'Abolish ICE' is a gift to Republicans

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

“Abolish ICE” has become the new rallying cry of the left, which is trying to turn the fury Americans are feeling about the horrors at the Mexican border on the little-understood agency known as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

...snip...

But replace it with what? Democrats don’t have a clear answer for that, which is why they are heading into dangerous political territory.

Demonizing a government agency is an old, tired strategy — one that rarely if ever has worked.

Just ask the Republicans. They have more than a little experience in this regard.

[Demsrule86]

1. It is so dumb. I often think that the left likes losing...what other explanation for signing on to a

losing strategy?

[CanSocDem]

4. I believe they're trying to move your country...

...forward. Clearly many of you are happy where you're at.


.

[exboyfil]

2. What is the national immigration policy of the Democratic party?

The message should be that the Democrats want this policy to be followed in a humane and just fashion. If reorganization is needed in the federal government, then it should be defined. Leadership of the political positions will be changed by winning the election, and accountability for those who violated the laws or policies will be sought.

If the DNC starts to argue for total open borders, then it will lose every election going forward.

[Demsrule86]

3. Everyone can agree that new rules and reform are needed for ice...who has engaged in

criminal behavior...but we can't call for its demise or we give the GOP a talking point...look at 2002 and 2004 after 9-11. Let's play smart politics for a change.

[brush]

34. Right. Overhaul the agency and its policies. Calling for icing ICE...

is not smart as that leaves us vulnerable to repug attacks of wanting open borders.

[California_Republic]

43. Agreed. It's like asking to abolish the police after a police abuse incident

[Demsrule86]

44. It really does. I hate ICE...never should have been formed but...really hard to get rid of.

[ehrnst]

7. Who has ever "argued for total open borders?"

That is a right wing smear of the Democrats - so please don't assume that it's accurate, and don't talk here as though it is.

The immigration policy of Democrats is right on their home page...

https://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform

Democrats are fighting for every immigrant who feels threatened by Donald Trump’s election. We will not stand by and watch families be torn apart — Democrats in Congress and in states and cities across the country are already standing up to Trump’s hatred and bigotry to defend their immigrant neighbors.

Thanks to President Obama, hundreds of thousands of DREAMers have been able to receive a temporary status that allows them to study, work, pay taxes, and contribute to the communities they grew up in. His administration has made a tremendous difference by prioritizing immigration enforcement so that it is focused on those with criminal records and doesn’t arbitrarily separate families, and Democrats are fighting to protect that progress.

Democrats will continue to work toward comprehensive immigration reform that fixes our nation’s broken immigration system, improves border security, prioritizes enforcement so we are targeting criminals - not families, keeps families together, and strengthens our economy.

Democrats know the importance of our country’s history as a nation of immigrants. We honor our fundamental values by treating all people who come to the United States with dignity and respect, and we always seek to embrace — not to to attack — immigrants.

[MichMan]

23. One problem is that while everyone claims they want "comprehensive" immigration reform.........

….it has a different meaning to everyone on both sides.

No one really says what it means other than throw the word comprehensive out.

The reality is that we most likely will need to compromise with Republican's to get anything passed in the near future. If both sides dig in and one insists on mass deportation and a wall & the other insists on complete amnesty with citizenship, nothing likely will get accomplished.

This is a difficult solution as while the current situation in untenable, the US also can't absorb the entire population of Mexico and Central America. Does a "comprehensive" immigration policy ?

Make legal immigration much more prevalent and easier?

Grant many more guest worker permits? What if people stay past the agreed upon time?

What about those with temporary Visa that overstay ?

Anyone claiming asylum is vetted thoroughly & deported if it can't be proven, or granted it automatically?

Anyone crossing illegally with a child gets automatic entry ?

Amnesty (and citizenship) for DREAMer's only, since they weren't responsible for being brought in?

Amnesty (& citizenship) for everyone already in the country undocumented ? Do you have to be here a certain number of years ?

Allow a path to citizenship if fines and penalties are assessed? (Not sure how you impose a fine on a landscaper or housekeeper)

Deportation only for those committing crimes ? Just felonies only or misdemeaners too?

