CNN: "The Movement To Abolish ICE Is Heating Up--And Going Mainstream"
link
On the one hand, CNN saying it's happening could just mean that CNN wants it to happen...
On the other hand, this really is the sort of thing that left-wing Democrats actually do want. So it wouldn't surprise me if this idea really were picking up steam, what with them becoming more and more openly against the very ideas of, y'know, borders and whatnot.
On the other other hand, it sounds like there may be at least some good reasons to split ICE into separate agencies...though, despite the way CNN spins it, that's not the sort of thing that the anti-ICE crowd is interested in.
If this were a technical question about the nature and composition of a federal agency, that'd be one thing. I expect nobody reading this knows enough of about ICE to know, for example, whether it'd be better to split off HSI from the rest of the agency. (I'd never heard of HSI before about ten minutes ago.) But this isn't that kind of technical bureaucratic question. It's the next move in the progressive--and now, apparently, Democratic--push for something approximating open borders.
Trump's absolutely right that this is a big winner for the GOP. Seems to me that sane Dems are trying to talk their left wing down on this one...but I'm not sure how much control they have over them anymore. It may turn into their Tea Party. And if the Dems really do go this way, they'll deserve to have their clocks cleaned by Trump. The Dems are fully capable of shooting themselves in the ass in this sort of way.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:35 AM
5 Comments:
ICE has only existed for a couple decades anyway. I am not sure why we should consider abolishing it a bad idea prima facie.
Agreed.
If we've got a better idea for a better organizational blueprint to do the job better, then I'm for it.
But, again: that's not what's at the core of this anti-ICE business.
One can be all in favor of abolishing ICE without being for "open borders". The best way of enforcing immigration law is on the demand side, by fining employers of illegal immigrants. But that's a job for people with ties and clipboards, not the flippin' paramilitary.
Once you've decided that the primary enforcers of a type of law are going to be people who go in strapped, you're committed to a particular kind of enforcement: one at a time, generally against the weakest individuals, and with the risk of violence in every encounter. And such is the public perception of police vs. regulators that, once they're running around doing this "dangerous" job, an armed enforcement agency becomes very difficult to control. If that armed enforcement agency's mission is linked to some kind of specific threat, then that threat will somehow be ever present, the ugly side effects of enforcement just barely tolerable. Just look at the distorting effect of DEA lobbying on drug policy. Ask yourself whether the TSA is ever, ever going going to let us keep our shoes on (without paying extra!). ICE is bringing that same dynamic to immigration law. Take it out of their hands, and give it to something like OSHA. Let the paramilitary be confined to actually patrolling the border.
Really interesting points, Anon--thanks.
I'm definitely gonna think about all that. I do wish we'd get serious about e-verify. Though I'm not sure that sort of thing could *completely* replace ICE.
Though I forgot to add: no, you don't have to be for open borders to be anti-ICE...but, as a matter of fact, this *is* the latest move in progressives' project of moving us closer to open borders.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home