In b4 “better things aren’t possible!”
1 Like
Fair enough, and I’d consider this acceptable so long as these actions become explicitly called out in the mandates of the existing organizations as part of getting rid of ICE, whatever the process entails for that.
You do realize that the article you cited pretty much describes the process @jabrams007 suggested for abolishing ICE – whittle it down bit by bit until it’s gone, given how it’s not politically possible to get rid of it all in one go in the near future.
1 Like
Thank you for unintentionally linking to an article that makes my point for me.
From your article ironically entitled “How to Abolish ICE”
“Since there will be no opportunity for Democrats to achieve a veto-proof majority before 2020, abolishing ICE will inevitably be a multi-year project. So, what can activists do now to erode ICE before we have a Congress that can abolish it for good?”
That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/melania-trump-family-separation.html
2 Likes
I think everyone on this forum wants to abolish ICE. The difference is that it seems @DMLou and I realize that you can’t do it all in one go and that it needs to be a gradual process.
And in the meantime, I’m willing to pursue options that lessen these people’s suffering right now, rather than waiting until 2020.
1 Like
The point is that “abolish ICE” is not a radical position. It is, in fact, the position shared by you, me, and Andy. As a political bullet point it does not need to be changed. It is what we all want. Why would stating “abolish ICE” imply that we have no knowledge of the work involved? Softening such a clear statement of policy only advertises a willingness to stop halfway to the goal. Let’s dismantle the whole thing and start now.
3 Likes
The trick is to do it strategically while dealing with the fact that there are too many morons who think “Abolish ICE” == “Open Borders,” including the Con-Man-in-Chief (or at least he’s using that claim to bolster support among said morons).
As an “undercover” policy goal, that’s fine. It’s doing it without making the morons vote for people who are against abolishing it that’s the problem.
1 Like
Because it is possible to start dismantling it NOW, but that requires bipartisan support. And as long as you call it “Abolish ICE,” you won’t get that bipartisan support.
Go back to my post above where I compare Abolishing ICE to gun control. Generally, people in the US support reasonable gun control. The problem is that the politicians won’t ever vote for it because of the NRA. To the NRA and some gun advocates, gun control, ANY gun control means = OBAMA IS COMING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!! However, you don’t have that same degree of intractability with ICE. With Abolishing ICE, as long as Republicans can argue that Abolishing ICE = open borders, they won’t vote for it and Republican voters won’t pressure their representatives to vote for any reforms of ICE.
However, if you start with something small, banning family separations, it is very possible to get bipartisan support. Not only that, but it’s much easier in the run-up to the 2018 midterms to run against separating famiiesy than it is to abolish ICE, especially in swing districts, which is where Democrats need to pick up seats if they want to retake Congress.
Members of this forum might say that they’re not willing to compromise and that they aren’t going to sugar coat policies for “white voting class suburban moms” and that “the idea of a swing voter is dead,” but that’s not true. Swing voters very much do exist, especially in the age of Trump where you have conservatives who abhor Trump’s policies willing to vote against him, as long as you don’t take radical positions on the other side.
How do you think Doug Jones won in Alabama?
How do you think Conor Lamb won in Pennsylvania?
The answer is the swing voter and the white suburban mom who’s somewhat fiscally conservative but hates the idea of separating families.
If you go too far, these swing voters won’t back Democrats. Democrats won’t win swing districts and won’t retake Congress. Without Congress, abolishing ICE doesn’t happen.
1 Like
We can simultaneously put centrist candidates in swing states/districts while pushing the party more ideologically to the left. We would not be talking about abolishing ICE as a serious policy position without Ocasio-Cortez winning in a deep blue district.
Also, I never said there would be a magical pen stroke that would eliminate it today. Y’all don’t understand that “Abolish ICE” is as much a political rallying cry as it is a policy position. Dems need to learn how to play the political game again.
3 Likes
Then America is done and I’d might as well execute my “leave forever” plan.
Swing voters are some of the dumbest people in America. They are dangerous. Catering to them is idiotic.
We get out the POC vote. If that’s not enough, nothing is. Swing voters will never save us.
Start packing your bags then, because I don’t think things are going to work out the way you’re hoping, I’m sorry to say.
Progressive policies are a winning platform, even for people who consider themselves conservative
I absolutely 100% agree with that.
As for the rest of what you wrote though,
Using “Abolish ICE” as a political rallying cry is a national issue. You think Republicans in swing districts won’t bring up what’s happening in other parts of the country? You don’t think Republicans will say “The Democrats want to abolish ICE, so if you elect Moderate Candidate X, he or she will support that agenda?” Of course they will. Again, it is much easier (and much more importantly a better political move) to have a political rallying cry against family separation than about abolishing ICE. Who wants to separate families? Answer: Monsters, that’s who, and don’t vote for the monster. Abolishing ICE is a much more complicated issue and much harder to capitalize on it.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nancy Pelosi is mentioned in pretty much every Congressional race in the entire country? EVERY race takes on national consequences these days, especially when you’re talking about something like Abolishing ICE. Every time liberals bring that up, they are making it harder for Democrats in swing states to win.
I’m loving how Fox News is essentially cutting promos for ACO. They’ve done more to get her message out than any liberal media these days. If you have winning policies, this isn’t a bad thing if Fox News brings you up constantly.
Can we have an informal forum rule where people can’t post bullshit performative anger statements like this?
You aren’t going to leave the country. Stop saying you will. Practically no one on this forum is going to leave the US, join some fictional or as-yet-to-be-formed revolution, and fight the evil empire. This isn’t Star Wars.
Give me a break.
Emily and I have discussed this at length. Wr made our hard decision. We have specific plans to leave if certain things happen.
Some of our triggers have happened, and I’ve already put in paperwork to be able to rebase myself. I have a concrete plan to relocate my job with three cities already lined up. I have a path to citizenship with all three. I’ve also lined up a backup job in Sydney if relocation fell through.
Don’t assume I’m not serious.
1 Like
Why do you think a couple weeks ago, Republicans in Congress absolutely LOVED the idea of holding a vote about abolishing ICE?
"GOP members loved the idea: putting Democrats on record backing a measure that could turn off swing voters — or voting no and rebuking their own colleagues. It would also be an easy unifier for House Republicans, who are still licking their wounds from their own divisive immigration battle last month…
Meanwhile, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are also fuming over the liberal move to eliminate the agency, arguing the effort distracts from the ongoing family separation crisis and President Donald Trump’s broader immigration crackdown while handing Republicans a cudgel to wield against Democrats…
Other lawmakers say they worry it will easily allow the GOP to paint Democrats as backing “open borders” heading into the final months of midterm campaigning, a messaging that could imperil Democratic efforts to win several swing seats and take back control of the House."
If that’s the case, then why are Democrats in the minority on all 3 branches of government? Well, other than the whole “voters are morons” issue.
If progressive policies are a winning platform but voters are too dumb to vote for them, then I guess they’re not really a winning platform, are they?
My wife and I renewed our passports and started looking into getting jobs teaching English in Japan or Korea. Some of us are quite serious about the possibility.
1 Like
Heck, even I have my EU dual citizenship in my back pocket if needed. But it will take much more shit hitting the fan than the Democrats losing in 2018 and even 2020 to make me leave the country. Of course, I’m not ruling out the possibility that said shit will actually hit the fan, even though I’m hoping it’s pretty slim.
2 Likes