This work argues that calls to abolish ICE are not just symbolic, but the result of years of organized advocacy seeking to dismantle a harmful enforcement system.
Markowitz explains that ICE, created after 9/11, prioritizes punitive enforcement—detention and deportation—while failing to improve immigration compliance.
He highlights evidence of abuse, inefficiency, and rising costs alongside growing undocumented populations, suggesting the system is ineffective.
Rather than eliminating enforcement entirely, the author proposes a new model: one that reduces reliance on detention, emphasizes compliance assistance, and replaces harsh penalties with proportional consequences.
The core idea is that immigration law can still be enforced, but through a more humane, efficient, and non-carceral system that better aligns with both legal principles and real-world outcomes.
The paper is arguing that the U.S. immigration system is built around punishment first, but that approach doesn’t actually work—it’s costly, harmful, and doesn’t increase compliance. ICE isn’t just flawed in practice, but in design. Instead of fixing it, the system should be rebuilt to focus on helping people follow the law, using proportional consequences and minimizing force.
👉 In short:
A non-punitive, compliance-based system could be both more humane and more effective than ICE.