Well, there are over 200 posts in this thread so far and, as far as I can tell, you’re the only person limiting the discussion to those terms. Many people (see what I did there?) are discussing theoretically whether “Abolish ICE” is a smart political strategy with which to get elected, which obviously doesn’t presume that they will be elected. Perhaps you could ask iiandyiiii or dseid or mighty_mouse or bump, etc. if they think that’s useless to discuss?
No, that’s your narrow point in this thread, and it mistakenly assumes Dems will definitely have that control, which is absolutely not a given. Other people (see above) are discussing other interesting aspects of this issue, such as “Is this a winning political issue that will propel Dems to victory in the midterms or not?” or “Is Abolish ICE a dumb slogan that will do more harm than good in the upcoming elections?”
My very simple point is: confidently declaring that Democrats will have control of Congress after the midterms and that all recommendations regarding ICE should flow from that premise is ill-advised.
It is, to my read, more about what marketing campaign “the party” and individual candidates are taking and should take looking forward with an eye mainly on 2028. What promises should be made?
I think there’s an important difference between “defund the police” and “abolish ICE”. People generally want the police, even if they’re sometimes controversial. People still see the cops going about their normal lives and nothing happens. Sometimes the cops do important, helpful, and even dangerous things that are important for having a society. And people still generally believe that the police perform an important duty in society even if some things need to be reformed.
Nobody ever sees ICE out and about doing anything good. They’re not out there directing traffic if there’s a crash. They’re not someone you can call if a crime has occured. At best the average person will never see one in real life. They exist only to enforce a law that people might agree is needed but are doing so in a way that has become highly visible, highly controversial, and in a way that lots of ordinary people don’t like. I’m still not sure “abolish ICE” is the way to go as a slogan. But I think it’s far less self defeating than “defund the police”.
Frankly, I also think the Democrats are going about part of this wrong. It shouldn’t be just ICE. They should push for the disestablishment of DHS in general as a failed experiment and that the various agencies should be returned to their old departments.
I agree with this, but that’s policy, not politics. The politics can be “abolish ICE”, alongside the reminders of murdering citizens, terrorizing minorities, wasting money, stomping all over human rights, etc., and the policy can be get rid of ICE and the entire DHS, redistributing the actual necessary and positive functions to the rest of the government.
I still cannot find anything about abolishing ICE on the Democratic National Committee web site:
Some might say the Democrats will have the worst of both worlds. Because the resolution to abolish ICE was passed, the GOP can use that against the Democrats, if desired. But once progressives realize that the resolution isn’t being fully embraced by the party leadership, they may lose some of their enthusiasm.
I’d say that “abolish ICE” is a bad slogan best forgotten.
It would be great if Democrats could publish such a manifesto. My bet would be that they cannot, though.
Today’s Republicans are all-in on authoritarian rule, with the obvious supportive pillars of racism, sexism, and patriarchal hatreds in general. They had little trouble coming up with something on which they’d all agree.
The Democrats could never be that single-minded. Priorities are too wildly divergent.
A substantial proportion of those who call themselves ‘progressives’ are very, very authoritarian in their basic orientation to…everything. (my bolding in the second quote)
I disagree. Abolish Ice should be the only option. As I said above ice is a totally, hopelessly, poisoned department. I agree, that the poisoning extends to the rest of dhs. It needs to stop and they all need to be investigated and dealth with if found guilty of crimes We can’t middle of the road weak sauce this.
ice and other parts of dhs have flouted the law, murdered us citizens with impunity, kidnapped people, endangered communities. There is no fixing what is wrong wth ice et al. It all needs to go, and if we need some of these jobs done then it needs to be built, and organized from the very bottom.
II believe there are more people that agree with me than disagree.
If this is meant as a precis of what I wrong before, that is not how I see my position.
Trump could quickly get rid of USAID because he was lawless.
Even if a strong progressive is elected president in 2028 and there is a Democratic majority in the House and Senate who truly want to abolish ICE, and the Democrats get rid of the filibuster, it would take a lot longer because most Democrats believe in going through the normal legal process, such as congressional committee hearings.
Now, I think in the end a bill using the slogan “abolish ICE” in it would be voted down. But if the voter in congress were there to pass that bill, it still would take a while to pass. And then it would take time to fulfill labor-management obligations concerning things like worker eligibility for other government jobs.
Democracy is slower than dictatorship. That was my earlier point. I’m sure the Democrats would not do things in a dictatorial way.
I think that, when the authoritarians give the President absolute power, the only sane response, once the anti-authoritarians gain power, is to use that absolute power to fix the system so that the President doesn’t have that power any more. But yes, that does require using the power, until it’s fixed.
