Amnesty International Calls to Abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Key facts

According to reporting published by The Guardian, Amnesty International has published a public stance calling for the complete dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The non-governmental human rights organization argued that the executive branch agency, which operates under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, possesses an unfixable structural framework characterized by long-standing violations of human rights and international standards.

The advocacy group's call highlights a pattern of alleged abuses occurring inside detention centers, during field apprehension operations, and throughout deportation procedures. Amnesty International argued that administrative reforms and incremental policy oversight have proven insufficient to remediate civil liberties infractions, leaving structural abolition as the necessary resolution to address systemic misconduct.

While the specific policy blueprint for dismantling the agency relies on Congressional action, Amnesty International’s declaration aims to re-energize advocacy groups, legal scholars, and lawmakers advocating for a complete restructuring of the United States' immigration enforcement infrastructure. The organization’s position emphasizes transferring core administrative and investigative functions to non-carceral civil institutions while terminating interior detention apparatuses.

Why it matters

The formal demand by a global human rights body to abolish a major U.S. federal law enforcement agency carries significant political, policy, and legal implications. ICE commands an annual congressional appropriation of several billion dollars and employs over 20,000 personnel nationwide across its administrative, investigative, and enforcement divisions. A proposal to eliminate the agency directly challenges the operational foundation of U.S. interior border enforcement and federal detention policy.

For millions of non-citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented residents residing in the United States, the debate surrounding ICE directly affects daily security, due process protections, and freedom from arbitrary detention. Rights organizations have repeatedly documented instances of inadequate medical care, prolonged detention without bail, forced family separations, and civil rights violations within the network of private and public facilities utilized by ICE.

From a policy perspective, the call to abolish ICE forces lawmakers and political figures to address whether federal law enforcement should focus on civil immigration management through community-based support programs rather than detention and deportation. It also renews pressure on federal agencies to uphold international treaty obligations regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement was created by Congress following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, signed into law by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Established formally in March 2003, ICE consolidated the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Customs Service into a single federal law enforcement entity within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The agency is divided primarily into two principal directorates: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which handles cross-border criminal investigations including transnational gang activity, financial crimes, human trafficking, and narcotics smuggling; and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which oversees the apprehension, detention, and deportation of non-citizens present in the United States without legal authorization.

Over its more than two decades of operation, ICE has faced continuous scrutiny from oversight bodies, civil rights attorneys, and international institutions. Independent reviews by the DHS Office of Inspector General, national civil liberties organizations, and investigative journalists have repeatedly highlighted substandard conditions in immigration detention facilities. Key areas of concern have included overcrowding, inadequate medical and mental healthcare, reports of physical abuse by staff, overuse of solitary confinement, and reliance on for-profit private prison contractors such as GEO Group and CoreCivic to hold detainee populations.

The political movement to abolish the agency gained widespread national attention in 2018, when progressive members of Congress, led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, co-sponsored legislation titled the "Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act." The movement gained further traction during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, where candidates debated whether to dismantle ICE or restructure its constituent operational divisions. Opponents of abolition, including law enforcement associations and conservative lawmakers, have consistently argued that ICE is essential for maintaining national security, combating transnational criminal enterprises, and upholding federal immigration statutes.

Reaction

While official responses from federal officials to Amnesty International's latest call were not immediately available in the reporting, past proposals to abolish ICE have drawn sharp division across the political spectrum.

Immigration defense organizations, civil liberties advocates, and progressive legal institutions generally support calls to dismantle or drastically reduce the authority of ICE. Proponents argue that the agency's operational culture is intrinsically tied to punitive detention practices that cannot be rectified through administrative policy changes alone.

Conversely, conservative lawmakers, federal law enforcement unions, and Congressional leadership have historically rejected calls to end ICE. Critics of the "Abolish ICE" movement contend that eliminating the agency would undermine law enforcement capabilities, disrupt transnational criminal investigations conducted by Homeland Security Investigations, and leave the federal government without a mechanism to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress. Department of Homeland Security leadership under various administrations has traditionally defended the agency, pointing to reforms in detention standards and public safety enforcement targets.

What we don't know yet

Several critical questions remain unresolved regarding the political and practical viability of Amnesty International's demand. The primary unknown is whether the organization's call will translate into concrete legislative proposals in Congress, where any effort to repeal or restructure the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, alongside presidential assent.

Furthermore, it remains unclear how proponents of abolition propose to reallocate the non-immigration criminal investigative duties currently managed by Homeland Security Investigations. Because HSI handles major federal investigations into child exploitation, intellectual property theft, cybercrime, and narcotics trafficking, policy experts remain divided on whether those responsibilities would be transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or another existing agency. Additionally, the reporting does not clarify the specific timeline or transitional mechanisms Amnesty International recommends for ending federal detention contracts with private prison operators and local county jails.

What to watch

Key developments in the coming months will signal whether the push to abolish ICE gains legislative momentum:

This report is based on reporting published by The Guardian on Oct. 5, 2026, authored by Amy Fischer.