In recent weeks, calls to “abolish ICE,” or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have gained momentum among some Democrats and progressive activists. During a panel discussion on protests in Minnesota Tuesday, RealClearPolitics Washington bureau chief Carl Cannon took the logical next step in this debate: What would happen if ICE really was abolished?

First, it’s important to understand what ICE is and what its duties entail. The agency was created in 2003 through a merger of several existing immigration-related functions within the Department of Homeland Security. Its primary responsibilities include enforcing federal immigration laws, preventing terrorism and criminal activity related to border control, and assisting other law enforcement agencies on immigration-related issues.

But what would happen if ICE were dismantled? According to Cannon, several possibilities exist depending on how the process unfolded. One scenario could see different functions being reassigned to various federal agencies or even state and local governments. For example, customs inspections could fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture or Commerce, while immigration enforcement might be handled by the FBI or State Departments.

Another possibility is that these responsibilities would simply not be carried out at all if no agency stepped up to take them on. This could lead to a breakdown in border security and an increase in illegal crossings. Moreover, without a dedicated agency for enforcing immigration laws, it’s unclear how the U.S. would process asylum claims or deport those who enter the country illegally but do not qualify for asylum.

Critics of ICE argue that its actions often result in separating families and detaining immigrants in less-than-ideal conditions. However, Cannon points out that abolishing the agency would not necessarily solve these issues. Instead, it might lead to even more chaotic circumstances where vulnerable populations are left without adequate protection or support.

It’s essential to note that calls to “abolish ICE” have garnered significant opposition from both sides of the aisle. Many Republicans view such proposals as an attack on law enforcement and national security, while some Democrats argue for reforming the agency rather than abolishing it entirely.

In response to criticism, some Democratic representatives have suggested renaming or restructuring ICE instead of eliminating it altogether. For instance, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced legislation that would create a new Department of Community Oriented Policing Services and transfer most functions from ICE to this newly established agency. However, the fate of these proposals remains uncertain given the political divide on the issue.

As the debate over ICE’s future continues, it is crucial for policymakers and the public to consider the potential consequences of various