Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What role would local law enforcement play in immigration enforcement if ICE were abolished?
Executive Summary
If ICE were abolished, local law enforcement would neither automatically inherit a uniform national immigration mandate nor be uniformly relieved of immigration responsibilities; instead, their role would be shaped by federal statutes, voluntary agreements with DHS, state laws, and local sanctuary policies. Existing legal tools — notably 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) deputization agreements and 287(g) models, the voluntary nature of detainers, and federal preemption principles — plus wide state-by-state variation and political choices, mean outcomes would differ dramatically across jurisdictions [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What advocates and critics claim — a clean handoff or chaotic patchwork?
Advocates for abolition argue that eliminating ICE could end detention-centric immigration enforcement and shift emphasis to alternatives that minimize mass detention and deportation, but proponents do not offer a single blueprint for who would carry out removals if a federal agency disappeared. Critics counter that state and local agencies would fill the gap, either through expanded deputization or state statutes, producing a fragmented enforcement regime. Academic analysis notes the absence of a clear replacement role for local police in many abolition proposals, leaving the question of implementation open [5]. Contemporary reporting and program descriptions show that, in practice, local agencies already perform many handoffs to ICE and can be deputized under federal programs, supporting the view that abolition could spur uneven local enforcement upticks [4] [3].
2. The legal guardrails that would limit — or permit — local action
Federal law confines primary immigration authority to the national government but also allows state and local participation under specific mechanisms. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) authorizes agreements that deputize state/local officers to perform immigration functions when DHS provides training and oversight; absent such agreements, courts have constrained local detention based solely on ICE detainers as unconstitutional commandeering. Legal advisories emphasize that statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1373 regulate information-sharing but do not compel local enforcement actions, and sanctuary policies remain legally defensible in many courts [1] [2]. The net effect: local agencies can act more if they choose and if federal frameworks or state laws enable them, but they are not legally obliged to assume a wholesale federal role [1] [2].
3. Sanctuary policies would shape where enforcement happens — or doesn’t
Local decisions matter. Jurisdictions with sanctuary policies routinely limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect community trust; those policies do not bar local police from enforcing state criminal laws but restrict immigration-focused collaboration. Research and advocacy reports demonstrate that sanctuary jurisdictions do not show higher crime rates and that detainer compliance remains voluntary, with legal liability risks for unlawful detention, reinforcing a practical barrier to automatic local replacement of ICE functions [6] [7]. If ICE disappeared, these policies would likely preserve local noncooperation in many cities and states, producing a mosaic of enforcement intensity tied to local political and legal choices [6] [7].
4. Deputization, task forces, and the 287(g) precedent — a playbook for expansion
The 287(g) program and other deputization mechanisms present a ready-made path for expanding local enforcement. Under 287(g), local officers, when trained and supervised by DHS, can identify and process removable noncitizens; recent trends show rapid growth in such agreements in some administrations, illustrating how federal policy can induce widespread local participation [3] [8]. If ICE were abolished but federal policymakers or state governments sought aggressive enforcement, they could increase reliance on deputized local officers or create state-level agencies with parallel mandates. That would yield a patchwork pattern where some localities become enforcement engines and others resist, amplifying geographic disparities [8] [3].
5. Empirical reality today foreshadows tomorrow: Hand-offs and state-led enforcement
Current data reveal that a large share of interior ICE arrests originate from encounters with state or local law enforcement, indicating that local practices already drive much enforcement. Reports document states like Texas stepping up state-led enforcement while other states enacted protections limiting transfers to ICE, illustrating the political-legal divergence across states [4]. Abolishing ICE would not erase those underlying dynamics; rather, it would shift leverage toward state legislatures and local political actors who can expand, contract, or reconfigure enforcement through statutes, budgets, and intergovernmental agreements [4].
6. Trade-offs and consequences: public safety, trust, and fiscal burdens
Policy choices would produce trade-offs. Expanding local enforcement risks undermining community trust, hampering reporting of crimes and cooperation with police, and creating civil-liability and fiscal burdens for local governments. Conversely, a federal vacuum filled by state actors could accelerate removal efforts in politically motivated jurisdictions and decentralize accountability. Research and practice advisories urge weighing public-safety objectives against civil-rights costs and budgetary impacts; the likely outcome of abolition without a clear, uniformly applied replacement would be a fragmented system that amplifies existing geographic inequities [9] [2] [4].