The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
There are a ton of people who are on the Democrat's side (not necessarily Dems, but definitely not Republicans) because the GOP are so villainous. When I was a kid, most immigrants I knew were Republicans because they believed in more conservative social policies. Nowadays though those people are Democrats because the Republicans have made it clear they don't want them in their party and the Dems are the only other party in town.
I was saying the law abolishing ICE has to have more complexity.
Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy was a joke for a reason .
I dunno, you coupd get back to the less-awful 90s version with one sentence or so (Saying bills X, etc. are repealed)
Well, no, because you'd be repealing the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Which would probably be on balance a good thing, to be honest. But it's definitely not simple.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+12
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I was saying the law abolishing ICE has to have more complexity.
Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy was a joke for a reason .
I dunno, you coupd get back to the less-awful 90s version with one sentence or so (Saying bills X, etc. are repealed)
The functions under ICE's jurisdictions (trafficking etc) and their resources need to go somewhere. If they go to a new department, you need to create that department. But some stuff may fall under FBI or DEA or ATF or whatever. The law needs to make clear what goes where. Otherwise, it falls to the executive branch.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I didn't know he said this but Eric Holder is garbage.
Eric Holder: Calls to abolish ICE are a "gift to Republicans"
As I just saw pointed out, what's actually a gift to Republicans is refusing to prosecute people involved in the financial collapse. Eric Holder is no ally to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans.
Or people are complex and multifaceted and while he is indeed shit on this issue he's also the guy running the largest national organization focused on gerrymandering.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+6
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm very concerned that the idea of abolishing ICE is a turn-off to people politically who aren't Republicans. "Moderates" or "swing voters," if the latter exists. ICE exists as a Gestapo-like arm of government and people are telling those affected by it directly, "Well you don't understand the complexities."
It ain't complex. Moderate voters are super racist if they're primed to think about race.
Okay wait a second, I can't let your response to me here go because it's confusing me.
You're agreeing with me that it isn't complex (in the sense that ICE exists to deny human rights to immigrants, which is bad), but then you're... lecturing me I think? Tell me which one it is please.
I was saying the law abolishing ICE has to have more complexity.
Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy was a joke for a reason .
I dunno, you coupd get back to the less-awful 90s version with one sentence or so (Saying bills X, etc. are repealed)
The functions under ICE's jurisdictions (trafficking etc) and their resources need to go somewhere. If they go to a new department, you need to create that department. But some stuff may fall under FBI or DEA or ATF or whatever. The law needs to make clear what goes where. Otherwise, it falls to the executive branch.
And I think this is where dems need messaging that has some degree of nuance. I don't think most people understand how our immigration system works, and stop to them ICE is just "the people that handle enforcing our borders and stuff." And if that is your understanding, then "abolish ICE" sounds like "do not enforce our borders", which Republicans have, of course, capitalized on by conflating our position with "open borders".
And it could be just a matter of making our mantra "abolish ICE and replace it with something that isn't terrible", but we do need a rallying cry that does not come off like a leftwing version of "abolish the IRS."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+5
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I was saying the law abolishing ICE has to have more complexity.
Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy was a joke for a reason .
I dunno, you coupd get back to the less-awful 90s version with one sentence or so (Saying bills X, etc. are repealed)
The functions under ICE's jurisdictions (trafficking etc) and their resources need to go somewhere. If they go to a new department, you need to create that department. But some stuff may fall under FBI or DEA or ATF or whatever. The law needs to make clear what goes where. Otherwise, it falls to the executive branch.
And I think this is where dems need messaging that has some degree of nuance. I don't think most people understand how our immigration system works, and stop to them ICE is just "the people that handle enforcing our borders and stuff." And if that is your understanding, then "abolish ICE" sounds like "do not enforce our borders", which Republicans have, of course, capitalized on by conflating our position with "open borders".
And it could be just a matter of making our mantra "abolish ICE and replace it with something that isn't terrible", but we do need a rallying cry that does not come off like a leftwing version of "abolish the IRS."
It's hard to discuss nuance in politics. People tune out whether it be from boredom or because they think they're being lied to or whatever.
The most concise way I can think to frame it is "abolish ICE, restore the INS."
I'm very concerned that the idea of abolishing ICE is a turn-off to people politically who aren't Republicans. "Moderates" or "swing voters," if the latter exists. ICE exists as a Gestapo-like arm of government and people are telling those affected by it directly, "Well you don't understand the complexities."
It ain't complex. Moderate voters are super racist if they're primed to think about race.
Okay wait a second, I can't let your response to me here go because it's confusing me.
You're agreeing with me that it isn't complex (in the sense that ICE exists to deny human rights to immigrants, which is bad), but then you're... lecturing me I think? Tell me which one it is please.
My take:
"I don't understand why 'abolishing ICE' is a bad thing to these supposed moderates who aren't Republicans."
"Turns out the 'moderates' are also super racist if you make them think about it."
(Also, am I allowed to say, that's fucking horrible? I mean, I don't doubt that it's true, like I might have before the last election... my expectations of "the average voter" have dropped considerably since then. )
I don't think Democrats should vote for bad laws just to spite Republicans
Why though
It has no chance of becoming a real law, so it’s not going to harm anything
The reasons that it’s a bad law are incomprehensible to the voting public, so Democrats won’t be judged on it in that regard
What is the harm of voting for a bad bill which you can spin as a symbolic gesture of good faith on the issue?
Because voting on it will at best split the Left. Henroid is already calling for Primary Challengers on the 3 Sponsors because of their supposed betrayal. Political theater Votes/Bills are supposed to help you, not hurt you.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
They did the thing that you asked and praised them for. Now they should be shunned and deprived of their Seats. For doing the thing you demanded, but having the Republican Speaker fuck with it. Yes, I think that's a bad thing.
I'm asking for ICE to be abolished and some Democrats submitted something that does not abolish it. It does so in name but again moves its function to other agencies. So no, they didn't do what I asked for. Democrats should be smart enough to know that Republicans are going to pick up their worst ideas and present it as "here's what they came up with~" to America.
And you should be smart enough not to fall for it. But here we are.
