Does anyone have a coherent argument for abolishing ICE without repealing the laws in their official scope?
I ANGRY AT ICE!
I MAD!
is not a coherent argument.
Opposing misconduct, unlawful abuses, excessive budget & employees has nothing to do with whether there are legal enforcement duties demanding existence of enforcers.
Acting illegally means any federal law enforcement can abuse authority the same as ICE: Customs & Border Protection, TSA, Secret Service, Coast Guard, DEA, ATF, FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, Postal Inspection Service, Marshals Service, Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Odometer Fraud Investigation, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, EPA, etc.
An executive agency is just an organization administered by executives.
Abolishing an executive agency doesn’t stop the executive administration from reproducing the same abuses elsewhere.
They can even move the same employees & resources elsewhere.
They can withhold & misappropriate funds again as they’ve done before.
Beyond discredit supporters as ignorant & incapable of thinking through stupid shit, abolishing an organizational unit of the federal executive branch doesn’t seem to accomplish much.
Getting ideas taken seriously at the very least requires ideas that aren’t stupid AF.
Post needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not.
Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
usability
we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
Does anyone have a coherent argument for abolishing ICE without repealing the laws in their official scope
What a nonsense caveat. Regardless of what they do or don’t do, repealing or amending the applicable laws IS necessary to abolish that abomination. That’s how the system works.
Ignoring that, the only things ICE ever did that other agencies didn’t do before is dial the abuse of undocumented immigrants and anyone else caught in the crossfire up to 11 at first, roughly 175 by now.
It’s the American SS or Gestapo and has precisely zero mitigating circumstances to even begin to justify its existence in a modern democracy.
ME ANGRY AT ICE! ME MAD!
is not a coherent argument.
Neither are your disingenuous strawmen.
Opposing misconduct, unlawful abuses, excessive budget & employees has nothing to do with whether there are legal enforcement duties demanding existence of enforcers.
Yes it does and here’s why:
As pointed out earlier, there’s no need for the kinds of enforcement that ICE was created to carry out. On the contrary, it has only made the whole immigration situation MUCH worse than it would otherwise have been.
Pretending for a second that reason 1 ISN’T enough, there’s the question of proportionality: even IF they did anything to benefit society, there’s an upper limit to the amount of abuse and waste thst said benefit would be worth.
No benefit is worth spending more than most countries spend on their armed forces on jackbooted thugs whose function is to abuse with impunity.
Nope. ICE was specifically created to visit MORE abuse on people with less oversight and fewer consequences. While other federal cops can (and far too often WILL) also abuse innocent “suspects”, ICE is BY DESIGN more likely to do so with impunity.
An executive agency is just an organization administered by executives
Sure, there’s no difference between regulatory agencies like the EPA and custodian entities like the Park Service and designated brown people hunters! 🙄🤦
They can even move the same employees & resources elsewhere
You can also hire a baseball player as your interior decorator. Doesn’t make the jobs equivalent to each other.
Abolishing an executive agency doesn’t stop the executive administration from reproducing the same abuses elsewhere
It DOES when part of the law you pass to do so specifically forbids those kinds of abuses and/or gets rid of so-called “qualified immunity”.
They can withhold & misappropriated funds again as they’ve done before.
They can also murder people as some of them have done before. That doesn’t mean that murder should be legal or not prosecuted.
discredit supporters as ignorant & incapable of thinking through stupid shit
Wow, the projection is strong with this one!
Getting ideas taken seriously at the very least requires ideas that aren’t stupid AF.
Nah, people took the idea of creating ICE seriously to the point that they even did it. In spite of everything I’ve explained above about it being a mechanism for ethnic cleansing and abuse on purpose from day one.
What a nonsense caveat. Regardless of what they do or don’t do, repealing or amending the applicable laws IS necessary to abolish that abomination. That’s how the system works.
disingenuous strawmen
Then use words correctly: abolish ICE literally means exactly that.
It doesn’t mean repeal the laws, which would make sense.
