Would abolishing ICE lead to an increase in undocumented immigration?
Executive summary
Abolishing ICE would alter one piece of the U.S. immigration-enforcement architecture but would not by itself determine future levels of undocumented immigration; trends depend far more on border enforcement capacity, immigration law, state and local cooperation, and the push–pull forces that drive migration [1] [2] [3]. Advocates for abolition point to documented harms and administrative overreach, while opponents warn that removing a central enforcement agency without a clear replacement would risk enforcement gaps or political backlash that could either increase or decrease unauthorized entries depending on follow‑on policy choices [4] [5] [6].
1. What “abolish ICE” would actually change: agency versus system
ICE is a large, post‑9/11 federal agency with two main components—Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations—that together carry out detention, deportation, and transnational criminal investigations [7] [1]; dismantling ICE would remove that institutional vehicle but not automatically repeal the statutes, detention infrastructure, or budget lines that fund immigration enforcement or other DHS components that could pick up its functions [7] [3].
2. Enforcement capacity and deterrence: evidence is mixed
Historic variations in enforcement and deportation show that agency posture matters: ICE arrests rose sharply after 2016 even when total deportations earlier were higher under previous administrations, indicating enforcement priorities can change outcomes but are not the sole determinant of migration flows [8] [9]. Large-scale removal operations are costly and logistically formidable—analyses warn that mass deportation plans would require massive hires and detention expansion—so the mere absence of ICE does not guarantee a sudden, sustained surge of entries if political will to replace enforcement remains [3] [10].
3. Local, state, and border actors would shape the effect
State laws and local criminal custody practices already drive much of ICE’s reach—programs that hand over people booked into jails to immigration authorities and recent state anti‑sanctuary statutes amplify enforcement regardless of ICE’s internal organization—so abolition would intersect with, not erase, a patchwork of drivers that produce removals and deterrence [2] [11].
4. Human consequences and behavioral responses in communities
Research shows the presence and activity of immigration enforcement agencies produce fear and avoidance of public services among immigrant communities, which can suppress migration‑related behaviors and community integration; abolition could reduce those harms but might also shift enforcement into less visible or more punitive forms unless replaced by alternative policies that restore trust [12] [6].
5. Political dynamics: replacements, rebranding, or reallocation
Calls to abolish ICE often propose subsuming its functions into other agencies or redesigning immigration governance; opponents argue abolition risks simply rebranding the same powers under a different structure or triggering a political backlash that strengthens enforcement [13] [4]. Analysts caution that without legislative change to immigration law and clear alternatives for processing asylum, detention, and removal, abolition could produce administrative confusion that temporarily alters flows but not the long‑run structural drivers [7] [3].
6. Bottom line — would undocumented immigration rise?
Abolishing ICE alone would not deterministically cause a sustained increase in undocumented immigration; short‑term effects depend on whether and how its functions are reassigned, whether border and local enforcement intensify or relax, and whether Congress changes immigration law to expand legal pathways or enforcement priorities [1] [2] [3]. The most likely outcomes range from negligible change if other agencies or state mechanisms fill the gap, to localized shifts in arrival or detection patterns if enforcement is weakened or decentralized, to politically induced surges or crackdowns if abolition fuels polarized policy swings [8] [10].
7. Policy implications: what would matter more than the agency name
To affect undocumented migration sustainably, policymakers would need comprehensive changes: clearer legal pathways, targeted border capacity decisions, community‑centered enforcement limits, and fiscal realism about detention and deportation costs—moves that shape incentives directly, rather than relying on the abolition or survival of a single agency [3] [9] [5].