What are the arguments for and against abolishing ICE?

1. Summary of the results

The debate over abolishing ICE presents sharply contrasting perspectives on immigration enforcement effectiveness and humanitarian concerns. Arguments for abolishing ICE center on several key criticisms of the agency's operations and impact.

Proponents of abolition argue that ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is fundamentally wasteful and counterproductive ^[1]. They contend that the agency does not contribute meaningfully to America's safety, instead targeting individuals without criminal convictions or with only minor offenses rather than focusing on violent criminals ^[1]. Critics highlight that ICE's aggressive enforcement tactics actually interfere with the prosecution of criminal enterprises and that the agency's culture requires fundamental reform ^[1].

The abolition movement gained significant momentum during the Trump administration due to increased arrests and more aggressive enforcement policies that sparked public backlash ^[2]. Advocates propose replacing ICE with a completely new paradigm for immigration enforcement that eliminates detention, mass deportation, and dedicated immigration police forces ^[3]. This alternative approach would emphasize four key pillars: optimal enforcement scaling, mandatory preferences for compliance assistance, proportional consequences, and minimizing physically coercive state power ^[3].

Arguments against abolishing ICE focus primarily on public safety concerns and border security imperatives. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that ERO operations are essential for addressing what they characterize as a humanitarian and security crisis at the border ^[4]. Officials argue that ICE's enforcement actions are specifically designed to disrupt cartels, smugglers, and other criminal actors who exploit immigration loopholes ^[4].

Defenders of ICE point to the agency's evolving practices, including new processes for handling family units in expedited removal that incorporate Alternatives to Detention (ATD) technology such as GPS ankle monitors ^[5]. These supporters argue that ICE is committed to imposing immigration consequences in a safe and humane manner while maintaining necessary enforcement capabilities ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important perspectives that are often overlooked in mainstream discussions of ICE abolition. The sources highlight a significant gap between ICE's stated priorities and actual enforcement patterns - while the agency claims to focus on dangerous criminals, evidence suggests it frequently targets individuals with no criminal history or minor infractions ^[1].

An important alternative viewpoint emerges around enforcement methodology rather than complete abolition. Rather than simply eliminating ICE, some experts propose comprehensive reform that would fundamentally restructure immigration enforcement to prioritize compliance assistance over punitive measures ^[3]. This approach would implement scalable penalties and robust due process protections while maintaining some enforcement capacity.

The economic impact of ICE operations receives insufficient attention in typical debates. The sources indicate that current enforcement practices may actually harm the U.S. economy, though specific mechanisms aren't detailed ^[1]. Additionally, the role of immigration detention alternatives and their effectiveness compared to traditional enforcement methods deserves greater consideration ^[6].

The institutional perspective from within DHS provides crucial context often missing from activist-driven narratives. Officials frame their enforcement efforts as responses to exploitation by criminal organizations rather than targeting immigrants themselves ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears relatively neutral, asking for arguments on both sides of the ICE abolition debate. However, the framing may inadvertently suggest that abolition versus maintenance are the only two options, when the sources reveal more nuanced approaches involving comprehensive reform rather than complete elimination ^[3].

The sources demonstrate clear ideological positioning that could influence how arguments are presented. Academic and advocacy sources ^{[1] [3]} consistently emphasize ICE's failures and abuses, while government sources ^{[4] [5]} focus on operational necessities and humanitarian improvements. This polarization suggests that both sides may be selectively presenting evidence that supports their predetermined positions rather than providing comprehensive assessments.

The absence of specific publication dates for most sources makes it difficult to assess whether the arguments reflect current ICE operations or outdated practices that may have since been reformed. This temporal ambiguity could lead to misinformed conclusions about the agency's present-day effectiveness and conduct.