Otherwise, why not say repeal those laws?
It’s not a strawman to interpret your message exactly as stated.[1]
It’s no one else’s duty to make up unstated justifications for a poorly argued demand.
Given the lack of explicit context & justification for the demand to abolish ICE other than current events, the reader is justified to assume the only justification is current events (ICE’s abuse of authority under the Trump administration).
It’s unjustifiable to expect the reader to assume the demand is predicated on ICE’s lawful purpose, too.
While I agree that US’s immigration, naturalization, & border policies are mostly unnecessary bullshit[2], I also follow the news enough to be aware I’m in the waning minority.
Right up to the election, the people clearly favored less immigration & stronger enforcement of border policy.
That’s been a consistent pattern: popularity of immigration controls steadily increase until some illegal or outrageous shit (like a Muslim ban, family separation, or murder of civilians & violation of their rights) hits the news, when they decline until the next administration is voted in.
Then their popularity recovers & continues to increase as if all is forgiven.
Voters seem to love immigration controls as usual.
I’ve never seen a popular movement to oppose those bullshit naturalization tests most US citizens would fail.
Moreover, ICE has existed since 2003 through the Bush, Obama, Biden administrations without calls to abolish it gaining traction.
Before ICE, INS was performing similar duties of arresting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants.
During all that time, calls to abolish INS never took off despite it performing raids & having overseen World War 2 internment camps of “enemy aliens”.
Voters only cease to love immigration controls when they don’t operate as usual.
Despite existing through multiple terms, abolish ICE only gained traction under the 1st Trump term.
Then people stopped giving a shit with Biden’s term.
Now we’re back.
It seems voters give a fuck only with overtly illegal or abusive conduct and otherwise support the whole contradictory system of wanting immigrants labor for work citizens won’t do yet opposing immigrants.
It’s clear to me that voters only care about ICE’s latest spate of illegal conduct & abuse of authority without objecting to the concept of ICE itself.
While voters can easily accept that illegal conduct & abuse of authority should end, that doesn’t imply abolish ICE.
It implies repealing Trump era changes & addressing the administration’s ability to perform illegal conduct.
Convincing voters that ICE needs to be abolished & the laws in its scope of enforcement need to be repealed takes an altogether different argument that demands a reversal of their usual position.
Without articulating an effective argument, abolish ICE is fairly construed by the general public as mindless, outrage-fueled stupidity.
As pointed out earlier
Link missing.
there’s no need for the kinds of enforcement that ICE was created to carry out. On the contrary, it has only made the whole immigration situation MUCH worse than it would otherwise have been.
The detentions & harsher Trump policies aren’t necessary.
Much immigration policy is counterproductive & stupid.
HSI special agents investigate violations of more than 400 U.S. laws that threaten national security, including counter-proliferation; human smuggling and trafficking; weapons smuggling; narcotics smuggling and trafficking; human rights violations; transnational gang activity; financial crimes, including money laundering and bulk cash smuggling; cyber crime; child exploitation and sex tourism; trade crimes such as commercial fraud and intellectual property theft; smuggling of counterfeit pharmaceuticals and other merchandise; document and benefit fraud; the manufacturing, sale, and use of counterfeit immigration and identity documents; mass-marketing fraud; art theft; international cultural property and antiquities crimes; export enforcement and visa security.
Addressing your other points
No benefit is worth spending more than most countries spend on their armed forces on jackbooted thugs whose function is to abuse with impunity.
is still an argument for repealing Trump era changes.
ICE was specifically created to visit MORE abuse on people with less oversight and fewer consequences.
Nah, people took the idea of creating ICE seriously to the point that they even did it.
Nope, ahistorical & addressed earlier: existed since 2003 with predecessor INS & its predecessors tracing back further.
Sure, there’s no difference between regulatory agencies like the EPA and custodian entities like the Park Service and designated brown people hunters! 🙄🤦
Doesn’t make the jobs equivalent to each other.
