ABOLISHING AN AGENCY DOES NOT ABOLISH THE LAW.

VAULT · 08 BORDERS, BOMBS & BAD DECISIONS

Published by Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 2:37 AM ET

Tags: Immigration Enforcement · DHS · ICE · Due Process · Agency Reorganization · Civil Liberties

Dear fellow American proletariat: Washington has a peculiar talent for assembling twenty-two agencies into one department, printing a very serious seal, and then calling the resulting organization a solution. Twenty-three years later, it is reasonable to ask what worked, what failed, which powers belong where, and whether the public can meaningfully oversee a sprawling security bureaucracy.

American Proletariat proposes examining the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as presently organized, reassignment or repeal of specific functions, and a constitutionally grounded restructuring of the Department of Homeland Security. Abolition of an office is not the same as abolition of immigration law. And dissolving DHS is a much larger question than closing ICE: FEMA, the Coast Guard, cybersecurity, airport security, citizenship services, the Secret Service and customs functions do not disappear just because somebody changes the stationery. (Sources 01, 02)

ROOTS · WHY DHS & ICE EXIST

Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on November 25, 2002, following the September 11 attacks. DHS began operations in 2003, consolidating functions from 22 federal entities. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished and its functions divided among citizenship services, border enforcement and interior immigration enforcement. That separation was a deliberate statutory and administrative restructuring—not the creation of immigration law itself. (Sources 01, 03)

ICE combines two notably different functions. Enforcement and Removal Operations identifies, arrests, detains and removes people subject to applicable immigration laws. Homeland Security Investigations investigates cross-border and transnational crimes, including trafficking, smuggling, customs-related violations and some employment-related offenses. Congress and the executive branch would have to decide separately whether these activities should end, change, or be reassigned. (Source 02)

DHS IS NOT JUST ICE

DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and other operational and support units. Their statutory missions range from disaster response and maritime rescue to airport screening, cybersecurity and immigration adjudication. An agency-consolidation proposal must preserve legally required services during any transition. (Source 04)

An immigration case can already involve agencies outside DHS: immigration courts are administered by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, visas involve the State Department, and some refugee or child-protection functions involve Health and Human Services. That division means reassignment is possible in principle, but it is not as simple as moving all of ICE's employees into one new box on a chart. (Source 02)

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Immigration enforcement encounters raise constitutional questions about stops, searches, home entries, arrest authority and use of force. Civil immigration arrest powers are not identical to a judge-issued criminal warrant, and federal statutory authorities do not erase constitutional constraints. Any reform must distinguish the power to issue an administrative removal warrant from the requirements that govern entry into a home or detention in particular circumstances. Review should examine training, documentation, judicial oversight and remedies for unlawful enforcement.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

Due process applies to persons, including noncitizens, though the procedures required vary by legal status, context and immigration statute. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court construed post-removal-order detention authority in light of constitutional concerns and recognized limits when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. In Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), the Court rejected an interpretation that would read recurring bond hearings into several immigration detention statutes, leaving distinct constitutional issues for further consideration. Neither decision establishes an unconditional right to release in every immigration case. (Sources 05, 06)

CONGRESS, COURTS & THE EXECUTIVE

Congress establishes immigration law and agency authorities within constitutional limits. The executive enforces law and exercises discretion within the statutory framework. Federal courts adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction, subject to specialized immigration review rules. An executive order may adjust priorities, organization and contracts within existing authority; it cannot unilaterally repeal congressional immigration statutes or dissolve a congressionally established department. (Sources 01, 02)

WHAT WOULD ABOLISHING ICE ACTUALLY MEAN?

OPTION ONE · RESTRUCTURE INTERIOR CIVIL ENFORCEMENT

Congress could repeal the present ICE organizational framework and establish a narrower civil immigration compliance service with clear statutory duties, independently reviewable detention authority, transparent arrest standards and effective oversight. This would be organizational abolition with continued enforcement of whichever immigration statutes Congress retains. It should not be advertised as the disappearance of removals, detention or border controls.

