—> ICE / Immigration / Chaos after ICE kills 37 y/o man

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6K
  • Views: 178K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
What will it take for those who haven’t yet called for ICE to be abolished to get on board? How many Americans executed in the street will it take? This rogue agency is younger than me. It is not a fixture of American life. It is a creature of the Iraq War natsec state. DoJ and a reconstituted INS should handle these duties, not a paramilitary goon squad.
Click to expand...
The reality is that the functions that ICE performs are necessary for immigration enforcement to occur in legitimate ways. There has to be an ICE-like agency to perform those functions and the current issue isn't that immigration actions must be performed but the terrible ways that ICE performs those actions and the even more horrific actions that ICE performs that aren't a part of their duties.

I'm all for getting rid of the current iteration of ICE, including every single person that currently works for the agency, but I also recognize that a similar agency must exist to perform the necessary duties of government related to immigration enforcement.
 
SnoopRob said:
The reality is that the functions that ICE performs are necessary for immigration enforcement to occur in legitimate ways. There has to be an ICE-like agency to perform those functions and the current issue isn't that immigration actions must be performed but the terrible ways that ICE performs those actions and the even more horrific actions that ICE performs that aren't a part of their duties.

I'm all for getting rid of the current iteration of ICE, including every single person that currently works for the agency, but I also recognize that a similar agency must exist to perform the necessary duties of government related to immigration enforcement.
Click to expand...
No one arguing to abolish ICE is arguing to abolish immigration enforcement. That’s a category error. The argument is whether we abolish a rogue agency that has been structurally rotten from the start.

The U.S. enforced immigration law for decades before ICE existed. ICE was created in 2003 as part of the post-9/11 DHS experiment. A militarized interior enforcement arm designed for speed and coercion, not due process.

We can have immigration enforcement in 2026 the same way we did before 2003: through accountable, civilian institutions subject to oversight. ICE is a historical aberration, not some sort of law of nature.
 
Paine said:
You don’t reform something built wrong from the ground up. You dismantle it and move the necessary functions somewhere accountable.
Click to expand...
Yes but if you go with ABOLISH then it won't gain footing

What you described can be lumped under REFORM and that resonates better. Remember you have to reach people who are border concerned.... But still hate what happened yesterday
 
I just can’t wrap my head around how awful this administration is. It seems they could at least take an occasional break from doubling down on every ridiculous and awful thing and say something along the lines of, “This went too far. We will investigate this. This is not what we intended when we sent ICE and Border Patrol to apprehend people who are here illegally.” Even if they’re being dishonest about how they view this and about their intentions, how does it not dawn on them that that is a much better way to respond? They already lie about everything, why don’t they at least lie that they care and want to make things right?
 
Paine said:
No one arguing to abolish ICE is arguing to abolish immigration enforcement. That’s a category error. The argument is whether we abolish a rogue agency that has been structurally rotten from the start.

The U.S. enforced immigration law for decades before ICE existed. ICE was created in 2003 as part of the post-9/11 DHS experiment. A militarized interior enforcement arm designed for speed and coercion, not due process.

We can have immigration enforcement in 2026 the same way we did before 2003: through accountable, civilian institutions subject to oversight. ICE is a historical aberration, not some sort of law of nature.
Click to expand...
This is an example where we need the verbiage to match the intention behind it.

When a lot of folks hear "Abolish ICE" what they hear is "abolish immigration enforcement". Is that correct or even fair? No. But is it the perception? Yes.

And if you're explaining you're losing.

I'm fine with abolishing ICE, but that doesn't need to be the overwhelming message and instead the message needs to be focused on protecting everyone from the overreach of ICE.
 
SnoopRob said:
This is an example where we need the verbiage to match the intention behind it.

When a lot of folks hear "Abolish ICE" what they hear is "abolish immigration enforcement". Is that correct or even fair? No. But is it the perception? Yes.

And if you're explaining you're losing.

I'm fine with abolishing ICE, but that doesn't need to be the overwhelming message and instead the message needs to be focused on protecting everyone from the overreach of ICE.
Click to expand...
This assumes voters are confused by the words rather than alienated by the reality. “If you’re explaining, you’re losing” applies when you’re defending abstractions, not when you’re naming a concrete institution people already distrust. Just look at the polling. The voters Democrats lose aren’t confused by the phrase “abolish ICE.” They’re alienated by Democrats refusing to take a stand. If anything, saying “reform ICE” requires more explanation than “abolish ICE.” Clarity mobilizes; hedging demobilizes.

And ICE simply doesn’t have the social capital of the police or other public safety agencies. It’s a federal, militarized force that most people associate with abuse and impunity, not community safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top