Amnesty International Calls to Abolish ICE. Who Would Replace It?

Why is Amnesty International calling for ICE to be abolished?

Amnesty International’s September 24 report examines immigration-enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis–St. Paul, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. The organization reports patterns of discriminatory arrests, excessive force, detention abuses, and interference with protest and legal access. It argues that institutional dismantling is necessary to meet international human-rights obligations.

These are Amnesty’s findings and recommendations, not a court judgment or an order closing ICE. Readers should keep the organization’s factual allegations, legal conclusions, and proposed remedy distinct.

In a separate open letter to Congress, Amnesty International supports H.R. 7190, commonly called the Melt ICE Act. That gives the discussion a concrete legislative reference point. It does not establish a complete, agreed blueprint for every function ICE performs.

What does ICE do—and what is already outside ICE?

ICE is one part of a larger immigration system. Its enforcement, investigative, and legal functions must be examined separately. The immigration judge, the officer inspecting a traveler at an airport, and the official deciding a citizenship application do not all work for ICE.

Agency sources: ICE’s organizational overview, OPLA, EOIR, CBP’s mission areas, and the USCIS Policy Manual.

This division matters. A proposal limited to ICE does not, by itself, close every border station or eliminate every immigration hearing. Conversely, a proposal that also abolishes CBP or dismantles DHS reaches much further. The scope has to be read from the actual proposal.

Three proposals that should not be confused

“Abolish ICE” describes different approaches. Here are three current legislative reference points, with the distinction between introduced text and a newly announced framework made explicit.

The Melt ICE Act’s six-month and two-year periods would run from enactment. They are not current release deadlines. Its text also limits the use of ICE Operations and Support funds for civil enforcement and certain immigration-status offenses; describing it only as a detention-contract bill would understate its reach.

For the Reimagining Safety Act, the sponsor’s announcement specifically identifies preservation of CISA, FEMA, TSA, and customs functions. This article summarizes that announcement; it does not treat the proposed Department of Community Safety as an operating agency.

Who could take over ICE’s work?

A replacement could involve several institutions, with some existing powers ended altogether. The following possibilities are this article’s policy analysis. They are not a claim that Congress, Amnesty, or all abolition advocates have agreed to one model.

A civil immigration agency could manage cases and compliance

A new civil agency could manage notices, records, reporting requirements, and coordination with the courts. Its legislation would need to identify whether it also has arrest powers, whether it can seek detention, and whether it executes final removal orders. Calling an agency “civil” does not answer those questions.

That agency could use trained case managers to help people understand hearing notices, maintain contact information, and reach legal or social services. A central design choice would be whether service providers must share information with enforcement officers. Without clear rules, a supposedly supportive program could become another source of surveillance.

Criminal investigations could remain with specialized investigators

Human trafficking, child exploitation, financial crime, and other criminal investigations require investigators, evidence systems, and prosecutors with the relevant authority. Congress could preserve a specialized investigative unit or assign particular responsibilities to agencies that already investigate those crimes.

For example, the FBI already investigates human trafficking. That establishes an existing role, not proof that it could immediately absorb all HSI work. Any transfer would need funding, personnel, jurisdictional rules, and protection for victims and witnesses.

Government lawyers and adjudicators would need clear, separate roles

OPLA represents the government in immigration court. Immigration judges work within EOIR, a different institution under the Justice Department. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a sets out the standard immigration-court removal process; other procedures also exist. Replacing ICE therefore raises one question about the government’s lawyers and another about the courts deciding cases.

A broader reform could propose an immigration court outside the executive branch. That would be an additional structural choice requiring legislation. Eliminating ICE’s name does not create such a court or resolve its funding, appointments, or case backlog.

Some functions could end instead of moving

Abolition advocates may want to repeal detention authority, limit civil immigration arrests, or end specified surveillance practices. Those proposals cannot be accurately described as moving the same activity to a friendlier agency. The policy question is whether the activity should continue at all—and, if so, under what legal standard.

Readers comparing approaches can also use HLG’s guide to lawful advocacy and ICE reform. Advocacy methods and the design of a successor institution are related questions, but each deserves its own analysis.