Maybe you have no fucking idea what it means to act unlawfully with impunity: is ICE legally violating constitutional rights, defying court orders, or murdering?
When government decides to disobey laws, the laws do not limit it.
It DOES when part of the law you pass to do so specifically forbids those kinds of abuses and/or gets rid of so-called “qualified immunity”.
Again, the administration isn’t following laws or court orders.
Where are the Epstein files?
Impeachments & cutting funds are necessary.
That doesn’t mean that murder should be legal or not prosecuted.
It already is illegal.
Have you paid attention?
Prosecution is up to federal (good luck) & state prosecutors.
Wow, the projection is strong with this one!
Nah, that’s you: stop forgetting history & expecting everyone to mind read.
The only ones to blame for miscommunication are those who assume their inept phrase abolish ICE should mean anything else to everyone else.
Instead of willfully ignoring how language works & that no one can read your mind, communicate better: state what you mean. ↩︎
Before the 20th century, there were practically no immigrant regulations: largely open borders, no requirement for passports, visas, or pre-approved, permanent residency.
Immigrants could simply purchase a steamship ticket, arrive at a port, pass basic inspections for health & criminal record. ↩︎
Does anyone have a coherent argument for abolishing ICE without repealing the laws in their official scope?
is not a coherent argument.
Opposing misconduct, unlawful abuses, excessive budget & employees has nothing to do with whether there are legal enforcement duties demanding existence of enforcers. Acting illegally means any federal law enforcement can abuse authority the same as ICE: Customs & Border Protection, TSA, Secret Service, Coast Guard, DEA, ATF, FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, Postal Inspection Service, Marshals Service, Forest Service, Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Odometer Fraud Investigation, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, EPA, etc. An executive agency is just an organization administered by executives. Abolishing an executive agency doesn’t stop the executive administration from reproducing the same abuses elsewhere. They can even move the same employees & resources elsewhere. They can withhold & misappropriate funds again as they’ve done before.
Beyond discredit supporters as ignorant & incapable of thinking through stupid shit, abolishing an organizational unit of the federal executive branch doesn’t seem to accomplish much.
Getting ideas taken seriously at the very least requires ideas that aren’t stupid AF.
Post needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
What a nonsense caveat. Regardless of what they do or don’t do, repealing or amending the applicable laws IS necessary to abolish that abomination. That’s how the system works.
Ignoring that, the only things ICE ever did that other agencies didn’t do before is dial the abuse of undocumented immigrants and anyone else caught in the crossfire up to 11 at first, roughly 175 by now.
It’s the American SS or Gestapo and has precisely zero mitigating circumstances to even begin to justify its existence in a modern democracy.
Neither are your disingenuous strawmen.
Yes it does and here’s why:
As pointed out earlier, there’s no need for the kinds of enforcement that ICE was created to carry out. On the contrary, it has only made the whole immigration situation MUCH worse than it would otherwise have been.
Pretending for a second that reason 1 ISN’T enough, there’s the question of proportionality: even IF they did anything to benefit society, there’s an upper limit to the amount of abuse and waste thst said benefit would be worth.
No benefit is worth spending more than most countries spend on their armed forces on jackbooted thugs whose function is to abuse with impunity.
Nope. ICE was specifically created to visit MORE abuse on people with less oversight and fewer consequences. While other federal cops can (and far too often WILL) also abuse innocent “suspects”, ICE is BY DESIGN more likely to do so with impunity.
Sure, there’s no difference between regulatory agencies like the EPA and custodian entities like the Park Service and designated brown people hunters! 🙄🤦
You can also hire a baseball player as your interior decorator. Doesn’t make the jobs equivalent to each other.
It DOES when part of the law you pass to do so specifically forbids those kinds of abuses and/or gets rid of so-called “qualified immunity”.
They can also murder people as some of them have done before. That doesn’t mean that murder should be legal or not prosecuted.
Wow, the projection is strong with this one!