Increased border security? How?

Arrest employers hiring undocumented workers? What if workers used fake documents, who gets charged then?


I bet if you asked 100 people across the entire political spectrum you would get completely different rresponses as to what "comprehensive" really means

[awesomerwb1]

39. I understand you're a Dem

but you are using some republican talking points.

"This is a difficult solution as while the current situation in untenable, the US also can't absorb the entire population of Mexico and Central America. Does a "comprehensive" immigration policy ? "

"The entire population of Mexico and Central America"??? That's hyperbole. The percentage of people from those central american countries who try to enter the US is very small. Mexico was at around 0% net gain last time I checked. We're Democrats, please inform yourself better.

If you want to look at a decent policy look up the Gang of Eight immigration policy. That was comprehensive immigration reform. The republicans have effectively moved to goal posts and now what they have labeled "comprehensive" simply means a wall in exchange for some type of legal status for Dreamers. That is far from comprehensive. Again, I refer you to the gang of eight bill that passed the Senate with 67 votes I believe. Boehner didn't bring up for a vote in the House.

The answer to the rest of your questions is on the text of that bill.

[MichMan]

41. Do you think Trump would sign that Gang of 8 bill if passed now?

My point is that if both sides truly want an immigration bill, there is going to be a lot of compromise. If both sides dig in there will be nothing.

I purposely listed talking points of both sides. What if any should we compromise on to get much of what we want.?

Unfortunately it looks to me that both sides would prefer to have an issue to campaign on; perhaps I am wrong

[awesomerwb1]

42. With a Dem House it will get easier to pass something.

Enough to get that specific bill passed, who knows.

Anyone interested or curious about immigration should read that bill. It addresses a lot of the stuff the trumpublicans claim to need and more except for the wall. It even addressed the family reunification issue(please no one call it "chain migration&quot by limiting the ability to bring relatives to just spouses, sons/daughters under 21 (I think) and parents (no more brothers and sisters).

The reps don't want compromise, they just want their way for their hardcore tea party and extreme right House members. Dems shouldn't sell out (and won't) for an extreme bill.

[ehrnst]

25. The poster hadn't seen the Democratic position - I provided it.

A platform/position states goals. Tactics may have to change, because situations change. One can - and often has to employ more than one tactic or strategy to acheive a goal.

The 2013 Democratic bill gives some of the the details of the strategy for comprehensive reform:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/02/house-democrats-are-still-trying-to-make-immigration-reform-happen/

Of course, any strategy now would have to address reversing the policies that DOTUS has put in place, but that should clarify what strategy the Democratic Party has for comprehensive immigration.

[MichMan]

31. Too vague with midterms coming up

The Midterms are coming and a much more targeted message is needed to specify to the voters why we are right and they are wrong. If not, we are going to get hit with "Abolish ICE"

Democrats will continue to work toward comprehensive immigration reform that fixes our nation’s broken immigration system, improves border security, prioritizes enforcement so we are targeting criminals - not families, keeps families together, and strengthens our economy.

[ehrnst]

32. "Families belong together" "Respect international and Federal law"

More of this:

No one could misrepresent calling out this travesty as wanting to "let criminals to come into this country."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210830694

We also hammer away on the very real economic consequences to DOTUS' base in terms of this isolationist policy. We take not just the moral high ground, but use the bottom fucking line that so many of those people hold as the metric for all that is good...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16934726/trump-immigration-values-decline

[ck4829]

16. We need to realize something here...

Whatever action Democrats do, anything we say, any position we take, no matter what we will call it... Republicans and Fox News will declare it "open borders".

There is no position that we can take that will not be spun as this.

[ehrnst]

26. Doesn't it make more sense to use what most people, here and abroad agree on as a slogan?

"Keep families together"

"Honor international and Federal law to shelter those fleeing war, like our ancestors did"

BLM was named "Black Lives Matter" not "abolish police" or "police are dangerous" for obvious reasons. Yes, the right calls them a "hate group" but most reasonable people can agree that a positive, moral high ground name benefits their credibility both here and abroad.