Also, while you may hate ICE, and without question they should be broken up, everything they do actually is part of a functional border control system. So, if you break them up then all the things they do should (and must) go back to real agencies. ICE is bad because it combines all the 'negative' interactions with immigrants and border control into one single agency, which is then judged on how well it does at being cruel and malicious. The duties of ICE all need to be done, but the agency which say, tries to deport immigrants who commit crimes should also be the government agency which is responsible for minimizing and investigating crime in the United States. The people responsible for removing failed asylum seekers should also be the people who approve immigrants in other ways and so on.
ICE is a problem because of the blend of things it has to do. No individual thing it has to do is something we don't need done.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm very concerned that the idea of abolishing ICE is a turn-off to people politically who aren't Republicans. "Moderates" or "swing voters," if the latter exists. ICE exists as a Gestapo-like arm of government and people are telling those affected by it directly, "Well you don't understand the complexities."
It ain't complex. Moderate voters are super racist if they're primed to think about race.
Okay wait a second, I can't let your response to me here go because it's confusing me.
You're agreeing with me that it isn't complex (in the sense that ICE exists to deny human rights to immigrants, which is bad), but then you're... lecturing me I think? Tell me which one it is please.
My take:
"I don't understand why 'abolishing ICE' is a bad thing to these supposed moderates who aren't Republicans."
"Turns out the 'moderates' are also super racist if you make them think about it."
(Also, am I allowed to say, that's fucking horrible?)
I don't think it's horrible. The most leeway I'd give is that moderates / centrists may not consider issues POC face much because they're living otherwise comfortable lives. They can't perceive things being awful outside of their bubbles.
I'm very concerned that the idea of abolishing ICE is a turn-off to people politically who aren't Republicans. "Moderates" or "swing voters," if the latter exists. ICE exists as a Gestapo-like arm of government and people are telling those affected by it directly, "Well you don't understand the complexities."
It ain't complex. Moderate voters are super racist if they're primed to think about race.
I mean that people argue that ICE existing is "complex" when yes, it is not.
A large number are just REALLY uninformed. I have a co-worker who thinks Ted Cruz is a Dem, for fuck's sake. That ultimately is a lot of the problem, a lot of Americans don't pay attention and want simple solutions that alsodon't make them uncomfortable.
Eric Holder: Calls to abolish ICE are a "gift to Republicans"
As I just saw pointed out, what's actually a gift to Republicans is refusing to prosecute people involved in the financial collapse. Eric Holder is no ally to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans.
oooor you could read what he actually said
Holder told MSNBC that a debate on ICE moves away the focus from reunifying the thousands of migrant families separated at the border.
"The focus ought to be on what this administration did to those children,” Holder said.
I don't think Democrats should vote for bad laws just to spite Republicans
Why though
It has no chance of becoming a real law, so it’s not going to harm anything
The reasons that it’s a bad law are incomprehensible to the voting public, so Democrats won’t be judged on it in that regard
What is the harm of voting for a bad bill which you can spin as a symbolic gesture of good faith on the issue?
Because voting on it will at best split the Left. Henroid is already calling for Primary Challengers on the 3 Sponsors because of their supposed betrayal. Political theater Votes/Bills are supposed to help you, not hurt you.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
They did the thing that you asked and praised them for. Now they should be shunned and deprived of their Seats. For doing the thing you demanded, but having the Republican Speaker fuck with it. Yes, I think that's a bad thing.
I'm asking for ICE to be abolished and some Democrats submitted something that does not abolish it. It does so in name but again moves its function to other agencies. So no, they didn't do what I asked for. Democrats should be smart enough to know that Republicans are going to pick up their worst ideas and present it as "here's what they came up with~" to America.
And you should be smart enough not to fall for it. But here we are.
Also, while you may hate ICE, and without question they should be broken up, everything they do actually is part of a functional border control system. So, if you break them up then all the things they do should (and must) go back to real agencies. ICE is bad because it combines all the 'negative' interactions with immigrants and border control into one single agency, which is then judged on how well it does at being cruel and malicious. The duties of ICE all need to be done, but the agency which say, tries to deport immigrants who commit crimes should also be the government agency which is responsible for minimizing and investigating crime in the United States. The people responsible for removing failed asylum seekers should also be the people who approve immigrants in other ways and so on.
ICE is a problem because of the blend of things it has to do. No individual thing it has to do is something we don't need done.
ICE doesn't really do anything at the border, though. That's CBP. ICE is supposed to be CBP operating outside of the 100 mile border zone. And you don't really need that to exist at all. Workplace raids are basically unnecessary and would be better (and more humanely) accomplished through an accurate E-Verify type setup and random audits by a bunch of accountants and lawyers who do not have battering rams. Same for people who overstay their tourist/student Visa. They're civil offenses and should be treated as such. Which doesn't require heavily armed strike teams.
The whole catching murderous international drug cartel investigations thing are necessary, but that's a sub-agency within ICE that wants to stop being associated with ICE by their own admission. They could just as easily be folded into FBI/DOJ's international crimes units. Especially since most migrant workers are farm workers rather than itinerant drug mercenaries.
I really don't know where the Democrats in the US are getting the idea that they have any control of the narrative. I live in another fucking country and during the election it was like 50% you'd get someone giving you the GOP/Trump talking point explanation of something.
Democrats don't control anything media wise, because they seem to constantly be trying to play defense and ignore that the Republicans have a news network which will literally make up stories about what happened and run them wall to wall.
If the Abolish ICE bill is coming up for vote, it literally doesn't matter if Democrats vote no for some bizarre optics reason: there is a news network which will ensure the entire GOP base thinks the exact opposite, and they already completely believe every bad thing about it.
Except it's not just about the GOP base. Or even mostly about the GOP base.
Again, Abolish ICE doesn't even poll majority support among Democrats.
Which shows that the real issue is that the Democrats cannot shape and rally voter opinion in the way the Republicans do.
I wish the Democrats could tank the ICE's popularity like how Putin's approval among Republicans completely 180'd during the election. That would be something.
This will never happen simply because Democrats are not Republicans. Democrats have to be either persuaded or inspired to vote. Republicans just need to be told "this is what you think now" and they'll fall in line, because that's what Authoritarians do.
I don't think Democrats should vote for bad laws just to spite Republicans
Why though
It has no chance of becoming a real law, so it’s not going to harm anything
The reasons that it’s a bad law are incomprehensible to the voting public, so Democrats won’t be judged on it in that regard
What is the harm of voting for a bad bill which you can spin as a symbolic gesture of good faith on the issue?