Nah, people took the idea of creating ICE seriously to the point that they even did it. In spite of everything I’ve explained above about it being a mechanism for ethnic cleansing and abuse on purpose from day one.
Then use words correctly: abolish ICE literally means exactly that. It doesn’t mean repeal the laws, which would make sense. Otherwise, why not say repeal those laws?
It’s not a strawman to interpret your message exactly as stated.[1] It’s no one else’s duty to make up unstated justifications for a poorly argued demand. Given the lack of explicit context & justification for the demand to abolish ICE other than current events, the reader is justified to assume the only justification is current events (ICE’s abuse of authority under the Trump administration). It’s unjustifiable to expect the reader to assume the demand is predicated on ICE’s lawful purpose, too.
While I agree that US’s immigration, naturalization, & border policies are mostly unnecessary bullshit[2], I also follow the news enough to be aware I’m in the waning minority. Right up to the election, the people clearly favored less immigration & stronger enforcement of border policy. That’s been a consistent pattern: popularity of immigration controls steadily increase until some illegal or outrageous shit (like a Muslim ban, family separation, or murder of civilians & violation of their rights) hits the news, when they decline until the next administration is voted in. Then their popularity recovers & continues to increase as if all is forgiven.
Voters seem to love immigration controls as usual. I’ve never seen a popular movement to oppose those bullshit naturalization tests most US citizens would fail. Moreover, ICE has existed since 2003 through the Bush, Obama, Biden administrations without calls to abolish it gaining traction. Before ICE, INS was performing similar duties of arresting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants. During all that time, calls to abolish INS never took off despite it performing raids & having overseen World War 2 internment camps of “enemy aliens”.
Voters only cease to love immigration controls when they don’t operate as usual. Despite existing through multiple terms, abolish ICE only gained traction under the 1st Trump term. Then people stopped giving a shit with Biden’s term. Now we’re back.
It seems voters give a fuck only with overtly illegal or abusive conduct and otherwise support the whole contradictory system of wanting immigrants labor for work citizens won’t do yet opposing immigrants. It’s clear to me that voters only care about ICE’s latest spate of illegal conduct & abuse of authority without objecting to the concept of ICE itself.
While voters can easily accept that illegal conduct & abuse of authority should end, that doesn’t imply abolish ICE. It implies repealing Trump era changes & addressing the administration’s ability to perform illegal conduct. Convincing voters that ICE needs to be abolished & the laws in its scope of enforcement need to be repealed takes an altogether different argument that demands a reversal of their usual position. Without articulating an effective argument, abolish ICE is fairly construed by the general public as mindless, outrage-fueled stupidity.
Link missing.
The detentions & harsher Trump policies aren’t necessary. Much immigration policy is counterproductive & stupid.
However, ICE was also created to enforce customs & related regulations in its directorate Homeland Security Investigations.
Addressing your other points
is still an argument for repealing Trump era changes.
Nope, ahistorical & addressed earlier: existed since 2003 with predecessor INS & its predecessors tracing back further.
Maybe you have no fucking idea what it means to act unlawfully with impunity: is ICE legally violating constitutional rights, defying court orders, or murdering?
When government decides to disobey laws, the laws do not limit it.
Again, the administration isn’t following laws or court orders. Where are the Epstein files?
Impeachments & cutting funds are necessary.
It already is illegal. Have you paid attention? Prosecution is up to federal (good luck) & state prosecutors.
Nah, that’s you: stop forgetting history & expecting everyone to mind read.
The only ones to blame for miscommunication are those who assume their inept phrase abolish ICE should mean anything else to everyone else. Instead of willfully ignoring how language works & that no one can read your mind, communicate better: state what you mean. ↩︎
Before the 20th century, there were practically no immigrant regulations: largely open borders, no requirement for passports, visas, or pre-approved, permanent residency. Immigrants could simply purchase a steamship ticket, arrive at a port, pass basic inspections for health & criminal record. ↩︎