Now that Donald Trump has Won


#1366

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.


#1367

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.


#1368

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.


#1369

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…


#1370

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.


#1371

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.


#1372

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.


#1373

#1374

In b4 “better things aren’t possible!”


#1375

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.


#1376

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.


#1377

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.


#1378

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.


#1379

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.


#1380

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.


#1381

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.


#1382

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.


#1383

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.


#1384


#1385

Progressive policies are a winning platform, even for people who consider themselves conservative