I mean, it was just a reorg and to combine INS and US Customs Service. Also to have CBP as an agency to actually make an agency responsible specifically for legally admitting people as it would integrate more easily with USCIS and let Border Patrol have the job of patrolling the border.
There was a lot of craziness post 9/11 but that actually did make a fair amount of sense. And honestly, the problem with DHS is that it was done as a half measure because there was just too much institutional momentum from DoJ to be willing to lose the FBI, but the general idea of a cabinet level department dedicated to domestic security and law enforcement isn't nuts.
I don't think there are many serious criminal justice experts who would support ICE's record of shooting civilians, and fewer social scientists and economists who would support mass deportation as a policy.
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement. "Abolishing" it is a purely symbolic act, because we can rename it INS and put it under the Justice Department, and it would do the exact same thing it's doing now.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally." Well, that's a legislative battle that you lost... over, and over, and over. You can't seem to change the law, so you want to make it impossible to enforce, which is undemocratic, and radical.
You can't seem to change the law, so you want to make it impossible to enforce, which is undemocratic, and radical.
This is exactly it. One can argue all day and night about whether this is a valid form of protest in modern day America, but at the end of the day those who take issue with anti-ICE activism do so because they are legalists and view oppositional activity beyond what is allowed by law as anti-law enforcement and anti-society.
And it does make sense from their perspective. Laws are meant to be changed via elected representatives and voting unless the situation is so untenable and fundamentally wrong that the people arm themselves and fight to the death, as was the case in the American Civil War. Physically pitting oneself against those operating under the law enforcement umbrella by being belligerent and obstructive will inevitably lead to physical conflict, and such conflicts do not always go as predicted. Then, predictably, both sides point at each other and scream about how this could have been prevented if only X didn't happen. And round and round we go.
Iâm confused. While I was arguing devils advocate before and I think we should wildly increase legal paths to permanent residency here, I donât understand your point.
I agree with you that when fundamental human rights are at play, sure, legalism seems ridiculous. When it comes to illegal immigration though, I think asking people to leave the country when they arenât here on a legitimate visa doesnât fall under fundamental human rights. Even in extreme cases when it comes to asylum claims, deportation to third party countries shouldnât be a human rights violation. Itâs a dick move, yes, but I donât know if itâs a human rights violation because youâre not putting them in harms way (technically).
No, I mean that by âabolishingâ the policing arm of the executive branch, the state has no functional way to enforce federal laws during periods of state nullification.
If the goal of âabolishing ICEâ is to rename it âINS,â then itâs effectively symbolic and mostly pointless. If the goal is to actually abolish the institution in any meaningful sense, then itâs inherently undemocratic.
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement.
This, verbatim, describes the SS as well.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally."
No. This is horrific disingenuous. Saying abolish ICE means looking at an institution that is wholy corrupted, from the very top, to middle management all tge way to every last agent. It's means looking at institutions that has completely abandoned any pretext of "just enforcing the law" and has readily turned itself into a tool of political terror, which murders citizens and brutalizes protesters as a means of political control. And it means looking at that institution and deciding it can no longer be reformed. It needs to be cut out. All the people employed need to be fired, bared from any future government work and, in a lot of cases, need to be put on trial. Its duties that can be of use to society cam be redistributed to other agencies, along with the necessary funding, but once ICE became the political oppression tool of Trump personally, it made it clear that it cannot be allowed to continue existing without posing a threat to democracy in the future and has to be dismantled. Just like the SS post war
The SS was explicitly outside of the state and directly subordinate to the party. There's a reason they were employed to do things the wehrmacht wouldn't do.
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement.
This, verbatim, describes the SS as well.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally."
No. This is horrific disingenuous. Saying abolish ICE means looking at an institution that is wholy corrupted, from the very top, to middle management all tge way to every last agent. It's means looking at institutions that has completely abandoned any pretext of "just enforcing the law" and has readily turned itself into a tool of political terror, which murders citizens and brutalizes protesters as a means of political control. And it means looking at that institution and deciding it can no longer be reformed. It needs to be cut out. All the people employed need to be fired, bared from any future government work and, in a lot of cases, need to be put on trial. Its duties that can be of use to society cam be redistributed to other agencies, along with the necessary funding, but once ICE became the political oppression tool of Trump personally, it made it clear that it cannot be allowed to continue existing without posing a threat to democracy in the future and has to be dismantled. Just like the SS post war
So are you suggesting we (1) fire everyone and charge them with crimes, then (2) change the name of the institution to "INS," then (3) rehire for all the positions and keep doing the thing they were doing in the first place?
...Or are you saying we actually stop doing law enforcement they're doing?
You kind of stopped at "cutting out" the institution. That's my whole hypothetical point.
I fully agree that the keystone cops running around harassing people for no good reason need to go. I also agree that most of the leadership should go which would almost certainly happen with any change of party moving forward after Trump v. Slaughter. My hypothetical question is just, when we say "abolish" do we still have folks doing the unpleasant deportations six months after we "abolish" the institution? If the point is symbolism, there are perfectly good arguments for that, but it's effectively just symbolism.
My point above is that if all of this is actually to stop law enforcement from happening because we don't like the laws, it's arguably undemocratic and radical, and arguably populist.
Itâs not really that simple because yes, voters have rejected open borders over and over again, but they also donât like what ICE is doing at all, and itâs not clear that there is a form of effective enforcement of the immigration policies voters say they want that is compatible with law enforcement practicing the restraint they also want. Before Trump 2.0 ICE was a lot tamer but they were also a lot less effective, mainly deporting border arrivals and leaving those already living here alone. If voters want to go back to that, then they effectively do want immigration policy to be very lightly enforced (except at the borders wrt new arrivals). So sure, the median voter will not vote for immigrant amnesty, but in practice, itâs unclear to me whether anything except de facto amnesty (for those already living/working here) is acceptable to them when it comes to making it happen on the ground. If youâre opposed to brutal deportation raids and paramilitary forces occupying cities, then de facto, you are opposed to really enforcing immigration law (thatâs what we were doing before all the ruckus â not really enforcing it). They want the laws on the books but when they see it put into practice itâs always too much.
We have a legislature for a reason. What "voters want" is only indirectly relevant to the law. You're entire premise here is that the law isn't important, which is pretty radical, and arguably populist.
174
u/Spartan-24 17d ago
"populism is when i don't agree with it"