What are the main arguments for reforming ICE instead of abolishing it?
Executive summary
The principal arguments for reforming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rather than abolishing it center on preserving institutional capacity for immigration enforcement and public safety, pursuing pragmatic legislative and administrative fixes, and targeting specific practices and powers through oversight instead of dismantling an entire agency [1] [2] [3]. Critics of abolition argue that vilifying the bureaucracy distracts from changing the underlying laws and that practical alternatives—reassigning functions, tightening rules, and improving accountability—are more achievable and less disruptive than wholesale elimination [4] [2].
1. Institutional continuity and public-safety functions that would survive “abolition” arguments
Supporters of reform note that many of ICE’s core missions—investigating transnational crime, human trafficking, and customs violations—are seen as legitimate law-enforcement functions that would still be needed even if the agency were dissolved, and scholars warn that eliminating an enforcement agency does not erase the legal obligations to enforce immigration statutes [3] [2] [5].
2. Practicality: abolition doesn’t automatically create workable replacements
Legal and policy analysts say abolition campaigns often understate the complexity of transferring ICE’s roles; the Yale Law Journal notes ICE currently performs prosecutorial-like functions in immigration adjudication and that replacing those roles would require detailed institutional redesign rather than symbolic dismantling [2], an argument echoed by commentators who call abolition a distraction from the harder work of legislative reform [4].
3. Reform as a route to limit abuses through oversight and rule changes
Many reform proponents argue that targeted measures—revising detention practices, limiting enforcement priorities, strengthening disciplinary systems, and changing statutory authorities—can curb the worst abuses without removing all investigative capacity, a position buttressed by analyses urging compliance-focused enforcement similar to reforms in other federal agencies [2] [6] [5].
4. Political calculations and electoral consequences that favor reformers
Institutional reform is also pitched as the politically pragmatic path: establishment Democrats and party operatives have publicly warned that calls for outright abolition can be exploited by political opponents, and several prominent Democrats who criticize ICE instead favor reforming it rather than calling for elimination, reflecting concerns about electoral messaging and feasibility [7] [1].
5. Recent behavior and legal context that complicate accountability-only approaches
Skeptics of simply reforming point to studies and reporting showing ICE’s shifting tactics—such as more at-large community arrests—and to judicial trends that have insulated immigration enforcement from ordinary constitutional checks, suggesting that reforms face limits when courts and legal structures expand enforcement latitude [8] [9].
6. Critiques of the reform argument and the abolition movement’s counterclaim
Advocates for abolition counter that ICE’s institutional culture and recurrent abuses over decades make reform unlikely to succeed and that defunding or dissolving the agency is necessary to protect immigrant communities; proponents of abolition point to patterns of alleged overreach, racialized impacts, and preventable harms as evidence that piecemeal fixes will not suffice [6] [10] [1]. Conversely, critics of abolition warn that the slogan can conflate the agency with the statutes it enforces and thereby distract from the need for comprehensive legislative change [4] [3].
Conclusion
The central case for reform over abolition rests on a mix of practical, legal and political considerations: reformers argue that key enforcement functions must continue, that measurable policy and accountability changes are actionable and preferable to a disruptive institutional purge, and that electoral and legislative realities favor fixing an agency rather than erasing it [2] [4] [7]; opponents rightly demand evidence that reforms will be durable given ICE’s history and the broader legal environment that shapes enforcement [6] [9].