OPTION TWO · REALIGN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Investigations of trafficking, child exploitation, financial crime, customs fraud and other serious offenses need lawful institutional homes. Congress could assign defined HSI functions to appropriate agencies such as the FBI, Treasury law-enforcement units or a specialized federal investigative service, after assessing expertise, jurisdiction, international agreements and intelligence safeguards. A function should be retained or repealed explicitly; otherwise duplication and investigative gaps become predictable.

OPTION THREE · REBUILD IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION & CASE MANAGEMENT

Consider professional legal representation where authorized, timely immigration hearings, humane and lawful noncustodial case management when appropriate, multilingual notice, transparent custody reviews and enforceable records protections. Changes to immigration courts, immigration judges or statutory review channels must account for the Justice Department's current role. Avoid the fiction that a case-management contractor can replace judicial authority.

OPTION FOUR · REVIEW DETENTION & CONTRACTING

Audit detention necessity, statutory eligibility, length of confinement, medical care, child and family safeguards, use of private contractors, facility safety and access to counsel. Alternatives to detention may be suitable in some cases but need evidence regarding appearance, absconding, safety, costs and privacy. Surveillance-heavy alternatives are not automatically humane because they operate outside prison walls.

WHAT IF DHS ITSELF WERE DISMANTLED?

Dissolving DHS would require a separate congressional blueprint. FEMA could be assigned a new independent or cabinet-level home; TSA aviation security functions would need an authorized successor; the Coast Guard must retain maritime and national-security capabilities; CISA's cybersecurity responsibilities require continuity; USCIS must continue lawful benefit adjudication; CBP customs and border work needs clear legal responsibility; the Secret Service's protective and investigative missions must also be placed. Every transfer requires updated statutory authorities, appropriations, systems, personnel arrangements and coordination agreements. (Sources 01, 04)

There are arguments for separation: smaller mission-focused institutions can be easier to scrutinize and less likely to let immigration enforcement dominate unrelated disaster or cybersecurity priorities. There are also arguments for retaining integration: shared intelligence, preparedness, procurement and emergency coordination may deliver advantages, and breaking them apart may create security gaps or expensive duplication. Neither conclusion can be proved by counting boxes on an organizational chart.

A TRANSITION THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE

FIRST · INVENTORY THE POWERS

Map each statutory authority, regulation, active court order, contract, detention population, information system, investigation and position before transferring anything. Classify which activities will end, remain, move, or require legislation. Publish non-sensitive results and permit outside legal review.

SECOND · KEEP SERVICES OPERATING

Protect asylum processing, legal status adjudication, lawful border and customs operations, disaster assistance, maritime rescue, transportation screening and cyber incident response. A case should not vanish because a database is being migrated. Transition standards need continuity of detention medical care, counsel communications, evidence preservation and pending judicial deadlines.

THIRD · PROVIDE INDEPENDENT RIGHTS REVIEW

Create accessible complaint channels, independent inspections, published detention standards, administrative appeals and lawful avenues for judicial review. Examine racial profiling, unlawful searches, retaliation, discrimination and force with case-specific evidence rather than presume every officer committed misconduct. Protect whistleblowers and prohibit destruction of records.

FOURTH · RETAIN THE SKILLS THE PUBLIC NEEDS

Support lawful personnel transfers, retraining and civil-service protections. Define which capabilities and contracts genuinely become unnecessary and which must survive under another agency. Workforce transitions, labor agreements and pensions must be included in the fiscal and legal analysis.

FIFTH · PILOT, EVALUATE & LEGISLATE

Test narrower changes to custody review, independent monitoring, case management and operational coordination before a nationwide reorganization. Congress should decide statutory transfers through transparent legislation; agencies should implement them on published schedules, with independent evaluations and documented correction of failures.