Because voting on it will at best split the Left. Henroid is already calling for Primary Challengers on the 3 Sponsors because of their supposed betrayal. Political theater Votes/Bills are supposed to help you, not hurt you.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
They did the thing that you asked and praised them for. Now they should be shunned and deprived of their Seats. For doing the thing you demanded, but having the Republican Speaker fuck with it. Yes, I think that's a bad thing.
I'm asking for ICE to be abolished and some Democrats submitted something that does not abolish it. It does so in name but again moves its function to other agencies. So no, they didn't do what I asked for. Democrats should be smart enough to know that Republicans are going to pick up their worst ideas and present it as "here's what they came up with~" to America.
And you should be smart enough not to fall for it. But here we are.
Also, while you may hate ICE, and without question they should be broken up, everything they do actually is part of a functional border control system. So, if you break them up then all the things they do should (and must) go back to real agencies. ICE is bad because it combines all the 'negative' interactions with immigrants and border control into one single agency, which is then judged on how well it does at being cruel and malicious. The duties of ICE all need to be done, but the agency which say, tries to deport immigrants who commit crimes should also be the government agency which is responsible for minimizing and investigating crime in the United States. The people responsible for removing failed asylum seekers should also be the people who approve immigrants in other ways and so on.
ICE is a problem because of the blend of things it has to do. No individual thing it has to do is something we don't need done.
ICE doesn't really do anything at the border, though. That's CBP. ICE is supposed to be CBP operating outside of the 100 mile border zone. And you don't really need that to exist at all. Workplace raids are basically unnecessary and would be better (and more humanely) accomplished through an accurate E-Verify type setup and random audits by a bunch of accountants and lawyers who do not have battering rams. Same for people who overstay their tourist/student Visa. They're civil offenses and should be treated as such. Which doesn't require heavily armed strike teams.
The whole catching murderous international drug cartel investigations thing are necessary, but that's a sub-agency within ICE that wants to stop being associated with ICE by their own admission. They could just as easily be folded into FBI/DOJ's international crimes units. Especially since most migrant workers are farm workers rather than itinerant drug mercenaries.
Yes, but ICE does its jobs in evil ways because it is an evil organization. If you gave back all its jobs to where they were before (ICE has no new jobs which didn't exist before 2001) then the agencies would hopefully stop doing them in evil ways.
I don't think Democrats should vote for bad laws just to spite Republicans
Why though
It has no chance of becoming a real law, so it’s not going to harm anything
The reasons that it’s a bad law are incomprehensible to the voting public, so Democrats won’t be judged on it in that regard
What is the harm of voting for a bad bill which you can spin as a symbolic gesture of good faith on the issue?
Because voting on it will at best split the Left. Henroid is already calling for Primary Challengers on the 3 Sponsors because of their supposed betrayal. Political theater Votes/Bills are supposed to help you, not hurt you.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
They did the thing that you asked and praised them for. Now they should be shunned and deprived of their Seats. For doing the thing you demanded, but having the Republican Speaker fuck with it. Yes, I think that's a bad thing.
I'm asking for ICE to be abolished and some Democrats submitted something that does not abolish it. It does so in name but again moves its function to other agencies. So no, they didn't do what I asked for. Democrats should be smart enough to know that Republicans are going to pick up their worst ideas and present it as "here's what they came up with~" to America.
And you should be smart enough not to fall for it. But here we are.
Also, while you may hate ICE, and without question they should be broken up, everything they do actually is part of a functional border control system. So, if you break them up then all the things they do should (and must) go back to real agencies. ICE is bad because it combines all the 'negative' interactions with immigrants and border control into one single agency, which is then judged on how well it does at being cruel and malicious. The duties of ICE all need to be done, but the agency which say, tries to deport immigrants who commit crimes should also be the government agency which is responsible for minimizing and investigating crime in the United States. The people responsible for removing failed asylum seekers should also be the people who approve immigrants in other ways and so on.
ICE is a problem because of the blend of things it has to do. No individual thing it has to do is something we don't need done.
ICE doesn't really do anything at the border, though. That's CBP. ICE is supposed to be CBP operating outside of the 100 mile border zone. And you don't really need that to exist at all. Workplace raids are basically unnecessary and would be better (and more humanely) accomplished through an accurate E-Verify type setup and random audits by a bunch of accountants and lawyers who do not have battering rams. Same for people who overstay their tourist/student Visa. They're civil offenses and should be treated as such. Which doesn't require heavily armed strike teams.
The whole catching murderous international drug cartel investigations thing are necessary, but that's a sub-agency within ICE that wants to stop being associated with ICE by their own admission. They could just as easily be folded into FBI/DOJ's international crimes units. Especially since most migrant workers are farm workers rather than itinerant drug mercenaries.
Yes, but ICE does its jobs in evil ways because it is an evil organization. If you gave back all its jobs to where they were before (ICE has no new jobs which didn't exist before 2001) then the agencies would hopefully stop doing them in evil ways.
What it needs is more oversight and more responsibilities than just deporting illegal immigrants. The former obviously causes abuses. The latter causes "the wrong sort" to join.
A decent person might consider joining an organization that does several things related to borders, customs, and immigration. But no decent person would join an organization entirely devoted to kicking weeping immigrants out of their homes, or turning away refugees at the border. That's like having a special police force entirely devoted to breaking heads - it's going to attract sadists, who might be put off by the prospect of having to do humdrum things like traffic tickets or taking statements about burglaries from householders, 99% of the time.
Eric Holder: Calls to abolish ICE are a "gift to Republicans"
As I just saw pointed out, what's actually a gift to Republicans is refusing to prosecute people involved in the financial collapse. Eric Holder is no ally to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans.
They've all been a huge disappointment since leaving office.
Problem with demanding leadership is that people always demand leadership towards a direction they agree with.
But the moment leadership is going somewhere they disagree, it is a travesty that can't be tolerated.
In a democracy, leaders are leaders because they go where people want them to.
ICE needs to go, and everyone working for it should be investigated, but abolish ICE is not necessarily a winner among majority of democratic voters, atleast not yet.
Yeah, Ryan has dicked with things. A no vote actually denies the GOP what they want and could easily blow up in their fucking faces because that will hopefully result in people getting educated on how our system works. This is why you don't want a rat fucker in charge of the house, they bring up bills for a vote instead of letting the process play out.
Anyways, the broad approach I for cleaning up this shit show.
