superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,588
Following up on this point, Gallego today said (per TPM):Not that I've been going around saying "Abolish ICE" or even giving the phrase much thought, but you guys make solid points, and I'll take care to use "Replace ICE" should I ever be in the position. The main point though is that ICE cannot continue in its current form, and I think "Abolish ICE" tries to convey that in as strong a term as possible, but loses clarity and precision in its attempt to gain forcefulness.
"I think ICE needs to be totally torn down… People want immigration enforcement that goes after criminals, not the goon squad that has come from Stephen Miller and Trump."
I like Gallego's phrasing. The problem with abolish is that it sounds like a slogan (and in fact is in many circles). So if you say, "I want to abolish ICE and replace it" the abolish part can be pulled out to scare people. You could do the same with "totally torn down" but it's much more awkward. The point is, we still want immigration enforcement, just not in this way.
I think Gallego is also right to merge Trump and Miller into this one fascist object "Trump and Miller" and then tie GOPers to it. Because Miller, as far as I can tell, is universally disliked. Because, well, we all know why. Right wingers love some of his ideas but I have my doubts they like the guy -- I've never seen any right winger praise stephen miller. In fact, I've never seen anyone praise him, including Katie Miller

