Strong disagree and no Democrat has any chance of winning a general election on that slogan. Eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement rather than eliminating abuse done in its pursuit is a losing message.
This from peak news cycle attention on the Pretti and Good murders:
Fairly split among Democrats between abolish and reform and reform much more endorsed in the general eye. This at most immediate and raw times.
When given the options between abolish, reform, or make no changes to ICE, more say there should be significant reforms (43% reform – 27% abolish – 24% make no changes), though Democrats still are more likely to support abolishing ICE than reforming (49% abolish – 44% reform – 3% make no changes).
FWIW I agree that what actually would help is not a great rallying cry; it doesn’t excite people (or divide them). Most want to see the fascist abuses stopped and the necessary functions done. OTOH I do not expect changing ICE will be the major campaign issue by the time we are in presidential season.
Imagine the debate stage in the '28 primary. ~15 candidates vying to replace Trump after 2 more years of MAGA insanity. ICE has probably killed several more American citizens, and tortured thousands more immigrants in concentration camps. The war with Iran is probably still not over. The economy is in the toilet.
Walk me through how a candidate says “no, we shouldn’t abolish ICE” without getting booed off the stage and savaged by every other candidate. Walk me through how that candidate wins a single primary with a Democratic electorate that is way, way more pissed off even than right this minute.
Irrelevant, because nobody has any clue what ERO is. And asking about ICE under Biden is also irrelevant, because most folks don’t know ICE existed under Biden.
To most voters, “ICE” means “Trump’s gestapo”, and that’s all that it means. There are some voters who know more, but those are also the voters who won’t be basing their decision on a campaign slogan anyway: They’ll be looking into the details of the plan, which is where you talk about putting the “Customs Investigators” into the FBI, or whatever it is you intend to do.
No, probably not. I’ve never heard of ERO until this thread. I was barely aware of ICE, since they mostly did their job professionally, and hired and trained people properly.
But, now, the ERO is broken, and that’s what everyone thinks of when they think of ICE. The Dems could say “Reform the ERO” and the voting public would say, “huh? Who is that??”. So, “abolish ICE” really means, move useful functions to other areas of government, tear down the ERO and rebuild it from scratch, and call it something else.
That kind of nuance doesn’t work in politics.
ETA: @Chronos, it’s pretty funny that we simulposted these, because you basically described me, and I’m much more tuned in to politics and government functions than your average voter.
“Abolish ICE” is fine for now, for the midterms. Many people will know that the slogan effectively means “curb the excess”. Others will know a Pub Admin will block a Dem Congress from doing too much ICE reform.
The presidential primaries are a way off. What resonates for them will depend on what ICE does. Dem candidates can double down on Abolish or shift to Reform as needed.
That’s my point though. There are lots of people all along the political spectrum who are going to have issues with a push to abolish what’s ostensibly a law enforcement agency.
Its not that they enjoy thuggery and the like, it’s that they perceive a gap in coverage, so to speak. If we abolish ICE, how is their legitimate law enforcement duty going to be accomplished? And if not, is that potentially worse than keeping ICE around? Those are the sorts of questions that will be thought about when “Abolish ICE” comes up as a slogan.
Don’t be silly. This sort of hyperbole is exactly what gets the Democrats in trouble by looking alarmist and hyperbolic.
ICE is absolutely a law enforcement agency, albeit one coopted into using extra legal means to implement the Trump administration’s political ains with regard to their statutory law enforcement mission.
ICE has been around two decades - it’s just because they have been used to do all the thuggery that they’re in the public eye. It’s the thuggery, not the actual mission that’s the issue, and it needs to be made very clear that cleaning house is being done to get rid of the thugs and thuggery, not the mission ICE was originally formed to carry out.
Politics is about symbols as much (and probably more) than details and facts. ICE is a symbol of terror and fascism. Walk me through how that symbol is successfully defended as necessary to retain through a Democratic primary. Seems absolutely impossible to me.
What I’m saying is make damn sure that it’s communicated well that the historical ICE mission will be continued in some other institution(s) without the thuggery specific to ICE.
A analogy is if we were proposing abolishment of the National Park Service because of thuggery. The point would be to reassure people that the parks would remain open but would be administered by the Bureau of Land Management (or something like that), and that only the NPS, not the parks themselves would be abolished. The last thing we’d want would be people thinking the parks would be abolished.
Yes, the Democrats are traditionally much better at making government work well. And, of course, in debates or whatever, they would talk about their plan for replacing ICE with something better, more accountable, less racist and full of thugs.
Let’s try that on a bumper sticker:
Abolish the ERO part of ICE and replace it with something better, more accountable and less violent!
Sounds great! Will definitely fit on the bumper stickers of your wider cars.
“Abolish ICE” during the primary. If asked, discuss nuance about mission and whatever. And in the general, “Abolish ICE and here’s how we will enforce immigration law and protect the border going forward…”.
Agreed. At this point in time, I vote die-hard “blue”, but I do not believe in open borders where there are no immigration laws and controls at all. It’s like home security, I don’t believe in taking the doors off of my home, but I don’t believe in a high power grid that will electricute potential trespassers, either. There has to be a responsible, humane, middle of the road approach.
None that I know of, but I just know that the words “abolish ICE” are going to be used in Right Wing propaganda to suggest that to the American people. One thing over the last 10 years that I’ve learned is that Right Wing propaganda is very good and very effective.
The other side of that coin is that the American people are dumb as hell. The notion that voters can’t be appealed to unless the description of this idea fits on a bumper sticker. We are so fucked.
Especially when it goes unchallenged. Stating that you are “A”, but you are not a mostly imaginary subset of “A”, can (and most certainly will) will be used as evidence by the right that your statement can be seen as that the subset must exist, otherwise why would you be denying that you are a part of it? If someone tells enough people that they are a dog lover, while bringing up that they certainly are not one of those that have sex with them, then that image of them having sex with dogs will be placed in many minds.