Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
This whole talk strikes me as unbelievably short sighted. If you grew up without ICE you should remember what a shit show immigration and customs was in the 80s and 90s, or how paralyzed and inefficient the system was. It’s not like DHS just popped up for no reason.
Deportation involves just under a third of ICE’s personnel. It’s not even their main job. They need to clean house, but the talk of abolishing it is overdramatic.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 22nd 2019 at 6:30:42 AM
They should have sent a poet.The best thing I can say for Joe Biden as a candidate is that for eight years, Barack Obama was a really good President and achieved some pretty great things. Meanwhile, Joe Biden was nearby.
That's not a particularly pressing reason to vote for him, I think. He has the advantage that people know his name, but I think the main reason people are excited for him to run is because it would feel, in the moment as we see him elected, like another four years of Obama are about to begin.
But if Biden wins, we don't get Obama-Biden Round Three. We just get Biden. Divorced from Obama, he's just another old white guy politician who likes to inappropriately grope women.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Don't forget the Anita Hill hearings and law-and-order crime policies. They occurred decades ago but their effects last to this day.
Also, I found this lengthy article
about Evil Turtle and about how the power of a Majority Leader works. Fascinating - and scary - reading.
"Supreme Court lets Trump transgender troop restrictions take effect" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-transgender/supreme-court-lets-trump-transgender-troop-restrictions-take-effect-idUSKCN1PG1RI
Most likely, Biden would just continue Obama's shittiest policies, like drone warfare and the lenient attitude with bailing out the people at fault for economic crises. But that's suggesting Biden would win, which he won't cause all his rape stuff is gonna come out hard in the primaries.
"If you spend all your heart / On something that has died / You are not alive and that can't be a life"ICE has to go. I know and agree that it's only ERO that's tarnishing their name, but the point is their name is irreparably tarnished at this point. And for such a young agency, a full-on rebrand (along with cutting ERO entirely) is necessary, if only for optics. ICE isn't old enough to drive and (charitably) 1/3 of its existence it's been viewed as basically evil. Especially if you're getting rid of a third of the organization, it's not like it's losing a fabled and honored name that's rooted in America's history.
And honestly, ICE as a name is kinda indicative of why it sucks. It's exactly the kind of punchy, hard-boiled sounding name to attract exactly the kind of people that it shouldn't (but wants to). "I'm an officer from ICE" is the kind of thing that gets rednecks with James Bond fantasies to join.
Anyhoo, article from earlier about the 22 deaths caused by ICE in the past two years: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/22-immigrants-died-ice-detention-centers-during-past-2-years-n954781
I may be biased, but the Vietnamese man killed is interesting because it's awful in a lot of ways. The man involved was convicted of a violent crime and thus was being deported, despite being lawful permanent resident with a Green Card and the US historically not deporting people to Vietnam if they came here before relations were normalized due to a 2008 treaty with 'nam.
Yet ICE is... doing that. Granted, it's because the administration hates non-white people so much they're the ones "reinterpreting" said agreement, but it's terrifying. They're ignoring an international treaty to deport legal permanent residents. Well, not in this case. Because the guy died.
... and honestly Vietnam is probably happy about that, since obviously they didn't want him.
It's a perfect storm of the administration's racism, hurting people for the sake of hurting them and not caring that they're isolating their few allies.
Edited by Larkmarn on Jan 22nd 2019 at 11:49:50 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Deportation involves just under a third of ICE’s personnel. It’s not even their main job. They need to clean house, but the talk of abolishing it is overdramatic.
I think the problem is that if we're purely talking about substance then yes you're absolutely right, but politics is just as much perception as it is substance.
And the perception of a non-negligible portion of the population is that ICE is full of bigoted fascists and needs to be removed.
And that can't be ignored, but it doesn't need to mean that the entire organization is gone forever. Just abolish ICE and make a replacement that re-hires everyone who isn't a part of the ERO.
Functional border security without the tainted name.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 22nd 2019 at 2:30:21 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI was born in 1990, so I’ll bite. What was going on in the 80s and 90s that justifies the creation and continuing existence of ICE after 9/11?
From what I understand (as I was born a couple of years before you), immigration was handled by anyone in the department, even if that wasn't their actual job within said department.
Others can hopefully clarify.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."The entire Department of Homeland Security is full of pointless wastes of money that don't improve the process of immigration, transportation security, or the public's perception of the United States.
ICE handles a few things like child porn and human trafficking which is worthwhile and you know what....we should open a different branch of the FBI to cover those things and give it funding, hiring no one from ICE for it.
Because a big thing is, again, the institution is full of people who have broken the law or worked alongside people who have broken the law in the enforcement of the President's duties.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.There's nothing wrong with the idea of ICE. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is, in fact, a thing that needs to be done. Disbanding ICE won't fix the problem, as those duties would just devolve back to whatever variety of departments handled them before they were centralized under ICE.
The problem isn't that ICE exists, the problem is Trump using ICE as a bludgeon to further his xenophobic agenda. The solution isn't to get rid of ICE, it's to pass laws that prevent Trump from abusing its power. Yes, this requires Democratic control of Congress, but so does removing ICE entirely.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I think it goes beyond that because the people in the department have gone fully along with Trump's agenda against the law. When you ignore that, you weaken the law as a whole.
ICE enthusiastically and repeatedly has gone after American citizens because Trump told them too and chosen their personal loyalty to the President over their oaths as law enforcement officials.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Agreed.
There is always a gulf between what is written down and what gets practiced. But, when the gulf gets too wide... Either what gets practiced needs pulling back more to what is written down; or, the laws (i.e. that which is written down that you should do, but often only kind of do) governing the structure need changing.
ICE has become an example of that. Part of the function as intended, is useful. The practice, however, reflects other aspects of the intent upon drawing it up...
Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 22nd 2019 at 8:25:14 PM
The real problem, IMHO, is the policy goal that ICE was created to accomplish. They only exist because of a decision (well before Trump, by the way) to apprehend and deport illegal aliens within the US (catching people at the border itself is a different agency). That's a problem, because it's completely unrealistic, as there are upwards of 9 million such undocumented people in the US. Mass deportations at that level would cost far more than anyone is willing to pay, and cause far more economic and logistic disruption than anyone is willing to tolerate. ICE cannot possiblity impact that kind of number with the resources available to it, the presence of illegal immigrants within the US does not have a law enforcement solution, and so the mission they have been given is futile. They could do the best job possible, and act as professionally as one could desire, and they still couldn't justify themselves.
The policy solution is to focus on illegals who have broken some other law and therefore have become a threat to public safety, but that responsibility is best handled by local law enforcement agencies, create disincentives to illegal immigration (by enforcing employment law), while simultaneously providing a path for illegals who overstayed their visa to reapply without being deported. ICE, or another agency with a different name but the same function, could be given the responsibility of checking on employers in the border states who hire illegals and have them charged (the employers, that is).
The current approach is entirely political and a waste of public resources.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Tracking legal immigration is certainly useful for logistical reasons but last time I checked, being an immigrant is not a crime, being an honest-to-goodness criminal is. There's no reason they should be treated differently from native or naturalized citizens in this regard, or that their misdeeds shouldn't be covered by the departments whose job is to deal with "normal" criminal activities.
Speaking of immigration Republicans load spending bill with hard-line measures targeting asylum
.

Yeah, have fun with that. People either are heavily for keeping ICE or for abolishing it with no replacement. Me personally, I don't think it's as integral as, say, TSA and air marshals.
"If you spend all your heart / On something that has died / You are not alive and that can't be a life"