Living in America should not be a crime
2 Likes
As I said, I’m fine with abolishing ICE as part of reforming it so long as its non-deportation-related duties are properly handed off to other agencies.
True, but illegally crossing the border probably should be a crime, albeit a minor one that doesn’t require gestapo tactics to handle unless you’re going after a known war criminal or something (and even then, proper due process and all that).
I’m all for immigration reform as I think many of the current hoops people need to jump through to immigrate legally are bullshit, but there needs to be some sort of limits at the border. You don’t want legitimate criminals such as drug lords and war criminals crossing over if you can avoid it. Unlimited immigration is probably not economically viable unless you have a post-scarcity economy. Whatever limits are put in place should be non-discriminatory. If you’re not a serious criminal, you’re pretty much allowed in up to some non-discriminatory maximum number allowed per any given period of time.
For those who do come over the border illegally, deportation shouldn’t be the automatic and only penalty. If you just jumped over the border a short time ago, then yeah, deportation is acceptable. If you commit a felony while here illegally, then yes, deportation is also acceptable. If you’ve lived here long enough to get a job (and there are other issues with that), establish roots, etc., then you should be allowed to stay with penalties only being in terms of payment of back taxes, if applicable, perhaps a penalty fine, and/or community service.
One issue is that it seems like those who hire people illegally never get penalized, and that is another problem as those tend to be quite privileged people who can pretty much get away with anything. If you knowingly hire someone who isn’t legally allowed to work, you should be appropriately penalized as well. There is a certain gray area here due to there being an under-the-table economy often with these sorts of jobs. I mean, my parents never ask for immigration status when they pay an independent handyman to do some work around the house, for instance. I’m more talking about people/companies who hire people in some sort of full time position and who should have the means to verify someone’s legal employment status.
1 Like
While I agree that ICE should be abolished, the problem is that, like you said, most people have no idea what it is or does.
To most people, even the people who are generally against the draconian tactics used by ICE, Abolish ICE = Open Borders. While this isn’t true, try explaining that to the average person or voter. The average voter has no idea that ICE was only created in 2003. They have no idea what preceded ICE. To them, ICE enforces our border, something that ICE actually DOESN’T do. That would be the US Customs and Border Protection agency.
Thankfully, in the Time of Trump, our country hasn’t gone so far off the deep end that there is general and widespread condemnation of the tactics ICE uses, especially family separation. Take that agreement and use it to scale back ICE. Reform it. I’m just worried that by trying to abolish ICE entirely, that consensus, that coalition of people who agree, will be broken up and nothing concrete will be done at all. Republicans will use the Abolish ICE rallying cry to say that Democrats want a completely open border.
1 Like
I’m for open amnesty of anyone living here today.
I’m for decriminalizing working without permission for the people doing said work.
I’m for strict penalties for companies hiring people who don’t have permission to work, but no-deportation guarantees for the people they so hired.
There is no value in targeting the center. If we can’t go far left, our nation will eventually fail
1 Like
While I generally agree with you, I think of it more in terms of short term goals versus long term goals. I’d rather have a small win now, that does some actual good, than hoping for a hypothetical big win sometime in the future, which is much less likely, while in the meantime, nothing really changes.
The administration’s attempt to leverage separating families in order to fund Trump’s border wall blew up spectacularly in their faces. The fact that there seems to be bipartisan agreement that what ICE did, at the behest of Trump and the DOJ was monstrous, is a rare opportunity. Use that. Build off that.
Use the outrage over what ICE did to reform it, curtail what it can do. In trying to abolish ICE entirely, there’s the very real chance that Democrats could overreach and get nothing. Yes, I know all about the Overton Window, but this could be an easy win that Democrats could build off of in the future.
I think of the Abolish ICE argument similarly to the gun control argument. While I would love to ban guns entirely, that’s probably never going to happen. Additionally, while polls consistently show that most Americans are for some reasonable gun control, the NRA is so entrenched in the Republican party that that’s impossible.
With ICE, there really is no outside lobbying group like the NRA. The possibility exists, and is actually pretty strong, that some limited reform of ICE is possible. The problem is that in trying to Abolish ICE entirely, you lose the support of the majority of people because they misunderstand what ICE does. As a result, what could be a real win, a real chance to scale back ICE could be lost.
1 Like
Additionally, I’m worried that even if ICE was abolished, without a clear and simple plan to replace it with something else, the Democrats will look like the Republicans in trying to get rid of Obamacare. For years, the Republicans tried to repeal the ACA, and when they finally had a president that wouldn’t veto their bill, they couldn’t do it, because there was no consensus as to what the ACA should be replaced with within their own party.