Could community programs replace immigration detention?

Community support can be part of a replacement system, but the legal authority to detain must be addressed separately. Current statutes authorize detention and require it for specified categories. A universal community-based model would therefore require statutory change, not merely a new agency policy.

The relevant framework includes 8 U.S.C. § 1226 for detention pending a removal decision and 8 U.S.C. § 1231 for people ordered removed. Other authorities and court rulings can matter in an individual case.

Existing Alternatives to Detention programs also differ from voluntary community support. ICE’s program has used monitoring and case management. In GAO’s review of that program, the watchdog identified weaknesses in outcome measurement, reporting, and contractor oversight. The report was issued in 2022; its recommendation tracker includes updates into 2026.

That evidence supports a demand for better measurement. It does not justify treating every program as equally effective or claiming a universal compliance rate. A sound comparison should ask who was enrolled, what support they received, how long outcomes were tracked, and whether “success” means attending a hearing or completing the entire legal process.

Could a president abolish ICE without Congress?

A president cannot use an agency reorganization to repeal immigration statutes. Executive officials have some authority over administration and organization, but a replacement that eliminates statutory functions, rewrites detention duties, or changes appropriations requires congressional action.

6 U.S.C. § 452 gives the DHS Secretary certain reorganization powers, subject to conditions and limits. It expressly restricts the abolition of entities, programs, and functions that statutes establish or require. The precise scope of any executive proposal would need to be assessed against those limits and other applicable law.

Congress can change the underlying rules. A serious bill would also need an effective date, a transition budget, record-transfer rules, and instructions for pending cases. Those provisions determine whether people experience a functioning new system or uncertainty over which office has their file.

What happens the morning after ICE is abolished?

Return to the hypothetical parent already in custody. A replacement law would need to determine who has authority to release that person or maintain custody. During any transition, someone must remain responsible for medical care, accurate records, access to counsel, and communication with the family.

Every transition plan should answer five questions:

1. Custody: Who has legal responsibility for each person, and who decides release or continued detention?
2. Contact: How will families and attorneys locate the person and communicate with them?
3. Case continuity: Which office receives filings, serves notices, and carries forward pending deadlines?
4. Records and evidence: Who preserves medical files, immigration records, investigative evidence, and complaints?
5. Accountability: Who can investigate misconduct, order a remedy, and make the responsible institution comply?

These are proposed evaluation criteria. They are useful whether a reader favors abolition, a narrower reorganization, or reform within the existing agency. The practical test is whether rights, responsibilities, and remedies can be identified for an actual person on an actual day.

What about public safety, costs, and accountability?

A responsible debate should confront the strongest operational objection: dismantling an agency without a workable transition could interrupt investigations, fragment records, and leave personnel unsure of their authority. Reorganization has costs, and an unsupported savings figure would obscure that reality.

The strongest argument for structural change asks whether the existing institution concentrates powers in ways that weaken meaningful review. A new name would accomplish little if the same incentives, inaccessible complaint process, or disputed practices simply moved with the staff.

Public safety and rights should both be measurable. A successor system could publish data on serious-crime investigations, hearing attendance, mistaken arrests, access to counsel, custody conditions, case outcomes, and substantiated complaints. Independent review would need access to the underlying evidence, not just a dashboard designed by the agency being reviewed.

No single arrest total answers whether a system works. The question is whether its lawful objectives are achieved with reliable procedures and enforceable limits on government power.

What should immigrants and families do now?

Continue treating current notices, hearings, and reporting obligations as active unless an applicable official decision changes them. Amnesty’s announcement does not grant immigration status, cancel a removal order, release someone from detention, or excuse a missed appointment.

For a pending case, keep copies of government notices, record the A-number, maintain contact with counsel, and promptly ask about any detention or deadline concern. Whether bond, a custody challenge, a stay, or another remedy is available depends on the person’s history, procedural posture, governing law, and applicable court orders.

HLG’s deportation and immigration-court service page explains representation options. Its ICEOUT map guide explains the limitations of crowdsourced activity reports. A crowdsourced sighting cannot establish a person’s custody location or legal status.