I learned in psychology lessons that stereotypes are a cognitive shortcut. A way to deal with limited information and speed up decision making. So they are a feature, but can become a bug when people ignore that individuals frequently differ from the stereotypes, or internalise stereotypes that don’t reflect reality.
For whatever reason, although I don’t subscribe, I can see the article.
Here’s a sample, taken out of the middle (I can provide somewhat more if desired, but don’t want to quote the whole article due both to length and copyright issues):
In the protest against Mr Trump’s handling of the Mexican border, for instance, the old Democratic line of enhanced border security and a path to citizenship for the long-term undocumented became passé. Progressives proved their sincerity by being in favour of abolishing immigration authorities entirely.
The only sense I can make out of that is that the author thinks that demands to abolish ICE, which didn’t even exist until 2003, are the same thing as demands to abolish all immigration authority entirely. There probably are a few people here and there calling for that, but it certainly isn’t a standard Democratic or progressive line.
Either that, or that the author knows better, but wants to present the issue that way to people who they hope don’t know better; which would be worse.
I don’t know better; as a non-American, I understood calls to abolish ICE as a desire to significantly reduce border enforcement, if not have a defacto open border. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a proposal for what to replace it with.
Key things to understand is what agency does what job with respect to immigration. The CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) controls the borders and various entry ports. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is responsible for handling people who are in the US illegally. So they’ve crossed the border and are living here undocumented.
Here’s a good article explaining the issue:
That would be because the media you have chosen to consume tells you that, and you chose to believe them. It has been stated on these boards on numerous occasions that what you understood to be the case was not actually true, and was simply propaganda that weak willed right wingers fell for in their desire to find things to hate the libs about.
Prior to ICE, we had plenty of border control. Getting rid of ICE does not create defacto open borders, nor significantly reduce border enforcement.
The reason that you haven’t heard what it would be replaced with is because it doesn’t need to be replaced. We have had the United State Border Patrol since 1924, and it would continue to do its duties as it always has.
There are not many calls for removing US Customs and Border protection either, which can continue to do the job it has been doing since it was founded less than 20 years ago.
It is ICE, and the methods and motives of its agents, that people have a problem with. To say that getting rid of ICE is getting rid of border protection is simply ignorant. To repeat it after knowing better is simply lying. You have been lied to. Please do not continue to propagate the lie.
Understood. Is there anything there about who’s being told to ‘shut up and get off their platform’, and by whom?
The BBC? I don’t think I’ve seen much at all about it in the media, actually. I’ve mostly seen people talking about it on this message board, which is probably a bad way to learn about any subject.
So, you just didn’t bother to educate yourself on the matter at all before spouting off?
How did you come to the understanding that “calls to abolish ICE as a desire to significantly reduce border enforcement, if not have a defacto open border”? You didn’t get that from this messageboard, unless the only posters you are reading are right wing trolls who tell lies, and not bother reading the rebuttals by other posters that are very often supplied.
I guess you give an example that is an argument against DNFTT, as you have indicated that letting misinformation fester means that people like you will believe it. Of course, that’s also an argument for not letting people who propagate misinformation, like you, post at all.
Shouldn’t feed you when you regurgitate right wing talking points, and shouldn’t let your misinformation lay unchallenged. I think the best thing is to realize that we just don’t need people like you.
Hey, roll credits!
I put “abolish ICE and replace with” into google and had a number of proposals within the first few hits. Some of them are for going back to the pre-2003 situation, during which we most certainly did not have open borders. Others are for dividing ICE’s responsibilities among existing agencies in various fashions. Some are for setting up a new agency.
She’s just really full of herself and pissed off that we don’t recognize her exemplary brilliance and all change our minds because of her blatherings. Her problem, as she has stated, is that too many people *vehemently disagree” with her.
I honestly don’t get what she expects when she posts right wing glurge on a left wing board.
I’m starting to think we should just take our cues from every right wing board ever and put an outright ban on conservative speech. And I dare any conservative out there that’s reading this to point me to a right-wing message board that welcomes liberal opinions.
If been looking, and I’ve come to the conclusion that there are none. They either ban liberals all together or have explicitly different rules for them - a typical rule on such boards is “ no attacking or insulting conservatives”.
‘Be better than the GOP.’
That, too, is on the list of seemingly (to some) outlandish proposals that I would be willing to give a fair hearing to. This country got by for a hundred years without significant restrictions or legislation on immigration from abroad, and as soon as we did it became mired by the kind of atrocious racism that would make Jefferson Davis smile.
I’m all for substantially increasing the number of immigrants we allow into the country, but I still want to know who is coming.
I suspect this isn’t your intention, but such a qualification might be taken to suggest that we should exclude people seeking to immigrate from parts of the world that lack the information and resources to vet would-be immigrants. Which, by the way, is how Trump et al justified his Muslim ban as totally not a Muslim ban, but a security measure.
That’s how conservatives do their magic—the clever ones, anyway. They pose the specter of some potential (but as yet undemonstrated or comparatively small) problem that may come about if reform measures are implemented, and then tell us they aren’t against reform (indeed, they insist that what this nation needs more than anything is reform) they just want to make sure we “know who is coming.” It sounds like such a perfectly reasonable qualification to a pro-immigrant stance that it is easy to express support for, and anyone who disagrees must be one of those (as Martini_Enfield might say) “social justice activist/people.” You know, those people with “unnatural hair colours” and “other assorted malfunctions.” Not like us totally normal centrists, you know?
Today is Wednesday.
I actually don’t care whose coming, for the most part, I just want to know that they are here.
There are some specific people who I would either turn away or escort directly to jail, and there are some other people that I would remove from the people who are holding them in slavery. There are people carrying items that I would not like to enter the country, and there are people carrying items I would like to tax upon entry.
But short of that, if someone wants to come to the United States, I not only say let them come, I say we should go get them and bring them here.
I think we should be checking for evidence of trafficking (which shouldn’t bar the victims, if they want to come in, but should separate the victims from and bar the traffickers); for contagious diseases (which shouldn’t bar eventual entry, but which should require treatment and/or quarantine as suitable for the specific case); and for history of violent crime and certain types of major non-violent crime (major theft/embezzlement, attempts to interfere with legitimate elections, etc.) – with a caveat that on a case by case basis it shouldn’t be an absolute bar, because some people commit such crimes under duress, or committed them long ago when immature and not since, and so on.
We also need to be able to prevent people from bringing into the country things that pose environmental etc. hazards – which is easy to do by accident. Lots of people don’t understand, for instance, why they shouldn’t bring seeds, plants, or food that may be harboring disastrous diseases/insects, in some cases without any easily visible evidence.
The difference that I see between immigration now and immigration pre-1870s is that we now have a social welfare system. Having said that, other countries have social welfare schemes and seem to manage immigration fairly well. It seems like an argument for expanding legal immigration and making sure that fewer people go underground and instead pay taxes.
This is actually a sensible point. And the US’s history as an immigrant society is probably a fairly significant factor in why that welfare system is less comprehensive than those in Europe.
Such as…?
Thanks. So it’s not about stopping immigration but deporting people who are already there. Sounds like ICE is ‘la migra’. And no one agrees on what abolishing ICE actually means. Surprise surprise.
Abolishing ICE will be as effective as calls to abolish the police. It’s stupid on its face and will never happen. Which is why I don’t take the link Economist article seriously on this particular subject and refuse to be alarmist about the topic in general.
Now, Reform ICE? Sure. Let’s talk about what that should look like.