How to Abolish ICE

Recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  depredations in Minnesota further strengthen the already compelling case for abolishing the agency. A recent federal district court ruling outlines in detail ICE’s extensive use of force against peaceful protestors, violations of a variety of constitutional rights, and other cruel, unjust and illegal actions.  Moreover, it is clear that these wrongs are not just the fault of a few rogue agents, but structural defects in the agency and its mission, exacerbated by the Trump administration’s enormous expansion of it, and hiring of numerous dubious new recruits. The agency doesn’t even follow its own supposed safety guidelines, which neglect was one of the reasons for the indefensible killing of Renee Good.

These widespread abuses have turned already skeptical public opinion further against ICE, to the point where a substantial majority of Americans disapprove of the agency, and – for the first time – a narrow plurality want to see it abolished.

Abolition is indeed the right approach. In an August 2025 article in The Hill, I outlined how to do it: by shutting down the agency and transferring its funds to state and local police. This strategy would have the virtue of  simultaneously further expanding political support for abolition,  reducing crime, and ending ICE abuses. Here is a brief excerpt:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty, abuses of civil liberties and racial profiling. As a result, the agency and the Trump administration’s deportation policies generally have become increasingly unpopular…..

[M]ost Democrats have hesitated to call for the agency’s abolition, probably for fear of seeming to be soft on crime…. But opponents can avoid such accusations by combining abolition of ICE with reallocation of its funds to ordinary police, which would undercut accusations of being pro-criminal or anti-law enforcement. This could greatly expand support for abolition….

In my 2022 book “Free to Move,” I proposed dismantling ICE and giving the money to ordinary police, perhaps in the form of federal grants to state and local law enforcement. Recipient agencies should be required to use the funds to target violent and property crime, and abjure ICE-style abuses.

Putting more ordinary police on the streets is an effective way to reduce crime rates, according to a long line of studies….

Focusing on undocumented immigrants is a poor use of law enforcement resources…. Transferring ICE funds to state and local police would allow a greater focus on violent and property crime, regardless of the perpetrators’ background….

Abolishing ICE would not end all deportations. State and local authorities could still, in many cases, turn illegal migrants over to the federal government for removal… But abolishing ICE would make deportation much more dependent on state and local cooperation and would empower jurisdictions to make their own choices.

This strategy is even more viable today than might have been the case a few months ago. Events in Minnesota have further turned public opinion against ICE, and the idea of transferring its funds to real cops can provide an additional boost for abolition, by neutralizing fears that doing so would somehow increase crime. In addition, transferring the money to state and local cops could draw support from law enforcement interest groups that would stand to benefit.

In the August article, I also outlined how ICE abuses – including illegal violence, racial profiling, and horrific detention conditions – were already ubiquitous, even before the outrages in Minnesota. Recent events are an expansion of these evils, not a singular aberration. In that article, and a follow-up piece for the Boston Globe, (non-paywalled version here), I addressed a number of possible objections, such as concerns that local police also engage in various abuses. Here is an excerpt from that second article:

Many studies show that putting more police on the streets can reduce crime. Indeed, diverting law enforcement resources from deportation to ordinary policing can help focus more effort on the violent and property crimes that most harm residents of high-crime areas. Deportation efforts, by contrast, target a population with a lower crime rate than others…..

Some progressives might nonetheless oppose transferring funds to conventional police. The latter, too, sometimes engage in abusive practices, including racial profiling. I share some of these concerns and am a longtime advocate of increased efforts to combat racial profiling. But comparative assessment is vital here. Despite flaws, conventional police are much better in these respects than ICE, with its ingrained culture of brutality and massive profiling. They have stronger incentives to maintain good relations with local communities and don’t need to rely on racial profiling nearly as much to find suspects. A shift of law enforcement funds from ICE to conventional police would mean a major overall reduction in racial profiling and other abuses.

Survey data show most Black people (the biggest victims of profiling) actually want to maintain or increase police presence in their neighborhoods, even as they (understandably) abhor racial profiling. Grant money transferred from ICE could potentially be conditioned on stronger efforts to curb racial profiling and related abuses, thereby further reducing the problem. It should also be conditioned on spending it on combatting violent and property crime, and structured in a way that prevents excessive dependence on federal funding.

If ICE can be abolished without transferring the funds to local and state police, I would still support doing so. But the strategy I outline offers the most likely pathway to political success, and could simultaneously reduce criminality in high-crime neighborhoods.

I first outlined this general approach to immigration and crime issues in Chapter 6 of my 2022 book “Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom,” where I also make other points on why crime control is a poor justification for deportation and immigration restrictions. See also my more recent discussion of these broader issues here.