-ICE is abolished, while INS is simultaneously brought back to replace it. INS does everything it did before being removed and it looks like it might have been part of the Department of Labor based on a quick search, which is IMO probably a better spot than DoJ, but both are much better than department of homeland security. INS would focus on making immigrants receive proper services and could verify legal status. I would not let it have an arm devoted for removing illegal immigrants because that's just going to attract the racist fuckers, hell not sure I would want anyone devoted solely towards that.
-The anti-smuggling outfit that was forced into ICE would be spawn off into whatever it was before and moved into the DoJ. It's responsibilities would be left unchanged.
-I know if we have anywhere in DoJ that could be task with dealing with illegal immigrants. I think I'd rather have enforcement resources aimed at dealing with employers that knowingly hire them, while have a better system in place for verifying legal status that employers could go to (there would need to be a few other changes in place, like only allowing limited industries to require a background check because they are like banking or something else where it's reasonable to demand a clean background, but no other industry gets to ask if someone has a record). Probably only limit deporting to cases where someone gets convicted of a serious crime and is found to be here illegally (assuming their home country will properly detain them). I really don't want law enforcement to be in a situation where a vulnerable and exploited community fears approaching them with information that could serious crimes.
-Fix the immigration system so that it works better for our needs. We probably need a better work visa setup. One that let's certain industries that do struggle to find works, when offering reasonable compensation, while also making sure it can't be abuses (so farms are able to get labor for jobs most Americans refuse or can't work, while silicon valley can't use it to avoid paying fair market wages).
-Investigate ICE's activities and bring cases against every member was is found to have been committing human right's abuses or other crimes.
-Probably disband homeland security and spin off the intelligence community coordination thing into a unique setup, where it's kind of shared by DoJ and DoD (given that we have military intelligence, foreign civilian intelligence like the CIA and domestic civilian intelligence). Chief of Intelligence is picked (have stringent criteria on who gets it and require 3/5 confirmation, while not allowing the POTUS to fire the head on a whim). Like the idea behind the bill that created the abomination that is ICE, was partly pushed through because the intelligence agencies wouldn't talking to one another.
I'm very concerned that the idea of abolishing ICE is a turn-off to people politically who aren't Republicans. "Moderates" or "swing voters," if the latter exists. ICE exists as a Gestapo-like arm of government and people are telling those affected by it directly, "Well you don't understand the complexities."
It ain't complex. Moderate voters are super racist if they're primed to think about race.
I mean that people argue that ICE existing is "complex" when yes, it is not.
A large number are just REALLY uninformed. I have a co-worker who thinks Ted Cruz is a Dem, for fuck's sake. That ultimately is a lot of the problem, a lot of Americans don't pay attention and want simple solutions that alsodon't make them uncomfortable.
Eric Holder: Calls to abolish ICE are a "gift to Republicans"
As I just saw pointed out, what's actually a gift to Republicans is refusing to prosecute people involved in the financial collapse. Eric Holder is no ally to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans.
oooor you could read what he actually said
Holder told MSNBC that a debate on ICE moves away the focus from reunifying the thousands of migrant families separated at the border.
"The focus ought to be on what this administration did to those children,” Holder said.
Quoting this because apparently people are missing it and it seems to hold important context.
Or people are complex and multifaceted and while he is indeed shit on this issue he's also the guy running the largest national organization focused on gerrymandering.
and he will receive all due credit for this, once they accomplish something
Or people are complex and multifaceted and while he is indeed shit on this issue he's also the guy running the largest national organization focused on gerrymandering.
and he will receive all due credit for this, once they accomplish something
I don't see how it is relevant to this issue
The relevance would be that maybe people disagreeing about things like the political strategic value of 'Abolish ICE' doesn't make them "garbage".
+4
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
that statement doesn't have anything to do with attempting to position him as an authority who shouldn't be criticized
McCarthy says they're pulling the bill anyway, so that was a productive argument we all had.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
that statement doesn't have anything to do with attempting to position him as an authority who shouldn't be criticized
Sure it does. Because declaring someone universally "garbage" is silly based on not reading an entire quote and ignoring everything else that person does.
Che Coc waited at the end of a long corridor near the ticket counter. Within seconds, his little boy appeared in a red shirt and ripped jeans. He was walking fast, then suddenly he stopped, several feet from his father. He stared sheepishly at the floor.
When he looked up, his eyes were vacant, lost. He didn’t reach for Che Coc, didn’t lift his little arms to hug him.
“Papa,” Che Coc cried. “Papa.”
He lifted his son into his arms and took him to a lounge set aside by the airline for the reunion. There, on a leather sofa, Che Coc kissed his son and held him tight. The boy remained stiff and expressionless.
His arms, stomach and back were covered in a rash. His right eye was bruised red. He had a cough and a runny nose. He was much thinner than he was two months ago.
Che Coc waited at the end of a long corridor near the ticket counter. Within seconds, his little boy appeared in a red shirt and ripped jeans. He was walking fast, then suddenly he stopped, several feet from his father. He stared sheepishly at the floor.
When he looked up, his eyes were vacant, lost. He didn’t reach for Che Coc, didn’t lift his little arms to hug him.
“Papa,” Che Coc cried. “Papa.”
He lifted his son into his arms and took him to a lounge set aside by the airline for the reunion. There, on a leather sofa, Che Coc kissed his son and held him tight. The boy remained stiff and expressionless.
His arms, stomach and back were covered in a rash. His right eye was bruised red. He had a cough and a runny nose. He was much thinner than he was two months ago.
As some of you may recall, I (Canadian in Ottawa) wrote to my MP concerning this ongoing issue last month. It took a month, but she finally responded. Here's her response, with my original letter in spoilers at the end for those who may have missed it.
Dear [Romantic Undead],
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about US immigration policy. Our government has been monitoring the situation closely, and as the Prime Minister has clearly stated, the separation of children from their families, is wrong. Personally, I cannot imagine what the families have had to endure, and I believe that Canada must lead by example, and it's why we put family unity and the best interests of the child as primary considerations for our immigration officials when making decisions for immigration families.
As I am sure you are aware on June 20th, the United States Government ended the family separation policy. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions to finding a lasting and effective solution for those at the southern US border. Ongoing analysis is being carried out by both countries, as well as the UN's refugee agency, to ensure that the obligations for the safe third country agreement continue to be met. Our government is taking every new development into consideration while assessing potential avenues for harm reduction at the US border.
