On the contrary, a growing economy increases prosperity for everyone. Just look at what happened in your country in the 19th century. Were people worse off in 1900 than 1800?
That may sound good, and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of how you reform rogue legions of brown- or black-shirts, but it seems to me that anything less than very drastic measures will give the thugs an opportunity to obstruct the process.
I sure as hell would.ICE isn’t the only government agency that will require "cleaning" and "inspections" after DonOld & the MAGAt republicans are deposed.
I also wouldn’t just fire every
ICE agent hired since January of 2025. I’m sure many of the new ICE agents just took the job because of the hiring bonus. A thorough vetting of those
new hires and a reduction in force to pre-2025 levels would be appropriate, imho (and remember that some older agents have been fired, retired, or quit, so there would need to be some retention to make up for the shortfall - unless you want to fire, hire, and then retrain a whole new batch of recruits).
We. Told. Them. So.
I stand by my postion.
Hear yourself, Rob…
Extreme positions and rhetoric will NOT win the day.
There is a way for ICE to be "cleaned up" WITHOUT undermining its critical core mission: Quiet background checks and review of violent incidents involving individual agents would be an acceptable approach, imho. (Of course, a reduction in force to pre-2025 levels would be the FIRST step - and that would address some / most of the issues.)
We. Told. Them. So.
That is not true. The economic history of the United States since the inflationary recession of 1974 proves it.
Probably not helpful in the least.
Mamdani’s statement was NOT helpful.
Your statement is NOT helpful.
Hope that ^ helps.
We. Told. Them. So.
My point exactly. There was an immigrant enforcement agency, but it wasn't ICE.
Tell it to Renee Good's loved ones.
I've been out of work enough times to know what it's like. But that's no excuse. There IS no excuse.
I honestly don't see anything that part added to the conversation. It all came across as more about how we ought to appeal to the mushy middle. Which never works. Think of all the times Democrats have been accused of running on nothing but "we're not Trump". It's not true, but that's beside the point.
Mamdani was elected on the Democratic ticket. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he's not an actual Democrat.
This is the crux of our dispute. I don't buy this at all. ICE is incredibly unpopular, and the people who still are in their corner are the ones who hate immigrants, people of color, Muslims, etc. We both know which party they're going to vote for, and we know the likelihood of changing their minds. Tens of millions of Americans are horrified and disgusted with what we're seeing from ICE every day (and will have seen another nine months of by the next election). Even if they think abolishing ICE is going too far, I don't see it hurting the Dems if some of our members call for that. Certainly not when the only plausible alternative is essentially voting for the Gestapo.
A position I heartily endorse!
But you can bet the usual suspects would have claimed he was calling for abolishing it even if that were not what he'd said. Hell, orygainy would probably have started four or five threads about that by now.
It's not the OVERALL mission/work of ICE that is at issue, and you know it.
Neither is hemming and hawing in a vain hope that it will somehow keep the right wing shit machine at bay. It won't, never has and never will. Mamdani left no doubt whatsoever that he is staunchly opposed to the abuse we're seeing against our fellow human beings, including Americans. Saying "Well, we ought to look at reforming them" or any variation thereof wouldn't have cut it.
He ran to the center and he won, but that doesn't mean that's why he won. I chalk it up to a combination of covid and just enough people being horrified by Trump, and I know a lot of left-wingers who voted for him but really were not happy to have to do so.
See also the recent win by Mamdani, an actual Democrat no matter how badly you want to pretend otherwise, who rejected the My Fair Lady Strategy ("why can't a Democrat be more like a Republican?"). We need a LOT more of that.
It's literally numerically impossible for the Dems to win a big majority in the Senate. They need to gain four seats to win control at all, and there simply aren't enough plausibly competitive seats to hope for a big margin of control. Absolute best case scenario, they gain five seats. They won't do that by running as me-too Republicans. As Harry Truman said, when people have a choice between a Republican and another Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time.
If you are saying there's any chance whatsoever of the Democrats alienating you for ANY reason when the only alternative is leaving the fascists entirely in charge, you're a lost cause. You sound exactly like a right-wing concern troll.
Again: your entire point was wrong. You are seriously underestimating how much opposition there is to ICE out there. Throwing a sop to the bigots isn't going to accomplish anything, except maybe to alienate progressive voters.
Again: Mamdani’s statement was NOT helpful.
That ^ was / is my ENTIRE point.
Since you use quotation marks, I take it you can point to someone who actually has called for "peace through weakness"? I have yet to hear that from anyone who's calling for abolishing ICE.
Again, I don't agree that "Abolish ICE" fits alongside the rest of those (and I haven't heard anyone calling for the latter two as slogans for the Democrats or anyone else).Those ^ are losing slogans and a recipe for disaster if you want a blue wave in the 2026 midterms and beyond.
The people you are describing do exist, but their numbers are negligible and, crucially, Mayor Mamdani is not among them. It's beyond me why you want to lump him in with them.
That is scary, but calling for abolishing ICE is not going to bring that about. (For one thing, the far left is never going to idolize law enforcement like the far right does.)
In other words, the truth wasn't sufficient to make your point.
You're entitled to your opinion.
That is an opportunity the right is going to take no matter what the Democrats do. They've been calling us "soft on crime" since 1968, always with a between-the-lines racist slant. Trying to beat them at their own game isn't going to accomplish anything except maybe to alienate progressive voters at a time when we absolutely can't afford that.
I don't see what you're basing that on at all. And I certainly don't see how he warrants a Trump comparison. He's smart, his views are reality-based, and he doesn't pander to haters.
You say "etc.", but what's another example besides January 6 (which is different inasmuch as it was the one time the right saw the authorities as targeting people like them)?
Yeah, but they're SUPPOSED to be -- the Reds you're describing are the REAL proletarians.
We're not doing that when we call for abolishing ICE. We're taking up a very, very popular cause. I don't see why you can't wrap your mind around that just because you don't agree with it.
It's a classic symptom of fascism: putting the cops on a pedestal, much like the left does with teachers. And you've seen how our very own house deplorables carry the water for ICE, claim Renee Good was blocking their way or hit them with the car, etc.
Those are a different category (for one thing, the person in charge in all those cases except Ruby Ridge was a Democrat; for another, the victims were deplorables. Of course they see it differently when that's the case.
If I recall correctly, "opposed" was back in the low 30s or so. So it really is a winning issue, besides being the right thing to do.
I believe I have already said I support replacing ICE with a similar agency. Again, it's not that we don't need an immigration enforcement organization, it's that the one we have is beyond saving.What replaces ICE after it’s abolished, and what is the cost to “repeal & replace”???
Do we just do without???
