The numbers aren’t comparable also because one is al Americans, and the other is all Democrats. “Abolish ICE” is indeed a mainstream, majority position among Democrats, and not by a close margin.
There will be more polling, but IMO the issue isn’t going away, and the Democratic candidate will very likely end up having a position that the vast majority of Democrats hold.
For three months, it was decided by the men with guns. The things that people are so desperately trying to avoid are where we are right now.
Only three Democratic leaders call for abolishing ICE
Abolish ICE - Wikipedia.
Notable people who have called for ICE to be abolished include Senate candidate Graham Platner, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Congressional candidate Cameron Kasky.
So, two Candidates and one Representative out of 435. No doubt, people are angry, and most want some change in ICE.
IIRC the choice to Reform ICE wasnt given in the one poll, it was either abolish or keep. So, given a reasonable compromise- 43% said Reform, and 29% abolish and 29% keep- showing that quite a few of the “Keep” in the yes/no poll want ICE reformed. I am in favor of reforms.
Right.
You’re right about the 29% DrDeth quoted which I had missed when I first read his post, but opening the actual article, 50% of Democrats support reforming ICE, 48% support abolishing it, and 2% support it continuing in current form.
And only 31% of independents support abolishing ICE while 55% agree with reform.
So a majority of Democrats support reforming ICE rather than abolishing it, and since we will not win the general election with registered Democrats alone, I still think that saying “Abolish ICE” when you mean “Get rid of the racist assholes Trump put in place and change the way ICE behaved back to the way it did under prior admins” is foolish at best.
If you need a slogan that’s more cutting than “Reform ICE” but less counterproductive than “Abolish ICE”, I’m a fan of “ICE Out”.
This is definitely untrue. Maybe three of them are cited by name in the Wiki article, but more than that have said it (and I point this out as someone who thinks they shouldn’t).
And of the 10 candidates currently polling for president in 2028, exactly one says “Abolish”
Good cite, but that only names one candidate for congress, maybe 2. However, it goes on-
BUSTILLO: But even if it’s not fully calling for the agency to be abolished, Democrats want to make immigration their issue. Some want more targeted reforms like body cameras for all ICE officers. Others have embraced terms like defund and reform.
That really is what most want. 72% of all voters want either reform or abolish.
One poll has near 50/50 for Democrats, the other is an overwhelming majority. There will be more polling, and I’d bet on “abolish” gaining, not losing, support. But we’ll see. “Abolish ICE” is high on my list for issues when judging Democratic candidates, and I suspect it’s the same for many more Democrats. We’ll find out in a year or two how many Democratic prez candidates take the issue.
The anger over the two killings I think peaked the ICE hate. But what would you replace ICE with? You still have their mission " protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of those who undermine the safety of our communities and the integrity of our immigration laws". There has always been, even during Biden & Obamas administration a need for what ICE does. Abolishing it, wont make “illegals” who are criminals vanish overnight (nor will people who knowingly hire them and pay them less). I mean, some GOPers years ago wanted to “Abolish the IRS” but what they really suggested was a simple renaming and cutting back enforcement (i.e .audits of rich people).
I mean if you want to increase the Border patrol and give them the job ICE is SUPPOSED to do, you really arent changing things. We all want trumps version of ICE gone. ICE does a real job in the hands of sane Liberal leaders. It is just that we have a leader now who is neither.
INS? Seemed to work fine until 2003.
ICE is a symbol of fascism at this point. It’s terrible both in reality and symbolically. It’s no more reformable than the old slave catcher patrols.
Sure, but they still did the job ICE is supposed to do. The idea was that INS now is there to help, while ICE is there to enforce the laws. Immigrants were afraid of the INS, even when a team was just trying to help them. I saw this myself.
What did West Germany replace the Gestapo with?
And now? Are immigrants not afraid of the INS now? It seems to me that if you have an arm that only does enforcement, then all it will do is enforce, but if, instead, you have a single body that both helps and enforces, it will be able to apply judgment and leniency.
Honestly, the U.S. could do worse than to roll back its entire internal security apparatus to September 10 2001. No ICE, no DHS, no TSA, no PATRIOT Act.
Yeah, splitting INS into parts of ICE and CIS (Citizenship and immigration Services) and shuffling about parts of Customs and the Border Patrol into parts of CBP and ICE/HSI were all supposed to create on the one hand dedicated entities in charge of helping those “doing it right” and on the other those in charge of enforcement against violators.
But putting them all under the newly created Dept. of Homeland Security with its amorphous panic-driven mandate of OMG do whatever it takes to save my children from the terrorists! put them in the path they’ve taken the past 20 years.
I share your concerns about Newsom, but if your standard is going to be “only candidates who have consistently put principles over personal ambition”, that’s a recipe for a lifetime of third party voting.
Agreed, and would almost warrant its own thread.
That isn’t what I’m saying. Thinkst thou to put thy words in mine own mouth? My whole point is: Don’t trust such an egregious Slick Willy, because he’ll betray you sooner or later.
I didst notteth meane to putteth wordes in your mouthe, milady. A thousand apologgies.
My actual point was that it’s not clear to me that Newsom is worse than the average electable politician. Like, Bill Clinton was a legitimately terrible person on many levels, but he was also probably the best option that the 1992 electorate would have accepted. I don’t think we’re going to find a candidate who is legitimately more concerned about defending trans rights than about winning, and I’m not sure we should want to.
Probably the case. It should be acknowledged and not forgotten that if nothing else it was Newsom that lit the fuse of gay marriage in the United States. That is no small thing. Was his local ambition (as mayor of safely gay-friendly San Francisco) partly at play? Possibly, even likely. But it was ultimately the right call and it was by no means a safe political tactic back then for someone with higher office ambition, even in California. He was being bold rolling the dice on that one.
Still don’t like him much. Likely won’t vote for him in a primary (though that is always subject to change). But I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a general election if he were the Dem candidate.
I don’t bet. But it seems to me there are a few ICE functions that, if publicized more, could lead to ICE abolition polling more poorly. Consider:
HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), mentioned above, is part of ICE.
I can see myself voting for someone who wants to abolish ICE. But I think it is politically risky when you get to the general election.
Also full ICE abolition is unlikely to get through Congress.