Thank you again for your interest and compassion. I will continue to work with Minister Freeland and the Prime Minister to ensure that your concerns are heard.
Mona Fortier
MP, Ottawa – Vanier
My original letter:
Dear Ms. Fortier,
As one of your constituents, I am writing to you today to add my voice to the chorus of people horrified by the reporting, images and videos coming out of the United States concerning the treatment of the children of Asylum-seekers arriving within the United States.
I am asking that you please advocate to our government to denounce, in the strongest possible terms, the cruel treatment of these children. It has become clear at this time that the United States governing administration is willfully and knowingly resorting to acts cruelty to deter refugees from Central America from attempting to seek asylum within the United States. I think it should be stated, without question, that having to resort to cruelty to enforce legislation is unequivocally morally unacceptable anywhere in the world, least of all by a country who purports itself to be a leader of the Civilised Western World.
I urge you to please not shy away from being as forceful as possible on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, it is a basic human rights issue, and it must be condemned loudly and without question. Admission and, when necessary, detention of asylum seekers is a sensitive and complicated process, I understand this, and I have no simple solutions to this humanitarian crisis, but I do know that separating children from their parents is categorically wrong and must be stopped, now. Canada's power to intervene directly concerning this issue may be limited, however, we can, and MUST denounce this behaviour, and we must do so immediately.
I really don't know where the Democrats in the US are getting the idea that they have any control of the narrative. I live in another fucking country and during the election it was like 50% you'd get someone giving you the GOP/Trump talking point explanation of something.
Democrats don't control anything media wise, because they seem to constantly be trying to play defense and ignore that the Republicans have a news network which will literally make up stories about what happened and run them wall to wall.
If the Abolish ICE bill is coming up for vote, it literally doesn't matter if Democrats vote no for some bizarre optics reason: there is a news network which will ensure the entire GOP base thinks the exact opposite, and they already completely believe every bad thing about it.
Except it's not just about the GOP base. Or even mostly about the GOP base.
Again, Abolish ICE doesn't even poll majority support among Democrats.
The thing is that "abolishing ICE" isn't, like, an accurate description of the reforms most democrats want. Abolishing ICE makes it sound like you don't want any customs agency or any agency to regulate and track immigration across the borders.
A better way of phrasing it would be "we need to rebuild ICE from the ground up."
And it's also worth noting that, which might have changed very recently, reforming ICE is not an important issue for most democratic voters. Immigrant voices, especially unregistered immigrant voices, are extremely marginalized in our culture. So while the majority of registered democrats are sympathetic it's only actually a key primary issue for a slice of them. It's only under this administration's escalation of ICE's behavior to the levels currently seen that the level of suffering reaches a point that the general american populace starts to get guilted until actually thinking about prioritizing their care. And you can already see that after that outcry, and perceived (marginal) response in the government, that a lot of people seem to have satisfied their guilt about doing something even though, and pardon my french, shit's still fucked.
I really don't know where the Democrats in the US are getting the idea that they have any control of the narrative. I live in another fucking country and during the election it was like 50% you'd get someone giving you the GOP/Trump talking point explanation of something.
Democrats don't control anything media wise, because they seem to constantly be trying to play defense and ignore that the Republicans have a news network which will literally make up stories about what happened and run them wall to wall.
If the Abolish ICE bill is coming up for vote, it literally doesn't matter if Democrats vote no for some bizarre optics reason: there is a news network which will ensure the entire GOP base thinks the exact opposite, and they already completely believe every bad thing about it.
Except it's not just about the GOP base. Or even mostly about the GOP base.
Again, Abolish ICE doesn't even poll majority support among Democrats.
The thing is that "abolishing ICE" isn't, like, an accurate description of the reforms most democrats want. Abolishing ICE makes it sound like you don't want any customs agency or any agency to regulate and track immigration across the borders.
A better way of phrasing it would be "we need to rebuild ICE from the ground up."
And it's also worth noting that, which might have changed very recently, reforming ICE is not an important issue for most democratic voters. Immigrant voices, especially unregistered immigrant voices, are extremely marginalized in our culture. So while the majority of registered democrats are sympathetic it's only actually a key primary issue for a slice of them. It's only under this administration's escalation of ICE's behavior to the levels currently seen that the level of suffering reaches a point that the general american populace starts to get guilted until actually thinking about prioritizing their care. And you can already see that after that outcry, and perceived (marginal) response in the government, that a lot of people seem to have satisfied their guilt about doing something even though, and pardon my french, shit's still fucked.
How, when, and why did ICE manage to get its name associated with the duties that they don't do?
Ice doesn't do customs, they don't regulate or track immigration across the borders.
I really don't know where the Democrats in the US are getting the idea that they have any control of the narrative. I live in another fucking country and during the election it was like 50% you'd get someone giving you the GOP/Trump talking point explanation of something.
Democrats don't control anything media wise, because they seem to constantly be trying to play defense and ignore that the Republicans have a news network which will literally make up stories about what happened and run them wall to wall.
If the Abolish ICE bill is coming up for vote, it literally doesn't matter if Democrats vote no for some bizarre optics reason: there is a news network which will ensure the entire GOP base thinks the exact opposite, and they already completely believe every bad thing about it.
Except it's not just about the GOP base. Or even mostly about the GOP base.
Again, Abolish ICE doesn't even poll majority support among Democrats.
The thing is that "abolishing ICE" isn't, like, an accurate description of the reforms most democrats want. Abolishing ICE makes it sound like you don't want any customs agency or any agency to regulate and track immigration across the borders.
A better way of phrasing it would be "we need to rebuild ICE from the ground up."
And it's also worth noting that, which might have changed very recently, reforming ICE is not an important issue for most democratic voters. Immigrant voices, especially unregistered immigrant voices, are extremely marginalized in our culture. So while the majority of registered democrats are sympathetic it's only actually a key primary issue for a slice of them. It's only under this administration's escalation of ICE's behavior to the levels currently seen that the level of suffering reaches a point that the general american populace starts to get guilted until actually thinking about prioritizing their care. And you can already see that after that outcry, and perceived (marginal) response in the government, that a lot of people seem to have satisfied their guilt about doing something even though, and pardon my french, shit's still fucked.
That doesn't change anything about what I said though. The slogan is "Abolish ICE". That's the thing people are backing or not.