"Abolish ICE" is not really that different than "Abolish traffic stops" in terms of oversimplification and not addressing the actual issue.

[lapucelle]

33. From the 2016 platform...

The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken.

More than 11 million people are living in the shadows, without proper documentation. The immigration bureaucracy is full of backlogs that result in U.S. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members, and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children. The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century. And there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed.

We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values. We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities. We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities. We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.

We should ensure due process for those fleeing violence in Central America and work with our regional partners to address the root causes of violence. We must take particular care with children, which is why we should guarantee government-funded counsel for unaccompanied children in immigration courts. We should consider all available means of protecting these individuals from the threats to their lives and safety—including strengthening in-country and third-country processing, expanding the use of humanitarian parole, and granting Temporary Protected Status...

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#broken-immigration

[gratuitous]

37. Isn't it strange the Washington Post couldn't find that?

I guess the Google doesn't work on the Post's computers.

So, instead of an informed, reasoned editorial, we get inside-the-beltway concern trolling on an issue Democrats are beating the Republicans over the head with morning, noon and night. But the best thing is the similarly uninformed echo chamber from putative Democrats, wringing their hands and moaning "Woe is us! We're winning this issue hands down but we're not doing it the right way! Doooooooooomed!"

[RandiFan1290]

5. Regardless of some right wing 'purity test'

I will continue to stand up for what is right.

Sounds like the people that told us to STFU about marriage equality.

[ehrnst]

6. As bad as ICE is - if Dear Leader and the GOP House get to reassign the various agencies under it,

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2018, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

what is to stop them from putting immigration and customs in the Pentagon? Especially with it's recently updated mission statement:

“The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad.”

Or what they move border enforcement to the National Guard?

But yeah - it's such a great, easy to shout slogan.... and so many people now want a simplistic bumpersticker solution, without any of that pesky "nuance" "unintended real world consequences" and "possiblity." To suggest anything less is "CENTRIST" apparently.

Tammy Duckworth had a very good point - if we "dissolve ICE" we still have the same president with the same failed policies.

[Hoyt]

8. I think "abolish ICE" means stop the Nazi junk. But agree that white wingers or too stupid to

get the distinction.

[ck4829]

9. "one that rarely if ever has worked. Just ask the Republicans." OK, let's ask them

You know, the ones who control the White House, and have the majority in Senate and House. Demonizing the government has worked for them just fine.

Maybe we should support what gets people elected. Be pragmatic and all, right?

Abolish ICE.

[manor321]

10. No, it's the right thing to do

I don't like being told we can't make Republicans angry. We've been told that for 40 years.

[ck4829]

11. +1 And now we're being told that on steroids.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Ding ding ding... we have a winner!!! We need to stop trying to placate Rethugs & do the right thing

[NCTraveler]

12. It gives them their opening.

Focusing on one part of a comprehensive policy.

We also often work to generated governmental distrust. Just a stupid thing for “progressives” to do.

[ehrnst]

13. It gives them ammunition to accuse the Democrats of advocating "OPEN BORDERS!!!"

[ck4829]

17. LOL. Anything we say will give them ammunition for this.

There is no position we can take that Republicans will not spin into "OPEN BORDERS!!!", we've got to outfox them and point out the reality that while we are not advocating for open borders, more open borders would take away from the demand of coyotes and human smugglers.

[ehrnst]

22. Actually this gives them lots of ammunition. We need to focus on the policies that are being

pretty universally opposed. "Abolish ICE" is very easily misrepresented, because no one is actually supporting abolishing border security - but that slogan sure indicates it.

We can use the messaging of the very real opposition in organized religion -

"We don't tear familes apart" doesn't give them any ammunition, and gives us the moral upper hand.

[ck4829]

29. I hope you are right. I'm just coming from watching their rhetoric...

A Democrat could find the cure to blindness and Republicans would say it's going to put cane-makers out of business.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Exactly! We didn't have open borders before ICE was created...

so, obviously, why would we have open borders when ICE is dismantled? Abolishing ICE simply means abolishing a terrorist organization that rips children out of their loving parents' arms, which is why ridding the country of ICE - and the Racist-in-Chief in 2019 after Democrats take both houses of Congress - is the right thing to do.