Re the last post, I could get on my high horse and say that I’m against dictatorial power regardless of the aim. But that’s not always my view – it was fine for the U.S. to impose a parliamentary democracy on Japan.
My objection may be more that your post I quote above is a 20,000 foot view that will not work at ground level where Republicans still win a lot of elections and Democrats will have strong progressive and moderate wings. Abolish ICE and keep the Border Patrol? Maybe that is part of it.
There’s a reason Democrats.org is not mentioning the Abolish ICE concept. Even voters who would tell a pollster they are somewhat in favor are also uncomfortable with it.
It looks like our OP’s cite jumped the gun- that was only something being considered.
Yes, but still, there is a LOT that can be done without silly slogans.
Like firing Civil Service employees for political reasons.
Good, that works.
Like i said- cut the ICE budget back to Biden era levels. This can be done as part of the budget. Assuming the Dems control the House at least after November(better if they get both houses).
That will require many new ICE agents to leave ICE- some can be transferred, many will have to be laid off due to budget. Note- not “fired for political reasons”.
If a Dem is elected president, they can fire every trump appointee (Especially ICE). He or she can re-org and rename ICE.
Depends what you mean by appointee. If you mean the twelve ICE officials in the Plum book, sure.
But non-supervisors? The new Democratic president would be making instant enemies of the federal unions. There will be some reduction in force. Someone can look for bigoted Facebook posts and fire a few for that, But wholesale purges are not how democracy, or Democratic Party politicians, work.
What about first and second and third level ICE supervisors? If not given a chance to bump others in the cabinet department with less seniority, or lacking veteran preference, they’ll sue. Maybe they’ll lose, but it will take years, and maybe they will win.
I’m not of the school that says de-Trumpification is hopeless. But reversing Trumpism has to take longer than putting it in place. That’s because, whether progressives like it or not, the Democrats are law-abiding.
A lot of the Trumpers in ICE are probably weak Trumpers who will follow new masters. If I’m wrong, I guess it is hopeless. But I think I am right here.
Which is something they need to work on. Maybe not ideologically, but at least in a messaging sense.
Many people outside of the party faithful, i.e. people who aren’t committed to one party or the other, or who find the Republicans too odious to vote for, perceive the presence of divergent priorities and a lack of overall clarity as a lack of organizational focus and as overall weakness and ineffectuality.
It’s like looking at a person who’s organized, focused, and got their shit together, versus someone who’s trying to do a half-dozen things at once, and is scattered and flustered. People are going to perceive that first person as more effective than the second, even if in the final analysis that second person actually gets more done and gets it done better.
The Democratic party has that problem; instead of wrangling and hammering out a platform, and then everyone falling into line about it, they still have people pulling in counter directions, saying stuff that’s not in the platform, and generally muddying the waters. I mean, from a party discipline standpoint, some of the more prominent Democratic politicians are nightmares. Coming up with their own de-facto platforms, speaking out of school, prioritizing things that aren’t in the platform or party messaging, etc…
The Democrats also get bad perception for that same reason; they’ll let something like the hypothetical evil of using that absolute power stand in the way of actually accomplishing things like fixing the country. That also looks ineffectual and weak.
I mean, I don’t like the Democratic party. They are weak and ineffectual most of the time. But they’re at least trying to do the right thing, even if they go about it badly a lot of the time, and that’s why I vote for them. The Republicans are effective and goosestepping in time, but they’re also mustache-twirlingly bad and seemingly unconcerned with things like morality or the Christianity they so fervently claim allegiance to.
Yes, I agree with your entire post. Democrats try to make a virtue of something (being pulled in dozens of directions due to being Big Tent) that most human beings find to be anything but a virtue, when it comes to governing.
Republicans go too far in the ‘CONFORM OR DIE’ direction, and Democrats too far in the ‘sure, you can ID yourself as a Democrat and call for no borders and no prisons, that’s fine, it’s a Big Tent’ direction.
I agree with this as I’ve agreed with most things you’ve posted in this thread. Independents in particular are going to want to vote for candidates who stand for humane enforcement of the border (with plenty of oversight, and no masks, etc.) Rushing into making ABOLISH ICE the primary message of the Democrats, with no mention of any provision of the functions that obtained in previous decades (e.g. catching actual drug dealers and similar lawbreakers), will be a mistake. It would lose votes we don’t need to lose.
The Presidency has been becoming Imperial for a lot of decades, now. The Trumpites have taken that to the extreme–but it’s not a brand-new development.
Of course every Democrat who’s enjoyed broad powers will want to keep using those powers. They will all say “I use them only for the betterment of the nation.” Maybe they will even believe that.
No President Newsom or President Moore is going to want to see Congress put legal limitations on what they can do. It would be better for nation if they would allow it—but they will fight it. “I would never misuse those powers” etc.