0
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
"Abolish ICE" is a slogan that is gaining acceptance among elected Dems and the base precisely because it has no detail so you can project whatever the fuck you want onto it. Does it mean open borders? To a very small minority of supporters, sure! Nowhere near the amount Republicans claim, but they're there, sure. Does it mean obliterate the agency and its interior immigration enforcement functions? To some people, yeah! They're the fucking Gestapo with their hands on a particularly dangerous gun, so remove the temptation to squeeze the trigger! Does it mean fire a bunch of shitty racists and mall cops running around with a badge cracking brown heads and change the name, but generally maintain the immigration enforcement function in the interior, just like, with actual qualifications for hires and ethics? Definitely! incremental change is the least risky change!
Its lack of specificity is probably why so many people are picking it up as a slogan even if everyone has a different and intense idea of what it would look like in practice. Republicans are awesome at this game, Democrats not so much.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+11
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"Abolish ICE" is a slogan that is gaining acceptance among elected Dems and the base precisely because it has no detail so you can project whatever the fuck you want onto it. Does it mean open borders? To a very small minority of supporters, sure! Nowhere near the amount Republicans claim, but they're there, sure. Does it mean obliterate the agency and its interior immigration enforcement functions? To some people, yeah! They're the fucking Gestapo with their hands on a particularly dangerous gun, so remove the temptation to squeeze the trigger! Does it mean fire a bunch of shitty racists and mall cops running around with a badge cracking brown heads and change the name, but generally maintain the immigration enforcement function in the interior, just like, with actual qualifications for hires and ethics? Definitely! incremental change is the least risky change!
Its lack of specificity is probably why so many people are picking it up as a slogan even if everyone has a different and intense idea of what it would look like in practice. Republicans are awesome at this game, Democrats not so much.
I have seen exactly zero people assert that "abolish ICE" means having open borders. Further to the point, I have seen zero people outside of Republicans who think ICE provides border security.
"Abolish ICE" has always meant disbanding the agency and its tasks of searching / rounding up immigrants (edit - I forgot, it also means holding all agents accountable for crimes against humanity). As it gained momentum, especially with non-Centrist Democrat candidates / elected officials, Centrist Democrats realized it's a train they can hop on, provided they started the mess about "oh gee what does it all mean though" so that they can apply their soft 'solutions' (or non-solutions, as it were).
It's a left-born-and-driven movement that is in the process of being hijacked and made ineffectual by opportunists.
Henroid on
+6
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2018
This is something that really pisses me off about progressive / left goals or movements. They will be specific in goals, but then other people start grilling them about the details as if we should be writing the legislation ourselves. And if we can't provide the Lawyer Language behind it, we get bashed for it being "flawed" or us being "stupid" or "not thinking it through" or whatever else. It's condescending and quite a load of bullshit. Nobody would like having that tactic turned on them and it's disingenuous as shit.
Edit - Like, political views aren't Jeopardy. "I believe illegal immigrants should get due process and we should accept asylum seekers." "Oh I'm sorry you didn't submit your answer in the form of a Bill that observes the word of law as opposed to the intent of law."
I’m sure the GOP will happily sponsor a bill to abolish ICE. Also on the bill will be:
Building of a southern border wall paid for by defunding MEDICAID and welfare.
Removal of constitutional protections for both legal and illegal immigrants.
The creation of a new immigration force called Super-ICE.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
"Abolish ICE" is a slogan that is gaining acceptance among elected Dems and the base precisely because it has no detail so you can project whatever the fuck you want onto it. Does it mean open borders? To a very small minority of supporters, sure! Nowhere near the amount Republicans claim, but they're there, sure. Does it mean obliterate the agency and its interior immigration enforcement functions? To some people, yeah! They're the fucking Gestapo with their hands on a particularly dangerous gun, so remove the temptation to squeeze the trigger! Does it mean fire a bunch of shitty racists and mall cops running around with a badge cracking brown heads and change the name, but generally maintain the immigration enforcement function in the interior, just like, with actual qualifications for hires and ethics? Definitely! incremental change is the least risky change!
Its lack of specificity is probably why so many people are picking it up as a slogan even if everyone has a different and intense idea of what it would look like in practice. Republicans are awesome at this game, Democrats not so much.
I have seen exactly zero people assert that "abolish ICE" means having open borders. Further to the point, I have seen zero people outside of Republicans who think ICE provides border security.
"Abolish ICE" has always meant disbanding the agency and its tasks of searching / rounding up immigrants (edit - I forgot, it also means holding all agents accountable for crimes against humanity). As it gained momentum, especially with non-Centrist Democrat candidates / elected officials, Centrist Democrats realized it's a train they can hop on, provided they started the mess about "oh gee what does it all mean though" so that they can apply their soft 'solutions' (or non-solutions, as it were).
It's a left-born-and-driven movement that is in the process of being hijacked and made ineffectual by opportunists.
That's what moving the overton window looks like. The people pushing "Abolish ICE" have pushed the entire party more towards that issue. Some are hanging out on the edge of the window being dragged along, others are pulling it, many are hanging out in the middle. Before this a bunch of the more centrist/red-state Democrats wouldn't say shit. Now they are starting to feel like they can or need to say something on the issue, even if it's less then the people pushing the issue want. Because the people pushing "Abolish ICE" have succeeded.
+14
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"Abolish ICE" is a slogan that is gaining acceptance among elected Dems and the base precisely because it has no detail so you can project whatever the fuck you want onto it. Does it mean open borders? To a very small minority of supporters, sure! Nowhere near the amount Republicans claim, but they're there, sure. Does it mean obliterate the agency and its interior immigration enforcement functions? To some people, yeah! They're the fucking Gestapo with their hands on a particularly dangerous gun, so remove the temptation to squeeze the trigger! Does it mean fire a bunch of shitty racists and mall cops running around with a badge cracking brown heads and change the name, but generally maintain the immigration enforcement function in the interior, just like, with actual qualifications for hires and ethics? Definitely! incremental change is the least risky change!
Its lack of specificity is probably why so many people are picking it up as a slogan even if everyone has a different and intense idea of what it would look like in practice. Republicans are awesome at this game, Democrats not so much.
I have seen exactly zero people assert that "abolish ICE" means having open borders. Further to the point, I have seen zero people outside of Republicans who think ICE provides border security.