THE ONE-YEAR & TEN-YEAR LEDGER

An honest comparison begins with the enacted baseline. DHS's fiscal year 2026 congressional budget justification is organized across management, immigration, security, disaster response, citizenship, cyber defense and other missions. Abolishing ICE or DHS does not by itself eliminate those expenditures if the work is continued elsewhere. Existing payroll, facilities, pending appropriations, equipment, contracts and pension obligations would follow or require settlement. (Source 07)

Consider a deliberately limited transition scenario: a legal and operational task force of 300 specialists at an illustrative fully loaded annual cost of $225,000 would cost $67.5 million per year. Add $82.5 million annually for independent custody reviews, secure data migration, procurement support, oversight and evaluation. That is $150 million in annual transition administration. Assume an additional $250 million one-time systems, contract and facilities transition fund. Illustrative first-year outlays would be $400 million; flat operations for ten years plus startup would total $1.75 billion. These are arithmetic assumptions, not federal estimates of abolition or all operating replacement costs.

A comprehensive ten-year score must model every receiving agency's continued enforcement, adjudication, emergency-management, cybersecurity, investigation and protective-service costs; legal liabilities; contract termination; personnel reassignment; systems integration; litigation; detention alternatives; facilities; and capital spending. It should publish high, central and low scenarios, distinguish gross transfers from net savings, and separately show new spending caused by stronger oversight. Moving a budget line is not a saving; repealing a duty may have fiscal and public-safety consequences that require independent analysis.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

A hurried breakup may disrupt disaster response, criminal investigations, pending immigration cases and legal protection for people in custody. Transferred staff might lack training or clear supervisory lines. New offices could reproduce the same practices under different names. Conversely, retaining the existing organization without improved independent review may preserve problems that structural reform was meant to address. Rights enforcement also requires funding, timely courts, accessible counsel and reliable records—not just a new agency seal.

Critics of abolition may argue that central coordination and specialized enforcement capacity are essential to border integrity, criminal investigations and national security. Advocates of abolition may argue that current enforcement institutions are structurally resistant to adequate accountability or humane treatment. Those questions require differentiated analysis of actual cases, lawful authority, operational performance, misconduct findings and measurable outcomes. It would be misleading to treat every immigration violation as a violent crime or every enforcement action as unlawful.

HOW WE WOULD MEASURE SUCCESS

Publish audited detention conditions, medical access, counsel access, hearing delays, case outcomes, timely record transfers, confirmed civil-rights violations, independent complaint dispositions, costs per resolved case, removals carried out under lawful orders, criminal-investigation continuity, staffing, disaster-response times, cyber incidents and public-service disruptions. Disaggregate where legally appropriate while protecting sensitive records. Count verified legal errors and successful corrections rather than rewarding agencies merely for arrest volume.

THE POINT

Abolishing ICE is a meaningful policy proposal only when it identifies which laws change, which enforcement functions continue, who receives those duties and how constitutional rights are protected. Dismantling DHS is a different, wider proposal requiring a plan for every public mission currently inside the department. A free society should demand lawful, humane and effective government—and expect reformers to show what replaces the institution they propose to end.

A republic is not strengthened by worshiping an agency's name. Neither is it strengthened by tearing the name off the door while leaving every obligation, every legal question and every human being inside unattended.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002.

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf

02 · Congressional Research Service — Immigration 101: Executive Branch Agencies Involved with Immigration, IF12424, June 7, 2023.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12424/IF12424.3.pdf

03 · Congressional Research Service — INS Reorganization Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002: Effective Dates and Dual Roles.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS21410.html

04 · U.S. Government Manual — Department of Homeland Security, current component and mission descriptions.

https://usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?EType=jY3M4CTKVHY%3D&EntityId=beCHeRZ5Vf8%3D&ParentEId=+klubNxgV0o%3D

05 · Supreme Court of the United States — Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-7791

06 · Supreme Court of the United States — Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1204

07 · Department of Homeland Security — Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, June 2025.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/25_0613_dhs_fy26-congressional-budget-justificatin.pdf

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore Oversight & Overhaul of Immigration Detention

→ Explore Immigration, Asylum & Citizenship

→ Explore Whole-of-Government Constitutional Audit

→ Explore Federal-State Constitutional Oversight

→ Explore Pentagon Audits, Defense Reform & Personnel

→ Explore Federalists

→ Explore Libertarians

→ Explore Reformers, Abolitionists & Civil Rights

→ Explore Monarchy, Empire & Historical Powers

→ Explore Universal Public Banking Access

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.