(09-06-2019 07:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 01:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do you think the people who yelled 'Down with the pigs' in '67 - '74 were merely wishing for a redistribution of various police departments' core duties to other city departments to carry out without a lot of the negatives that might have developed within those police departments?

I think this was happening 5-12 years before I was born, so its really hard to contextualize what was happening. Also, I assume the down with pigs comment was directed at police officers, not the police agency. Abolish ICE is directed at the agency. To me, that is a difference. Also, were politicians chanting down with pigs, or was that just rowdy crowds? Again, I'm giving my opinion of what democratic politicians mean when they suggest abolishing ICE.

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think most of the Democrats think abolish ICE just means assigning their duties to other agencies and carrying on as before. I think most of them want to abolish the immigration function altogether.

I'd suggest not speaking for Democrats, you don't appear to be very good at it. I don't try to speak for Republicans for the same reason. Again, find me the Democratic politician who is for open borders. I don't know of any. Most Democrats believe in border security, they just don't believe a wall is the most effective or efficient way to gain security. They also don't believe in family separation of people who are attempting to enter the country legally (asylum seekers). Those positions have nothing to do with "open borders".

(09-05-2019 05:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But explain to me more about this "toxic culture". How did you come to this conclusion? What is the evidence that led you there? What will be different if we assign the responsibility for border protection and immigration enforcement to, say, the office across the hall from ICE?

Well, I mentioned that I have some (admittedly limited) personal experience dealing with ICE. I don't really feel comfortable delving any deeper into that since that was part of litigation and I was representing the federal government. I also remember hearing that Obama administration members complain that ICE often refused to comply with the president's wishes.

I don't have time to explain to you why restructuring an agency can change the culture of the agency. Same thing that can happen when management changes at a corporation or sports team. Same thing that might happen if you get a new boss at work.

Big, I was not speaking FOR Democrats. That's your job. I was speaking ABOUT them, specifically my impression of their attitudes. That why I used the word "Think".

You didn't explain to me about the "toxic culture". Sure, things can change with management changes. sSo change the management. We didn't abolish the Yankees just because we didn't like Steinbrenner. We didn't shut down the auto makers because we didn't like the managers. The Cowboys are still playing even though a lot of people don't like Jerry Jones. We didn't shut down Rice because of Bailiff. We changed management.

This whole "toxic culture" thing sounds like a political witch hunt to me. But I am open to to hearing whatever it is that convinced all those Democrats it existed. Prove it to me, more than vague mutterings. Was it the combination drinking fountain/toilets? I saw the same things in a documentary about prisons. Does the Bureau of Prisons also have a toxic culture? Let's abolish it.

Granted, the system has been overloaded, and is hampered by archaic and contradictory laws and procedures. Same thing for FEMA, but nobody is clamoring for FEMA to abolished.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/...745744001/

" But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...n-borders/

No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.


You won't find the words "open borders' in any candidates plan - but you need to look to the practical effect of their programs.

Funny, in a similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict gun ownership to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan --- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

Or, in similar manner you wont find the words "lets drastically restrict the ability to obtain an abortion to where we can strangle it completely" in any candidates plan (that is except for the recent 4 or 5 states that passed very restrictive laws who openly state that) -- but you need to look to the practical effect of the vast, vast majority of their plans.

And the progressives do a smashing good job of looking at the practical effects and broadcasting them as such major infringements for that abortion topic; not so good with using that same behavior on the topic of illegal immigration and the organizations charged with enforcing the immigration laws or gun control.

You’re saying you don’t see candidates advocating for making abortion co pletely illegal by overturning Roe v Wade?