Buttegieg, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Williamson, and Yang want to abolish ICE and decriminalize entry.
That is, funtionally, open borders.
So, shall we do the opposite of what these sites want?
You have to get this: no, it’s not. Decriminalizing border crossings doesn’t mean you can’t hold and deport people. ICE is 16 years old, did you have open borders 17 years ago?
No, we did not have open borders 17 years ago. Before that, INS served the relevant function.
Hey, thanks for proving my point.
Rick Kitchen:
Which Democrat has called for open borders?
E-Dub:
None of them. But Republicans will come along soon to misstate their positions to make it appear that they have, or that that’s what they really want, and people will fall for it.
sps49sd:
Buttegieg, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Williamson, and Yang want to abolish ICE and decriminalize entry.
That is, funtionally, open borders.
Hey, thanks for reminding me that nobody wants to confiscate firearms because they don’t use the exact quote.
And thanks for refuting an argument that I never made.
You have made no arguments, is mostly why.
And I did not say you reminded me on purpose, but the things we want without admitting it’ is true for a few issues this year.
No. Not, it isn’t.
There were borders before ICE.
Post 204:
“No, we did not have open borders 17 years ago. Before that, INS served the relevant function.”
Do you not remember when Customs and the INS were combined to form ICE?
If Customs and INS were separated out again, that would be abolishing ICE and leave the US with a border force. Why insist on going with the stupidest interpretation that people are actually calling for nobody to man the border?
And ICE was militarized.
Bullshit. Nobody advocating “Abolish ICE” means ‘let’s rename it and move it and keep the same functions’.
If they were, what does that have to do with anything?
Of course it wouldn’t keep the same functions but those jobs would still be getting done. Splitting the functions is a big part of the point. But that doesn’t mean, in any way shape or form, that people are arguing for zero personnel handling deportations and border stops.
And if “ban ICE” really means open borders, it also logically means we also banned customs enforcement, right? If ICE is banned, do you expect chinese knockoff products to freely flow through our ports?
“Abolish ICE” has come about because of the perception that ICE culture has twisted it into a militant, white supremacist organization. The functions of it could be shifted to an organization without such a harmful organizational culture.
sps49sd:
Bullshit. Nobody advocating “Abolish ICE” means ‘let’s rename it and move it and keep the same functions’.
Oh, yes they are.
It is part of it
yes
probably but nobody is running on that plank.
The same is said about police departments, e.g. Baltimore PD. Perception does not equal reality.
The accusations are based on the tasks they perform. Shifting the task elsewhere won’t change that.
Says you. I’m unconvinced by the cite-free assertions of a random internet person.
I’m not trying to convince you that ICE should be abolished. I’m explaining to you why many Democrats think it should. If the characterization of the organization is accurate, then that’s a damn good reason to abolish it.
Gabbard pointing that out is all a Russian conspiracy and she’s obviously the latest Russian candidate. Funny thing is the same folks who can hear a manifesto encoded in a so-called dog whistle only they can hear don’t see anything they don’t want to see from the left.
I don’t know if she is or isn’t, but I do know that nothing would please Putin more than having pawns on both sides of the board. A smart man hedges his bets and he is nothing if not smart.
I apologize, I did not see the cites you provided supporting your initial assertion that ICE is perceived as “a militant, white supremacist organization”, you random internet person who is normally more thorough and precise here.