UC Berkeley Course Frames ICE as a Racist Deportation Force

(BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA) UC Berkeley is set to continue offering a course that spotlights the “Abolish ICE” movement, drawing fresh attention to how a leading public university teaches contested debates over U.S. immigration policy. The class, offered as Legal Studies 132AC: Immigration and Citizenship, is scheduled for Spring 2026 after recent runs in Spring 2024 and Spring 2025.

Taught by Professors Lisa Knox and Christina H. Lee—both deportation defense attorneys—the course places abolitionist critiques of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the center of its readings and class discussions.

Course Content and Framing

Course materials describe ICE as a “racist deportation force” and argue that federal immigration law and border enforcement are grounded in “white supremacy.” Assigned readings include “It’s Time to Abolish ICE” and “Trump Wants to Take Away Your Citizenship,” which sharply criticize the agency’s tactics and the broader enforcement framework.

• The available syllabi and course descriptions show no assigned readings that defend ICE’s role in public safety or unpack the constitutional basis of federal enforcement authority.
• Students are asked to reflect on how the material shifts their views, signaling a design that encourages direct engagement with abolitionist ideas.

Academic Context and Campus Environment

The continued offering of the class into 2026 signals ongoing institutional support at UC Berkeley for a critical approach to U.S. immigration enforcement.

• The course fits within a campus environment that includes programs and classes on prison abolition and decolonization, positioning its critique of ICE alongside broader challenges to carceral systems.
• The Berkeley Immigration Group (BIG) gives students ways to provide pro bono legal support and join advocacy that seeks to end immigration detention, reinforcing a campus culture active on immigrant rights.

Origins and Aims of the “Abolish ICE” Movement

The “Abolish ICE” movement rose to national prominence in 2018, amid the Trump administration’s family separation policy and an uptick in arrests and removals. While the slogan is often reduced to a demand to close a single agency, organizers and some scholars situate it within a larger critique:

• The U.S. immigration enforcement system is framed as punitive, ineffective, and racially biased.
• Critics argue the system harms families, undermines community trust, and fails to meet basic standards of fairness.

Scholars in the abolitionist camp, including Peter L. Markowitz, trace ICE’s post-9/11 creation to a shift toward harsher enforcement divorced from service functions. In this view:

• ICE has a record of abuse and bias and cannot be reformed.
• Proposals for a post-ICE framework emphasize ending detention and mass deportation and replacing them with compliance-based measures—such as check-ins and legal support—that aim to keep families together while still processing cases.

Public health research cited in the Berkeley Public Policy Journal highlights mental health harms tied to raids, detention, and deportation threats. Youth in mixed-status families report lasting anxiety and stress. Advocates say these harms justify moving away from widespread detention toward policies that put community stability first.

Legal scholars note that while mainstream politics often frames “Abolish ICE” as a call for better oversight or narrower mandates, the core claim is more ambitious: rethink who can be removed, for what reasons, and how due process should work.

Debate Over Academic Balance and Policy Implications

The course’s materials, according to available descriptions and syllabi, do not present ICE’s stated mission or outline arguments in favor of its enforcement role.

• Supporters of the course say this focus helps students examine power, race, and state authority.
• Critics argue that a class on immigration policy should include contrasting views, such as:
  • the agency’s legal authorities,
  • case processing realities,
  • national security rationales for federal immigration enforcement.

For readers seeking the official position, ICE describes its mission and structure on its website at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency emphasizes public safety, national security, and the integrity of the immigration system—a view that stands in stark contrast to the abolitionist literature highlighted in the UC Berkeley class.

The political context remains charged:

• The call to “Abolish ICE” became a rallying cry during the Trump years and still provokes strong reactions.
• Many lawmakers—across both parties—reject ending the agency outright, even as they debate enforcement scope and method.
• Some frame the movement as a push for agency reform rather than the end of deportation; others see it as demanding structural change that would reset immigration policy goals.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes that the phrase’s broad use sometimes blurs the line between:
– cutting ICE’s budget,
– reshaping priorities,
– replacing enforcement with non-custodial compliance systems.

Classroom Experience and Practical Questions

On campus, the class offers a platform to wrestle with those differences. Students:

• Read abolitionist arguments,
• Discuss community impacts,
• Examine how laws are applied in daily life.

They meet at a time when immigrant families continue to face fear of detention, court backlogs remain long, and policy shifts between administrations have left people uncertain about what comes next. The course’s approach suggests that change, if it comes, should focus on reducing harm and centering dignity.

Key practical questions raised include:

1. If detention were reduced, what alternatives would ensure people attend hearings?
2. How effective are proposals like frequent check-ins, case management, and legal aid at improving appearance rates?
3. How would a transition affect families, employers, and local governments?

Abolitionist scholars point to research suggesting that when people have legal support and stable living situations, most attend their court dates. Opponents worry that ending detention would weaken enforcement and increase non-appearance. The UC Berkeley course pushes students to weigh those claims using case studies and readings to analyze trade-offs.

For immigrant communities, the stakes are personal. A parent’s detention can separate a family overnight. A student’s fear of arrest can derail schooling. The debate balances concerns about safety, due process, and control.

Instructors, Practical Links, and Institutional Significance

The Spring 2026 offering of Legal Studies 132AC will again be led by Professors Lisa Knox and Christina H. Lee. The instructors’ backgrounds in deportation defense provide hands-on perspective from courtrooms and detention centers, which students say helps connect theory to real lives.

• The Berkeley Immigration Group’s pro bono efforts link the classroom to practice, giving students a front-row view of how policies play out beyond campus halls.
• As of October 2025, there have been no reported federal or state policy changes that would force UC Berkeley to alter the course’s content.

UC Berkeley’s decision to keep the class on the schedule underscores higher education’s role as a forum for examining hard questions about immigration policy, enforcement, and rights. Whether readers agree with the “Abolish ICE” call or not, the course has become a steady space where arguments are studied, debated, and tested against people’s lived experiences.