"Abolish ICE" has always meant disbanding the agency and its tasks of searching / rounding up immigrants (edit - I forgot, it also means holding all agents accountable for crimes against humanity). As it gained momentum, especially with non-Centrist Democrat candidates / elected officials, Centrist Democrats realized it's a train they can hop on, provided they started the mess about "oh gee what does it all mean though" so that they can apply their soft 'solutions' (or non-solutions, as it were).
It's a left-born-and-driven movement that is in the process of being hijacked and made ineffectual by opportunists.
That's what moving the overton window looks like. The people pushing "Abolish ICE" have pushed the entire party more towards that issue. Some are hanging out on the edge of the window being dragged along, others are pulling it, many are hanging out in the middle. Before this a bunch of the more centrist/red-state Democrats wouldn't say shit. Now they are starting to feel like they can or need to say something on the issue, even if it's less then the people pushing the issue want. Because the people pushing "Abolish ICE" have succeeded.
Posts
I dunno, you coupd get back to the less-awful 90s version with one sentence or so (Saying bills X, etc. are repealed)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Ok, you pass that law.
Nobody that works at ICE shows up to work tomorrow.
What next? What happens to the people in detention facilities? Who are they? Where do they go? How do you find out?
Well, no, because you'd be repealing the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Which would probably be on balance a good thing, to be honest. But it's definitely not simple.
The functions under ICE's jurisdictions (trafficking etc) and their resources need to go somewhere. If they go to a new department, you need to create that department. But some stuff may fall under FBI or DEA or ATF or whatever. The law needs to make clear what goes where. Otherwise, it falls to the executive branch.
You're agreeing with me that it isn't complex (in the sense that ICE exists to deny human rights to immigrants, which is bad), but then you're... lecturing me I think? Tell me which one it is please.
And I think this is where dems need messaging that has some degree of nuance. I don't think most people understand how our immigration system works, and stop to them ICE is just "the people that handle enforcing our borders and stuff." And if that is your understanding, then "abolish ICE" sounds like "do not enforce our borders", which Republicans have, of course, capitalized on by conflating our position with "open borders".
And it could be just a matter of making our mantra "abolish ICE and replace it with something that isn't terrible", but we do need a rallying cry that does not come off like a leftwing version of "abolish the IRS."
The most concise way I can think to frame it is "abolish ICE, restore the INS."
My take:
"I don't understand why 'abolishing ICE' is a bad thing to these supposed moderates who aren't Republicans."
"Turns out the 'moderates' are also super racist if you make them think about it."
(Also, am I allowed to say, that's fucking horrible? I mean, I don't doubt that it's true, like I might have before the last election... my expectations of "the average voter" have dropped considerably since then.
Also, while you may hate ICE, and without question they should be broken up, everything they do actually is part of a functional border control system. So, if you break them up then all the things they do should (and must) go back to real agencies. ICE is bad because it combines all the 'negative' interactions with immigrants and border control into one single agency, which is then judged on how well it does at being cruel and malicious. The duties of ICE all need to be done, but the agency which say, tries to deport immigrants who commit crimes should also be the government agency which is responsible for minimizing and investigating crime in the United States. The people responsible for removing failed asylum seekers should also be the people who approve immigrants in other ways and so on.
ICE is a problem because of the blend of things it has to do. No individual thing it has to do is something we don't need done.
A large number are just REALLY uninformed. I have a co-worker who thinks Ted Cruz is a Dem, for fuck's sake. That ultimately is a lot of the problem, a lot of Americans don't pay attention and want simple solutions that alsodon't make them uncomfortable.
oooor you could read what he actually said
ICE doesn't really do anything at the border, though. That's CBP. ICE is supposed to be CBP operating outside of the 100 mile border zone. And you don't really need that to exist at all. Workplace raids are basically unnecessary and would be better (and more humanely) accomplished through an accurate E-Verify type setup and random audits by a bunch of accountants and lawyers who do not have battering rams. Same for people who overstay their tourist/student Visa. They're civil offenses and should be treated as such. Which doesn't require heavily armed strike teams.
The whole catching murderous international drug cartel investigations thing are necessary, but that's a sub-agency within ICE that wants to stop being associated with ICE by their own admission. They could just as easily be folded into FBI/DOJ's international crimes units. Especially since most migrant workers are farm workers rather than itinerant drug mercenaries.
This will never happen simply because Democrats are not Republicans. Democrats have to be either persuaded or inspired to vote. Republicans just need to be told "this is what you think now" and they'll fall in line, because that's what Authoritarians do.
Yes, but ICE does its jobs in evil ways because it is an evil organization. If you gave back all its jobs to where they were before (ICE has no new jobs which didn't exist before 2001) then the agencies would hopefully stop doing them in evil ways.
What it needs is more oversight and more responsibilities than just deporting illegal immigrants. The former obviously causes abuses. The latter causes "the wrong sort" to join.
A decent person might consider joining an organization that does several things related to borders, customs, and immigration. But no decent person would join an organization entirely devoted to kicking weeping immigrants out of their homes, or turning away refugees at the border. That's like having a special police force entirely devoted to breaking heads - it's going to attract sadists, who might be put off by the prospect of having to do humdrum things like traffic tickets or taking statements about burglaries from householders, 99% of the time.
They've all been a huge disappointment since leaving office.
But the moment leadership is going somewhere they disagree, it is a travesty that can't be tolerated.
In a democracy, leaders are leaders because they go where people want them to.
ICE needs to go, and everyone working for it should be investigated, but abolish ICE is not necessarily a winner among majority of democratic voters, atleast not yet.
Anyways, the broad approach I for cleaning up this shit show.
-ICE is abolished, while INS is simultaneously brought back to replace it. INS does everything it did before being removed and it looks like it might have been part of the Department of Labor based on a quick search, which is IMO probably a better spot than DoJ, but both are much better than department of homeland security. INS would focus on making immigrants receive proper services and could verify legal status. I would not let it have an arm devoted for removing illegal immigrants because that's just going to attract the racist fuckers, hell not sure I would want anyone devoted solely towards that.
-The anti-smuggling outfit that was forced into ICE would be spawn off into whatever it was before and moved into the DoJ. It's responsibilities would be left unchanged.
