I mentioned that I supported this in the above thread, but am spinning it off as to not hijack the parent.
In short - ICE actions in MN have been extremely unpopular., despite endless lies from the Administration, propaganda by Fox, and sanewashing from mass-media. The House recently passed legislation to fund the government but it’s heading to the Senate. While I deeply care about the major losses of income and trickle down effects from shutdowns (heck, it’s why I’m not currently fully employed), I think we’re at the point that NOT making the government step back, hold public and visible investigations into ICE, and have actual consequences for the individual shooters makes the shutdown by far the lesser of evils.
Yes, there’s always the question of Democratic will - but it’s time to make the shutdown very pointed - no money for ICE in the resolutions or budget until AFTER ICE is moved out, investigations are held (not started in “two weeks”) and the multiple offenses against the Bill of Rights addressed by the SCOTUS (not sure I’ll be happy about that, but that’s yet another thread).
It isnt a question of “will” it is public perception. Last years shut down had initially public approval of Democratic Filibuster, but as time went on, this waned. The voting public approved of the Dems being stubborn over the ACA budget. But when it became clear the GOP wasnt going to give in, a Filibuster becomes pointless. So when the public starts to blame the Dems for a shutdown, then it is time to stop.
Also of course we have the extreme MAGA wing that wants the government to shut down- forever.
They shut down the government in October and things have only gotten worse since then. At this point I don’t feel like they even need to give a specific reason, other than “As long as this fascist administration is in charge, we’re not going to play along.”
As mentioned by @steronz, as well as in my OP, I acknowledge the damage done by a shutdown, but said I -now- consider an extended shutdown as the lesser of evils. They exerted legitimate power, and caved without any actual correction of the governmental ills. That has led directly to the stage we are in now.
Rather than suggesting illegal actions, the time is to put the actual legal authority in play.
Also, the Democratic Leadership needs to realize that they’ve lost a vast majority of the respect and confidence of their voters, outside of individuals like Walz (to a degree at least) - if they want to keep their own positions, they need to show some effective action. And by making it about the proven extralegal actions of ICE, they have a already popular target, and the Republican’s can take a moment to throw members of ICE under a bus, and pull back from the brink.
Standing up for themselves and the people would arguably be a win for the next elections - doing nothing but protesting strongly is the wrong tactic IMHO to win voter turnout.
We’ll see what happens, but anymore it seems that Democrats don’t want my vote and I’m getting sick of propping up the lesser of two evils.
If my country is this fucked, maybe I should let it fall apart and see if there’s anything worth picking up.
Instead of shutting down ICE, why not put a 100 ft restraining order on protesters? It is illegal to interfere with official police actions, and it greatly increases the risk of serious mistakes and can end in someone’s death. And I am quite sure these deaths will be thoroughly investigated and tried if charges are brought. We don’t have lynch mobs in this country, or whats left of this country.
Last I heard WRT Good was that the feds won’t investigate and they’re blocking the state from getting the evidence they’d need to do their own investigation.
Does anyone have any cites for longlasting impact of the most recent shutdown on opinions? I wasn’t aware of it really waning. Instead, I thought many folk questioned ending it without getting anything. But IMO, it focussed attention on healthcare. Of course, now that ICE is shooting citizens in the streets, I’m not hearing much about healthcare.
I get so weary of trying to figure out the budgeting gymnastics. What exactly would be shut down? I an a fed, but I have not received any notices, so I imagine we are funded.
But I am all for the Dem Sens focussing all the attention they can on ICE/DHS/
This may be worthy of discussion, but not in this thread.
This thread was created expressly to discuss limiting ICE’s powers through Congress’s power of the purse. If you want to talk about boundaries or other measures that might be effective, please start a thread for that discussion. Thanks.
One “positive” outcome of a shutdown is that Trump will find some illegal way to continue funding ice, and that’s one more thing they can put on his impeachment.
ICE already has all the money they could possibly need. They got a budget increase to $85 billion and it’s already in their pockets. Taking away further money is certainly worth doing but won’t take away from what they already have. The $85 billion is only part of the overall $170 billion immigration enforcement package. So they have years of cash on hand and very little risk of losing it due to Republican Congressional support.
That is a lot of extra money that ICE got no doubt. But I think restricting their base money can make a difference. If we’re just talking ICE, rough math says they currently get about $18B/year “extra” from that supplemental Big Beautiful Bill - they don’t get it all at once.
This current yearly appropriation will give ICE it’s yearly $10B/year. So about 1/3 of their budget can (still) be restricted. I promise they are definitely counting on getting that money; it’s not coming out of nowhere like the BBB. Or just don’t approve it at all since they have so much from the supplemental and are using it for such awful purposes.
Late: My point from the other thread was how this wasn’t a big deal/I haven’t heard much about it and it’s a lot of money that is being given to ICE in a bipartisan vote. And it’s literally the easiest/best way for Congress to stand up to a President who’s out of control.
What the public likes is a winner. They may get angry at the time, but when elections come around all they’ll remember is that the Democrats stood up to Trump and won.
Public perception was starting to go against the Dems.
Look, the Dems stand was partially responsible for their sweep in the Nov 25 elections.
Continuing the Filibuster was doing exactly that- nothing. You cant threaten Brer Rabbit with the thorn bush.
What do you want? A long and pointless government shut down- or the democrats winning Congress in November?
How would shutting down the government be 'winning"? Now, if they do a Filibuster and the GOP give in- great- that is winning. But after a while, if the GOP refuses to deal, and the public switches from blaming the GOP to blaming the Dems, it is time to end it.
Yes, the dems in the senate should threaten a Filibuster, and then do it. But just like last year- the public started out blaming the GOP for the shut down- but then the public got tired of it, and public opinion started to change. And remember- all the GOP needs is their small majority to end the Filibuster.
We cant risk winning back Congress. If we DO win back congress, the ICE budget can be cut to the bone. If the Dems do not win, then more ICE.
What do you want them to do? They dont have the House, Senate, Executive or SCOTUS. There is little they can do.
I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree - because in the wake of the prior shutdown, most of the registered Democrats I knew were pissed that they caved for vague promises that accomplished nothing in actuality. That’s not going to drive out people to vote for those same individuals again - so it’ll depress the turnout, or encourage primary challenges that’ll make the party even more fragmented and less able to act in unison in the future.
You obviously see things differently. You are free to do so.
What would keeping the shut down do, besides pissing off the voting public, who were starting to get tired of it? Do you think the GOP was gonna give in?
Of course the Dems oppose- see their voting record.
Our data imply that the Democrats were always more likely to give ground first, but not due to a lack of fortitude. They may have capitulated, or they may have just compromised—which, according to James Madison, is what democratic lawmaking is supposed to be all about.
That is, in recognizing their limited leverage as the minority party (off-year electoral wins notwithstanding) and by understanding the psychology of their Republican adversaries, the Democrats might have just struck as good a deal as they could have realistically hoped to achieve under the circumstances. Securing a vote on the Obamacare subsidies and some job security for a few federal workers is far from a triumph, but it may be more than the Democrats were going to get otherwise.
As [Senator Shaheen (D-N.H.) summarized…"Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House, and they made clear over a period of weeks … that this was as far as they would go … This was the only deal on the table.”
Another factor is that as the shutdown’s effects intensified, many Democratic lawmakers placed greater weight on alleviating the hardship than on maintaining their negotiating position—a dynamic that played out differently among Republican lawmakers. Holding out for a few more weeks was unlikely to push the GOP to extend Obamacare subsidies, but it would have p**ushed a lot of travelers out of the sky and a lot of kids away from the dinner table.