Before liberals and Democrats start a serious effort to abolish ICE, they need to have a plan in place, with broad agreement among themselves, as to what they’ll replace ICE with. Not having a concrete plan, especially not having a plan that the majority of the party can agree on, will just make the Democrats look ridiculous the way Republicans have looked trying to repeal the ACA without any plan on what to replace it with.
Finally, the monstrous actions of ICE are great talking points for the 2018 midterms. With so many people against family separations, Democrats can use that to drum up support and increase turnout. On the other hand, overreaching and trying to abolish ICE could have the opposite effect, turning people who mistakenly think that abolish ICE = open borders, away from them.
1 Like
Right now IIRAIRA is being used to deport people who came here legally and through the system, often for minor offenses such as driving without license or turn-style jumping. For many this is a fate next to death. All your arguments about war criminals are used by facsists and racists to justify a white nationalist agenda to rid the country of people of color. This type of policy is complicit in these actions.
End the drug war. No amount of walls or border guards or laws or deportations will prevent this.
Right now more immigration is exactly what is needed to improve the economy. Don’t give me this post-scarcity farce.
Deportation should never be a penalty. For many it’s a death sentence, for everyone else it rips them from their families and causes such societal pain that it’s essentially just as bad. We don’t have an armed police force that arrests white collar criminals who commit crimes that devastate millions, because they are rich white men. We should demand that those in most need, those who truly are chasing the American dream also be treated the same. Without guns, without prisons, without ICE.
I’m not here to build a big tent party anymore. The idea of a swing voter is dead. Conservatives are the minority. I’m not going to sugar coat my policies anymore to make them palatable to white voting class suburban moms who voted for Trump anyways. As shown above, Abolishing ICE is popular. It’s a winning position. It’s the right thing to do.
ICE is a deportation force that focuses only on criminal violations. They provide no border enforcement, they only kick people out and damage lives. They nominally also do things like find missing children (HSI division) are better suited by the FBI and DOJ anyways, not some plucky underfunded side project under the DHS umbrella. If you truly want to these people to do the criminal matters, they should be under the criminal justice wing of the government, not the national security wing (DHS). The fact that people use the HSI to shout “hey look! ICE does some good things do” is a red herring and distracts from the fact that they don’t do their job very well, and actually enables the ERO (which gets the majority of the funding) to operate with political cover.
Abolish ICE, anything less is not a win. It’s an inhumane force that only exists to enforce a racist and ethically criminal policies.
Abolish ICE
Abolish ICE
Abolish ICE
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article215232500.html
Abolish ICE
Abolish ICE
Abolish ICE
Abolish ICE
4 Likes
Hey look, not only is this agency the long arm of racists, but it also doesn’t even achieve it’s intended goal. It just causes pain and suffering.
1 Like
I explicitly said people should only be deported for committing a felony once they’ve set up roots. Or did you not read through my post.
And do you actually want people like Zoran Žigić to be able to enter this country without any sort of cursory screening to make sure they aren’t horrible people? Yes, fascists and racists make that claim, but fascists and racists also say the sky is blue and that doesn’t make claiming that the sky is blue is necessarily a fascist/racist thing to say.
There are horrible people of all colors, even though the vast majority are good. We should try to keep the bad people out without making things too onerous for the good people, who make up the vast majority. If I had to choose between letting one bad person in vs. keeping thousands of good people out, I’d of course choose in favor of letting the bad person in along with the good people. A proper balance is necessary that’s in favor of letting as many good people in as possible.
Ending the drug war is a separate issue, and one that I’m probably in favor of doing. I only called out drug lords as they are some of the most violent criminals that exist out there, even if their power comes from the drug war. Pick your other “favorite” type of loathsome criminal instead of drug lords then.
“More” isn’t the same as “unlimited.” I’m all for jacking up the total number of immigrants allowed in from all countries. I’ll leave it to actual economists and other experts to figure out what is a reasonable number to allow for economic growth without economic collapse. I’d also give those seeking asylum priority and/or exemptions from immigration limits. Heck, if the experts say unlimited immigration is actually the best way to get growth, I’m all for that too. I’m no economist, so my claim about economic viability is based on my own ignorance and gut feelings. I’d definitely agree with what a consensus of intelligent, fair experts say about the economics of immigration.
For those who do come over the border illegally, deportation shouldn’t be the automatic and only penalty.
It depends on the case. Those seeking asylum because they’d be killed if they were sent home should be exempt from immigration limits in some form or another and should almost never deported. Those who are in no real danger at home but who simply want a better life, that’s a separate issue. As I said, if they aren’t legitimate criminals, I’m all for letting as many in as economically viable and I trust the word of experts as to what limits are economically viable.
Those who are being detailed for immigration violations, given how they are at worst misdemeanors, should not be kept in prisons. House arrest, half way houses, etc., would be more acceptable.
