Tim Steller’s column: How to turn ‘abolish ICE’ into more than a slogan

About half of Americans surveyed by YouGov in July said they’d like to abolish ICE, and more than half said they have little or no confidence in the agency. And it’s a popular position among some Southern Arizona politicians, including the chair of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Jen Allen, and Rep. Adelita Grijalva.

When I asked Grijalva about ICE last month, she was quick to endorse the idea of abolition.

“They really are a lawless organization, and that’s why I’ve called for the abolishment of ICE,” Grijalva said that day, on the Bill Buckmaster Show.

The thing is, it’s simple to say those words, but harder to define what they mean or turn them into a productive reality.

If we were to move forward, would we be abolishing ICE but keeping the functions the agency performs under some other name? Or would we be trying to eliminate swaths of what they do, such as the armed agents in communities?

Immigration attorney Jesse Evans-Schroeder, a strong critic of Trump immigration policies, nevertheless told me “I think ‘abolish ICE’ is unrealistic.”

While she considers ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations arms “an untrained body right now that is racist and violent,” she also deals with some attorneys and ERO supervisors who are reasonable.

The problem, if you want to abolish ICE, is that the agency performs some roles most Americans probably want to exist.

“If we operate in a framework where it’s not realistic to talk about open borders, then we need an enforcement mechanism,” Evans-Schroeder said.

In other words, unless we plan on ceasing all deportations, something few Americans would agree with, we’re going to need some federal agency to carry them out.

Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute used to run the Immigration and Naturalization Service and sees no likelihood of that.

“Removal is an element of the immigration system, and whether it’s done in the agency that’s currently called ICE or not, it is statutorily part of the immigration system,” she said. “It would be done someplace, unless for some reason Congress were to decide that we’re not going to have any return or removal (deportation), but that’s highly unlikely.”

As part of that deportation function, ICE also runs or contracts out the operation of detention centers, which are multiplying around the country as the detained population hits a record 70,000, often living in miserable and even deadly conditions. And they have a nationwide cadre of attorneys who represent the government in immigration cases.

Logical reform possible

Perhaps the easiest part of ICE to dispense with is the agency within it called Homeland Security Investigations. HSI descends from the U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigations that existed before the Department of Homeland Security formed in 2002.

The fact that it became part of ICE is anomalous and a subject of repeated attempts at reform.

While they have been drawn into immigration enforcement under Trump, HSI agents typically investigate transnational crimes such as human trafficking, child exploitation, weapons trafficking, theft of intellectual property and smuggling antiquities and wildlife. There’s no reason the agency’s 10,000 employees need to be part of ICE.

In fact, in 2018, a group of 19 special agents in charge of HSI’s national offices wrote to then-DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, asking for HSI to be separated from ICE.

“HSI’s investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens, instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross-border crimes impacting our communities and national security," they wrote.

As if predicting this second Trump presidential term, they added, “Furthermore, the perception of HSI’s investigative independence is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of ERO’s civil immigration enforcement.”

I’ve previously argued that opposition to ICE inherently means opposition to HSI because of their organizational link, but it would be great if it didn’t mean that, since their missions are so different.

Legislation has been introduced to separate HSI from ICE and make it a stand-alone agency but still has not passed. It shouldn’t be that hard for something so logical.

Restraint needed

With HSI gone, what would be left is enforcement and removal activities — the detention centers, the attorneys and the growing army of armed agents.

Since Trump took office again and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in July last year, the number of officers and agents grew from around 10,000 to more than 22,000, DHS reported in January. No wonder we’re seeing increasing activity from those agents in Tucson and around the country, not just amid surges in certain places like Chicago, Los Angeles and Minnesota.

It’s these neighborhood enforcement activities, I believe — armed officers arresting residents who may be upstanding neighbors and have citizens in their families — that people most want to stop when they say they want to abolish ICE. The traffic stops that killed men who weren’t even targeted by ICE in Houston and Maine have shown the desperate need for ICE to be restrained.

In a written statement, Grijalva said that ICE agents have killed multiple people, targeted peaceful demonstrators, held detainees in inhumane conditions and conducted unconstitutional raids.

“This is an institution that is fundamentally broken and cannot simply be reformed. It must be abolished, and we must comprehensively reexamine how immigration enforcement is carried out in the United States in a way that upholds the rule of law, protects civil liberties, and respects basic human dignity.”

Her Republican opponent in the upcoming general election, Daniel Butierez, told me that the focus on abolishing ICE is misplaced.

“All these people protesting ICE are protesting the wrong people. They should be protesting the lawmakers the ones who write the laws,” he said. “Instead of wasting all their energy fighting ICE, why don’t they go in there and draft new policies and new laws and hire some more judges so that they can process these people faster?”

Deporting inmates, prisoners

It’s possible to imagine a future without armed ICE agents prowling neighborhoods. It might, though, require tightened practices at immigration courts and sacrifices on the part of sanctuary jurisdictions.

Imagining a scenario in which ICE agents are prevented from operating freely in communities, Meissner said that immigration arrests could largely happen in settings like immigration courts. There, when asylum or other immigration cases fail and deportation is ordered, detentions could happen at that time.

“Another way that has been used for decades is that removal officers are stationed at state and local prisons,” she said.

In these places, people who have been identified as deportable would be automatically removed at the end of their sentences, with the cooperation of local officials.

This is one of the key things that supporters of sanctuary cities want to avoid — cooperation at jails and prisons. And in fact, although Pima County is not a sanctuary jurisdiction, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department doesn’t hold inmates for ICE if they only have an administrative warrant for the person.

“The Pima County Adult Detention Complex does not recognize U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers,” Sheriff Chris Nanos said in a written statement. “The Sheriff recognizes only federal arrest warrants signed by a judge.”

But places like the jail might need a closer relationship with immigration authorities in exchange for stopping ICE agents from roaming our communities. Otherwise people who really merit deportation could be inaccessible.

“I think that is the deal that would need to be made,” Meissner said.

It could be painful, but abolishing the menace of roving ICE agents might make it worthwhile.