-I know if we have anywhere in DoJ that could be task with dealing with illegal immigrants. I think I'd rather have enforcement resources aimed at dealing with employers that knowingly hire them, while have a better system in place for verifying legal status that employers could go to (there would need to be a few other changes in place, like only allowing limited industries to require a background check because they are like banking or something else where it's reasonable to demand a clean background, but no other industry gets to ask if someone has a record). Probably only limit deporting to cases where someone gets convicted of a serious crime and is found to be here illegally (assuming their home country will properly detain them). I really don't want law enforcement to be in a situation where a vulnerable and exploited community fears approaching them with information that could serious crimes.
-Fix the immigration system so that it works better for our needs. We probably need a better work visa setup. One that let's certain industries that do struggle to find works, when offering reasonable compensation, while also making sure it can't be abuses (so farms are able to get labor for jobs most Americans refuse or can't work, while silicon valley can't use it to avoid paying fair market wages).
-Investigate ICE's activities and bring cases against every member was is found to have been committing human right's abuses or other crimes.
-Probably disband homeland security and spin off the intelligence community coordination thing into a unique setup, where it's kind of shared by DoJ and DoD (given that we have military intelligence, foreign civilian intelligence like the CIA and domestic civilian intelligence). Chief of Intelligence is picked (have stringent criteria on who gets it and require 3/5 confirmation, while not allowing the POTUS to fire the head on a whim). Like the idea behind the bill that created the abomination that is ICE, was partly pushed through because the intelligence agencies wouldn't talking to one another.
Quoting this because apparently people are missing it and it seems to hold important context.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
and he will receive all due credit for this, once they accomplish something
I don't see how it is relevant to this issue
The relevance would be that maybe people disagreeing about things like the political strategic value of 'Abolish ICE' doesn't make them "garbage".
Sure it does. Because declaring someone universally "garbage" is silly based on not reading an entire quote and ignoring everything else that person does.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-family-reunion-20180715-htmlstory.html
Fucking evil
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Dear [Romantic Undead],
Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about US immigration policy. Our government has been monitoring the situation closely, and as the Prime Minister has clearly stated, the separation of children from their families, is wrong. Personally, I cannot imagine what the families have had to endure, and I believe that Canada must lead by example, and it's why we put family unity and the best interests of the child as primary considerations for our immigration officials when making decisions for immigration families.
As I am sure you are aware on June 20th, the United States Government ended the family separation policy. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions to finding a lasting and effective solution for those at the southern US border. Ongoing analysis is being carried out by both countries, as well as the UN's refugee agency, to ensure that the obligations for the safe third country agreement continue to be met. Our government is taking every new development into consideration while assessing potential avenues for harm reduction at the US border.
Thank you again for your interest and compassion. I will continue to work with Minister Freeland and the Prime Minister to ensure that your concerns are heard.
Mona Fortier
MP, Ottawa – Vanier
My original letter:
As one of your constituents, I am writing to you today to add my voice to the chorus of people horrified by the reporting, images and videos coming out of the United States concerning the treatment of the children of Asylum-seekers arriving within the United States.
I am asking that you please advocate to our government to denounce, in the strongest possible terms, the cruel treatment of these children. It has become clear at this time that the United States governing administration is willfully and knowingly resorting to acts cruelty to deter refugees from Central America from attempting to seek asylum within the United States. I think it should be stated, without question, that having to resort to cruelty to enforce legislation is unequivocally morally unacceptable anywhere in the world, least of all by a country who purports itself to be a leader of the Civilised Western World.
I urge you to please not shy away from being as forceful as possible on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, it is a basic human rights issue, and it must be condemned loudly and without question. Admission and, when necessary, detention of asylum seekers is a sensitive and complicated process, I understand this, and I have no simple solutions to this humanitarian crisis, but I do know that separating children from their parents is categorically wrong and must be stopped, now. Canada's power to intervene directly concerning this issue may be limited, however, we can, and MUST denounce this behaviour, and we must do so immediately.
Sincerely,
[Romantic Undead]
A better way of phrasing it would be "we need to rebuild ICE from the ground up."
And it's also worth noting that, which might have changed very recently, reforming ICE is not an important issue for most democratic voters. Immigrant voices, especially unregistered immigrant voices, are extremely marginalized in our culture. So while the majority of registered democrats are sympathetic it's only actually a key primary issue for a slice of them. It's only under this administration's escalation of ICE's behavior to the levels currently seen that the level of suffering reaches a point that the general american populace starts to get guilted until actually thinking about prioritizing their care. And you can already see that after that outcry, and perceived (marginal) response in the government, that a lot of people seem to have satisfied their guilt about doing something even though, and pardon my french, shit's still fucked.
How, when, and why did ICE manage to get its name associated with the duties that they don't do?
Ice doesn't do customs, they don't regulate or track immigration across the borders.
That doesn't change anything about what I said though. The slogan is "Abolish ICE". That's the thing people are backing or not.
Its lack of specificity is probably why so many people are picking it up as a slogan even if everyone has a different and intense idea of what it would look like in practice. Republicans are awesome at this game, Democrats not so much.
NNID: Hakkekage
"Abolish ICE" has always meant disbanding the agency and its tasks of searching / rounding up immigrants (edit - I forgot, it also means holding all agents accountable for crimes against humanity). As it gained momentum, especially with non-Centrist Democrat candidates / elected officials, Centrist Democrats realized it's a train they can hop on, provided they started the mess about "oh gee what does it all mean though" so that they can apply their soft 'solutions' (or non-solutions, as it were).
It's a left-born-and-driven movement that is in the process of being hijacked and made ineffectual by opportunists.
Edit - Like, political views aren't Jeopardy. "I believe illegal immigrants should get due process and we should accept asylum seekers." "Oh I'm sorry you didn't submit your answer in the form of a Bill that observes the word of law as opposed to the intent of law."
Building of a southern border wall paid for by defunding MEDICAID and welfare.
Removal of constitutional protections for both legal and illegal immigrants.
The creation of a new immigration force called Super-ICE.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
That's what moving the overton window looks like. The people pushing "Abolish ICE" have pushed the entire party more towards that issue. Some are hanging out on the edge of the window being dragged along, others are pulling it, many are hanging out in the middle. Before this a bunch of the more centrist/red-state Democrats wouldn't say shit. Now they are starting to feel like they can or need to say something on the issue, even if it's less then the people pushing the issue want. Because the people pushing "Abolish ICE" have succeeded.
Are suceeding. We aren't done yet.