Oh, and the rich bastard white collar criminals, I agree that they get off way too easy, especially relative to immigration law violators.
And as I said, if you’ve been here illegally long enough that you’ve set up roots, deportation should never be on the table as a penalty unless you’ve committed a felony. If you’ve jumped across the border 5 minutes ago (to use an extreme example) and are not seeking asylum, then yeah, deportation probably could be acceptable, provided you’re treated humanely, get due process, and so on.
In general, I’m more in favor of penalties like fines and/or community service for the vast majority of immigration offenders than deportation. What’s actually appropriate is a case-by-case basis and, in some cases, deportation may be appropriate.
It’s popular among the hard-left, which is also in the minority. As a result, it’s not so much of a winning position as you think.
Like it or not, America as a whole is a centrist nation, and some may even argue center-right, especially compared to European nations, for example.
I don’t disagree with this here. Part of reforming/abolishing ICE, whatever gets done, is to separate its deportation division from those that service other purposes that no one can really argue against. Also, those who want to reform/abolish it need to explicitly point out that they will still preserve the less controversial duties of ICE in other forms, because, let’s face it, the average American voter is a moron.
I’m all for bringing back the old INS and other agencies. That might be the strategic way to talk about abolishing ICE – mention that there was INS and so forth before there was ICE and you are simply going back to the way things used to be.
Great, then nothing will change until at least 2020, and that’s only IF the Democrats retake the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
Even if the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, Trump will just veto any bill that tries to abolish ICE. Because you’re not willing to compromise, there will be no Republican support to abolish ICE, and Trump’s veto will stand. As a result nothing changes.
However, if the Democrats put forth some lesser legislation, there is a much better chance of gaining bipartisan support, potentially enough to overcome Trump’s likely veto. In this scenario, no, ICE isn’t abolished, but there will be a material difference in how it functions and that will affect people’s lives in real tangible ways.
What you want has virtually no chance of success until at least 2020, and that’s if the Democrats get a clean sweep in the House, Senate, and Presidency. Either way, there will be no change in how ICE operates until then. What I’m suggesting could happen much sooner.
Of course, no suffering at all is better than some suffering, but if that’s not likely, and not for another 2.5 years, less suffering now is better than the amount of suffering going on.
While that’s great that you’re not willing to compromise your ideals with racist soccer moms, a more moderate approach could materially benefit people’s lives much sooner, and with a much much greater chance of success.
To me, helping people now, even if only a little, is better than holding out in the hopes of maybe, potentially, possibly, helping them more in the future. In the meantime, right now, they’re still suffering. I want to try and help them in any way I can, right now. You want to cling to your ideals and not compromise.
1 Like
I don’t believe in deportation for that. Use our regular criminal justice system: don’t dump them somewhere else.
2 Likes
If it isn’t a winning position, America is beyond help and probably collapses long-term.
1 Like
Eh, I wouldn’t necessarily argue against this either. Now that you mention it, I do recall learning from a TA back in college about a group of people who immigrated to the US as very young children who committed felonies as adults and were deported back to their countries of birth, despite having no ties to said country and not even speaking the language (it was his doctoral thesis project). Deportation was certainly a much more harsh penalty than they would have faced from the regular criminal justice system for such a crime. So I’ll say I’m on the fence, a bit, as to whether or not deportation is an appropriate penalty, but leaning on the side of “no” since you reminded me of this situation. While there may be a crime where deportation may be appropriate for those who have established roots, it is not for the majority of them and, if we have to choose one of the options, no deportations at all is the better option.
Separate issue, but sadly probably true, mostly due to the combination of the average American being a moron and there being a not insignificant number of asshole Americans who are fine with the status quo and who could be “smart” enough to take advantage of the morons to push their agenda.
Abolishing ICE could be done strategically, perhaps gradually, to deal with the moron problem. I think the divide between the “reform ICE” and “abolish ICE” camps is probably pretty small and probably has mostly to do with the process to achieve the same end goal: no more gestapo tactics, no more human rights violations, etc.
As far as I’m concerned, the ICE “brand” has been tarnished beyond repair, hence my talk about breaking it up, removing all non-immigration-related duties from it, and perhaps restoring the old INS in its place to handle legitimate immigration enforcement issues.
1 Like
Hello, you are just projecting your own opinion into what is clearly not what I was arguing. Abolish ICE is very clear and concise: The agency that exists solely to deport people should no longer exist.
Wanting a better life IS getting away from real danger effectively for the population we are discussing. I don’t see ICE deporting immigrants from Sweden or Canada.
Do you think American citizens who commit misdemeanors should be put on house arrest? Put into half-way houses? Gross.
