuals. Despite this challenge, activists are resolute in suggesting that travelers should at least contemplate switching their preferred airline.

They feel optimistic about their efforts as one protester indicated observable operational changes by Avelo, such as the closure and cutback on certain routes in various parts of the country while excluding Wilmington. They welcome these initial impacts and hope to realize more substantial changes in the future.

Regarding the controversial partnership with ICE, Avelo defended their stance, referring to the need for financial security. The matter becomes more complicated when looking at the response of the New Hanover County Airport Authority to a public records request initiated by one of the advocacy group’s steering committee members.

A formal reply from the Deputy Airport Director clarified that the Airport Authority did not donate any funds to Avelo and abstained from endorsing any budget amendments for the carrier. He shared a copy of Avelo’s standard lease agreement and shed light on the airport’s incentive strategy designed for all airlines.

However, following a series of discussions, the Deputy Director acknowledged that a portion of local marketing funding had been devoted to promoting both Avelo flights and ILM Airport since Avelo launched operations at the airport.

Avelo’s local presence has resulted in major economic benefits since their operations began. But this argument was contested by an activist who argued that attributing a remarkable surge in tourist spending, totaling $1.1 billion in New Hanover County, to Avelo seemed implausible. They felt it was hard to correlate the county’s annual GDP, which was under $20 billion, to the airline’s supposed role in promoting economic activity.

The same activist further highlighted the deeper ethical dilemma of tolerating Avelo’s involvement in deportation flights just because other actions led to profits. Questioning the crux of the issue, they posed the query if we are ready to gloss over questionable practices for economic gains, what value does morality hold in the grand scheme of things and are we comfortable allowing the continuation of controversial deportation flights?