[ck4829]

15. I'm not sure if some "governmental distrust" is a totally bad thing at this point

I mean we have a White House that was selected by Putinists and people who think the 1950's were better than 2018... and some who think the 1850's were better (Just ask Roy Moore voters) even though there "might have been a little slavery"

We've got a government that's trying to scrap the ACA and is filled with people who think profits and social power are more important than, you know, actually treating people when it comes to healthcare

We've got a government that all but says "good national security" means "OK, there is a mass shooter, but hey, the mass shooter is white, so... win"

Oh, and here's a white supremacist who goes on play dates with white supremacist convicted felons... and yet he has security clearance.

And trust needs to be, I don't know, mutual. How can I trust a government when the government is led by a president, Senators, and Representatives who call my ideology a thought crime and smear it as a pejorative ('The LIBERAL media! The LIBERALS want open borders! The LIBERALS are behind high gas prices! The LIBERALS are behind crime! He is a LIBERAL! BOO!') and dehumanize communities with people I know in them? They sure have lots of fun smearing Muslims, people with pre-existing conditions, and GLBTQ people, wonder how much fun it is for them, or for someone who includes them among their loved ones? Spoiler alert: It's not fun.

So, yes, I don't trust this government and I support anyone else who has some skepticism and distrust for it as well. Sorry.

[ehrnst]

27. One needs to separate "this administration" from "government" in general.

Is that clearer?

Because if we foment distrust in "government" that completely works against support for any social safety net.

[raging moderate]

14. I have heard a few left-wing people arguing for open borders.

And I have heard a few right-wing people arguing that trying to abolish ICE must surely mean you want to abandon national borders and form that dreaded one-world tyrannical government. I think we need to phrase this more precisely. Many people don't know that ICE was formed to supplement the old Border Patrol, which still exists. They don't realize that we just want more humane, reasonable border control policies and procedures.

[kentuck]

18. The correct strategy is to use ICE to remind people they are still hiding the children...

...less they forget.

Perhaps rather than calling for "abolition", they should call for drastic changes? The fact that they are involved in the kidnapping and hiding of children cannot simply be ignored.

If the choice is between abolishing them or permitting them to continue in their present status, abolishing them would be the better choice for Americans to make, in my opinion.

[Nanjeanne]

19. For perspective - some No votes on establishment of ICE in 2002

House - Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Xavier Becerra, Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Jim Clyburn - and more

Senate - Paul Sarbanes, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold

Standing on the right side of history IMHO.

[Polly Hennessey]

20. Everything we do is a gift to Republicans.

[LanternWaste]

21. Thankfully, it's not part of the Democratic National Platform.

And is not being considered as such.

Just another bumper sticker line.

[MichMan]

24. With people waving "Abolish ICE" signs at protests all oveer the country that get shown on the news

[lapucelle]

35. Locally we've already begun drawing from the 2016 platform to prepare

bullet points and talking points on immigration (among other issues) for phone bankers and canvassers.

[Gothmog]

36. I agree with your analysis

[Lee-Lee]

38. The most stupid part is that ICE isn't the agency doing family seperations

That is being done by CBP and the DOJ. Not ICE.

So anytime someone yells about abolishing ICE because of the family seperations looks like teibeitehr don’t actually have a clue how any of this works or they do and don’t care about honesty and accuracy.

The “Abolish ICE” movement started a while ago among immigration activists. Before the family seperations started. It’s as done in response to how ICE does raids and deports undocumented immigrants living in the interior of the country away from the border where CBP has jurisdiction. The originators of the “Abolish ICE” movement want all deportations ended.

But when the family seperations started people who don’t seem to understand how this all works latched on to that rallying cry and have amplified it thousands of times past what it was when it was just immigration activists comparing about deportation tactics. And in doing so they have distorted the message and handed the right a huge weapon.

[treestar]

40. Very dumb

Reform it, or reform the laws, but letting it look as if there should be no enforcement at all is not a winning proposition.

[grantcart]

45. Yep

[Raine]

46. Agree nt