We should not treat immigration violations any different than a traffic ticket or similar level of misdemeanors.
Deportations happened under INS. Stop trying to make INS happen.
Abolish ICE. End deportations.
lmfao sure Jan
No it won’t. There is no Aaron Sorkin-esque grand compromise here. I will not suffer only semi-racist policies.
2 Likes
And you are doing the same to me. There are some people, who frankly, do not deserve to be allowed to enter the country or who should be immediately detained for criminal acts upon entering or after being located in the country after entering. Some sort of agency should handle those situations, whether it’s a reformed ICE, INS, the FBI, or a new agency.
Separate issue, but they probably should be if they’ve committed deportable offenses under current laws (which, admittedly, absolutely need to be reformed). Around here, they have deported immigrants from Ireland. A large number of those of my own ethnic group (and many of my relatives are immigrants themselves) are also facing deportation.
Heck, I’m nervous myself given the Trump admin’s desire to de-naturalize people that many of my own relatives could also be de-naturalized due to paperwork errors or other minor issues. I’m no lover of what ICE does by any stretch. I just consider some of its duties necessary for extreme situations and it needs to be somehow curtailed so that it or its replacement only performs them for those extreme situations.
Well, the halfway houses are for those who would otherwise be homeless and as a way to get them a home of some sort until they either find homes or have their situations sorted out.
Note that some misdemeanors also have some sort of jail time involved, even if it is only until arraignment. If it comes down to jail vs. house-arrest (for those who have homes) or temporary halfway houses (for those who don’t), I’d prefer the non-jail alternatives.
If you can suggest better alternatives for keeping track of immigration offenders until due process has been properly handled, I’m all for it. I’m just trying to find a more humane way to handle these situations than prisons, which we all agree are inhumane for the vast majority of them. Perhaps the use of “halfway houses” was incorrect in this case compared to what they’re usually used for, but it was simply to address than many of them will have no place to live once they get here and need some place to live until everything is sorted out. Once they have a place to live, house-arrest or regular check-ins with an immigration officer until their cases have been fairly decided would be the most acceptable option.
INS wasn’t notorious for using gestapo tactics, at least as far as I remember.
You do understand that CBP is a different agency than ICE right? ICE has nothing to do with border enforcement.
All those criminals and dangerous drug lords you are worried about? Caused by INS my friend…
Correct, but they do have something to do with tracking down those who violated border laws if they manage to avoid CBP, such as the case of someone sneaking over the border who should not have been allowed to enter in the first place. Again, it’s an extreme circumstance, but a valid one, and some agency has to handle it.
What’s that have to do with gestapo tactics? That’s a separate issue over whether or not deportation is a valid penalty for crimes committed, and I noted that, based on something Rym reminded me of from my college days, that it isn’t for the vast majority of crimes, if not all of them.
The article points out that by making these criminals “someone else’s problem,” we’ve in fact made things worse all around. So I get that. And I’m going to get pedantic, but it wasn’t INS who made them, it was the policy that was set by the laws INS was enforcing. INS may have handled the deportations, but only because the laws and judges said that these criminals needed to be deported.
And I know all too well about the changes in the laws that made deportation easier in the 90’s. My ethnic community had massive naturalization drives at the time because it was even easier for green card holders to be deported at the time. My own father was among those who finally got naturalized back then because of those changes. And those changes were bullshit as well.
Now, I don’t know how INS itself handled the situations. I don’t know if they kicked down doors to arrest these criminals in the middle of the night, throwing flashbang grenades in, or if they simple arrived at local prisons to pick them up once notified that someone who was convicted of a crime happened to be here illegally. If it’s the former, that’s what I mean by gestapo tactics. If it’s the latter, then it’s something else entirely.
If they are war criminals it should be handled by the FBI and DOJ. We already have multiple organizations dedicated to finding bad people amongst our midst. We do not need a dedicated one that focuses exclusively on only POC and foreigners, especially under a national security mandate. Additionally, DOJ are able to work with international criminal justice agencies such as INTERPOL that ICE will never be able to work wtih.
Repeated calls to water down to “Reform ICE” is how the existing power structures are kept in place, but merely reshuffled under three letter acronyms. We must send a clear message, we will no longer accept this racist and inhumane agency to exist.
2 Likes
Maybe not, but there’s certainly a much better chance at reforming ICE than abolishing it.
You keep saying “Abolish ICE Abolish ICE” like you can just wave some magic wand and it will happen.
Since that’s not realistic, you want to abolish ICE? Then how?
Unless I have a fundamental misunderstanding of American politics and the way our government works, I can’t see that happening before 2020, and that’s only if Democrats retake the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Tell me how you’re going to abolish ICE. I’d really love to know.