(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

I read the Atlantic article, thanks for posting it. It does make clear, though, that even if "Abolish ICE" is taken to mean "Let's reform immigration policy," that "reform" must include the end of deportation as an enforcement mechanism:

Quote:Sean McElwee, a co-founder of Data for Progress and abolishice.org, has been a leader in the charge to eliminate ICE for several years. Abolish ICE “is fundamentally an anti-deportation movement,” he told me, and after the agency is gone, “the central aim has to be ensuring that mass deportation is not housed somewhere else in the government.”

That pretty much lets the cat out of the bag.

Quote:Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

Hmm, is this a potential reasonable middle ground? What would noncruel and nonabusive enforcement look like in practice?

Quote:Senator Kamala Harris of California, in a recent interview on MSNBC, said it would be necessary to “reexamine” the agency and perhaps consider “starting from scratch.” A spokesman for Harris told me that the senator hopes ICE funds can be directed more appropriately, and agents can be retrained “against targeting vulnerable populations such as victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, crime witnesses, pregnant women, and children.”

OK, so first it means granting asylum to anyone who says a few unverifiable magic words about having been a victim or witness in their home country, then it means women and children get a pass (and since "breaking up families" must be stopped as well, any family members attached to a nondeportable woman or child will be nondeportable) . . .

Quote:When asked whether broader changes to internal immigration enforcement were necessary—if authorities should stop pursuing undocumented immigrants altogether—most of the lawmakers I spoke with brought the conversation back to what they viewed as ICE’s current flaws. “It’s the indiscriminate, random use of deportations” that has to stop, said Pocan. “We know there are millions of people here who are technically not here legally, and yet many have been here for a very long time. I don’t think many people think that’s an effective use of ICE.”

So if you come here illegally and evade detection until some clock runs out, you become nondeportable as well? Seriously?

Quote:Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law: “In the abstract it’s okay to say that, yes, [Democrats] believe deportations should still happen, but when you dig deeper, then the choices become very difficult.” In other words, there hasn’t been a broader conversation about which undocumented immigrants could acceptably be removed by ICE and which shouldn’t be.

Here's my prediction: the only class of deportees that the Left will accept will be convicted felons. That is not a reasonable middle ground.

Quote: (McElwee again): “Now there is some idea of a world in which we don’t deport people. There’s finally beginning to be a left vision for immigration policy.”

Having an immigration system without any deportation at all, or effectively no deportation except in extremely limited circumstances, is just a deeply unserious idea, I'm sorry. It is at the level of John Lennon's "Imagine" and yet this idea finds purchase at the highest levels of the Democratic party. I maintain that Republicans have a far greater track record in not letting the inmates run the asylum.