Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has remained a central point of political contention since its formation in 2003, with the agency’s role in U.S. border policy serving as a focal point for both supporters of strict enforcement and abolitionist movements. Established in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, ICE was integrated into the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of a broader shift in federal policy that prioritized the securitization of the U.S. border. While the debate over the agency’s future has gained significant public attention during the recent presidential administrations, critics have consistently raised concerns regarding its impact on civil liberties, the treatment of immigrant communities, and the expansion of the broader carceral system for over two decades.
The agency was formed in 2003. For critics, this transition marked the beginning of a “war at home” strategy, where immigration enforcement was increasingly viewed through the lens of national security and counter-terrorism, leading to the creation of extensive detention networks and surveillance systems.
The “Abolish ICE” movement gained traction in recent years, though activists note that early opposition began shortly after the agency’s inception. Opponents of the current enforcement model argue that ICE operates as part of a larger, interconnected ecosystem of policing that includes local law enforcement, the National Guard, and federal agencies. By framing immigration as a criminal issue, critics contend that the state has successfully normalized the use of detention centers and deportation as standard administrative responses to unauthorized migration, while simultaneously complicating the legal status of both undocumented immigrants and, in instances of racial profiling, U.S. citizens.
The Evolution of Federal Immigration Policy
Federal spending on immigration enforcement has increased significantly over the last 20 years, a trend that has continued across multiple presidential administrations, including those of both Republican and Democratic parties. This funding has supported the expansion of detention capacity and the implementation of programs that facilitate information sharing between local police departments and federal immigration authorities.
A primary point of contention for activists is the political framing of “good” versus “bad” immigrants, a binary that has been utilized by federal officials to justify continued enforcement expenditures. During the Obama administration, for example, the focus was often placed on the deportation of individuals with criminal records, a policy that resulted in half of all federal criminal arrests being immigration related and deepened the collaboration between local police and federal agents. Critics argue that this approach did not reduce the scope of the carceral system but rather refined the criteria for who is targeted by enforcement, maintaining the underlying structure of the border regime.
The reliance on this binary is described by immigrant justice organizers as a “failed logic” that inadvertently strengthens the power of the state to criminalize broader populations. By attempting to argue for the rights of “innocent” immigrants, advocates suggest the movement risks legitimizing the criminalization of others, rather than challenging the fundamental authority of the state to define residency and legal status. Instead, some activists are calling for a shift toward an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist analysis, which emphasizes that migration is often a response to global economic instability and historical political interventions by wealthier nations.
Borders as a System of Global Governance
The function of the border is frequently misunderstood as merely a physical wall or a static line on a map. In practice, the border operates as a complex regime of global governance designed to regulate the movement of labor and manage the economic disparities between the Global South and the Global North. This “global apartheid” model, as described by some researchers, uses borders to maintain peripheral economies as sources of cheap labor while restricting the ability of people from those regions to relocate to areas of higher capital concentration.
The expansion of the border regime is not limited to physical territory. Through the use of interior enforcement, biometric surveillance, and data-sharing agreements, the reach of the border extends into the everyday lives of residents, impacting neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools. This elasticity allows the state to maintain a presence in communities long after an individual has crossed the official border line, reinforcing a system of control that relies on the constant threat of detention and deportation to manage labor and social participation.
Resistance and the Future of the Movement
Grassroots organizing has emerged as a significant force in challenging the expansion of the carceral state. These efforts are often part of a broader, decentralized movement that seeks to build local solidarity and provide tangible support for families affected by detention.
Worth a look