The Democrats who are coming out calling for the abolition of ICE this close to the midterms may be

[still_one]

making some big assumptions that can backfire big time.

The way news is reported in this country, that is the headline. Not that it should be replaced. or what should be put in its place.

In fact it is already be misrepresented by some elements of the media using right wing talking points that Democrats want to open up all borders.

If those Democrats believe that just making this statement, without putting emphasis with what they want to replace it with, may make an already uphill midterm election even steeper for us.

If you just say abolish ICE, walk away, and assume that is all that is needed, without insuring that the message doesn't get distorted or misrepresented, I think one is dropping the ball big time

[manor321]

1. No

ICE should be abolished. Why is it every time fighters on our side show up people get all nervous? The media and Republicans are going to say horrible, terrible things about us anyway. We might as well fight.

[still_one]

2. You obviously selectively read my OP, and ignored exactly what I said in the body of the OP

Excellent!!!

So I will MAKE IT VERY CLEAR FOR YOU THE PART YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE:

"If you just say abolish ICE, walk away, and assume that is all that is needed, without insuring that the message doesn't get distorted or misrepresented, I think one is dropping the ball big time"

[oasis]

10. Perception is reality. We can put "abolish ice" on ice, for now. nt

[dumbcat]

3. I thought open borders was the whole point

Let the people in, with their families. This is a great country, full of compassionate people. Why do we need a large para-military force to keep immigrants out?

Anybody that wants to come here to better their life should be able to, without hindrance. THAT's the message!

[B2G]

5. If that's the message,

prepare to lose in November.

[still_one]

13. I believe that most Americans do NOT want a wall, nor do thet want seperation of families,

especially those seeking a asylum from hostile environments, but I agree with you that advocating for open borders is NOT a consensus among Americans at all

[B2G]

14. We agree completely. nt

[LenaBaby61]

40. "If that's the message, prepare to lose in November."

TBH, I'm not entirely sure WHAT the Dems message IS, but as you said if that's it were in trouble. I say that because I know Democrats and Independents who don't even want "wide open" borders. NO, they don't agree with the way tRumputin's conducting things, or the way he's separating families, and the children in cages makes them ill. But, several have told me that while they're open to having others come to our country if they're vetted properly (And they are), there shouldn't be any "wide open" boarders.

[still_one]

8. Then you believe that is a winning issue, campaigning for open borders. We will see

[dumbcat]

9. I thought this was about doing what's right

not about "winning".

If "winning" is the goal, then principles are secondary.

[still_one]

17. Who said open borders are right? That is your opinion. As for you logic about winning, perhpaps if

some of the self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, either by voting third party or NOT voting, had instead voted for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, the two SC vacancies would have been appointed by a DEMOCRAT.

What is even more interesting, and what some fail to grasp is that the MAJORITY in the HOUSE and the SENATE control the agenda. Not In order to have that MAJORITY, so you can pass good egislation you have to WIN first.

[dumbcat]

22. Matters of morality, and right and wrong

are all matters of opinion. Beliefs, if you will. There is no controlling legal authority for morality.

I know many progressives that are in favor of open borders worldwide. No, it's not a mainstream consensus that politicians are willing to push, but neither are other issues of right and wrong.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

80. Open borders is NOT what I want as a Democrat.

never thought that was a good idea, and it's not today either. They will eat us alive with folks who say otherwise. Nations have borders. If "progressives" want open borders world-wide...how's about other countries opening theirs first, and we can see how that works?
Open borders is NOT what I subscribe to...AT ALL.

[Zoonart]

27. Can't control policy without first winning.

[dumbcat]

36. So, do whatever it takes to win

and then do what's right?

I guess that works. Just look at history.

[BlueTsunami2018]

53. Yes. That's exactly it.

That’s what the GOP does except they do what’s wrong when they have power. And they have ALL the power. If you’re willing to cede the power because of some ridiculous notions of honor, we’re dead.

[Tarc]

12. This is a right-wing talking point, and should be reported to DU admins as such

No Democratic candidate/politician supports "open borders", I have this argument with a wingnut co-worker every day.

Our borders still need to be fortified and guarded, but we have to return top the days of not assuming that every immigrant is a potential terrorist or rapist, that the vast majority of them are poor and desperate and looking for help. ICE, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that Trump is misusing them as a border paramilitary force.

[still_one]

20. Absolutely right Tarc. Which is why those Democrats calling for getting rid of ICE need to make

sure what they are saying is very clear, and they just can't walk away, this will be a campaign issue, and they need to make sure the message doesn't get distorted or misrepresented

[awesomerwb1]

35. Another misconception

which adds to the point the OP was trying to make.

ICE does not "keep immigrants out". That's the Customs and Border Patrol's job, NOT ICE's.

ICE will not be abolished between here and November so let's not give the gop any ammunition at all. We need to win in November.

[Calista241]

71. If we're having this argument here, the larger voting population is not going to learn / know

wtf we're talking about. Abolish ICE is a terrible slogan that requires the user to explain their position. If you're having to explain shit, you've already lost the argument.

[George II]

44. republicans have taken compassionate and measured policies of Democrats and translated that to:

"Open borders"

They can't even define what they mean by "open borders" - that's because beyond the catch phrase they haven't thought thing out.

[Blue_Tires]

84. No, no it isn't...

And that is a guaranteed loser of a political issue...

[genxlib]

4. I agree with this

I see two issues.

1. It is too easy to misinterpret into wanting no control of the borders at all

2. It is a second order concern that actually detracts from the first order concern. Keep the focus on the policies. They are outrageous. They are easier for people to react to. They are easier to represent in visual form (pictures, video) that people respond to.

ICE should be abolished. But it isn't a very good talking point. It is better as a policy solution once there is widespread outrage at the actual policies.

[B2G]

6. 1. See the post above yours, and

2. See 1 again

[still_one]

21. You articulated far better than I did genxlib. Well said

[uppityperson]

39. 4 Poach the eggs: Here is an easy method for poaching eggs. Essentially, working one egg at a

time you crack an egg into a small bowl and slip it into the barely simmering water.

[DesertRat]

48. Thanks for the recipe!

I wanted to pick up a cookbook today, but library's closed.

[uppityperson]

50. You are welcome. Unfortunately

eventually this recipe will be finished and I'm not sure what to share next.

[Cartoonist]

11. Big mistake

Accurate or not, I saw a poll saying almost 70% don't want ICE abolished. If the Democrats want to push that, Putin can relax.

[still_one]

24. ICE wouldn't be abolished anyway, or if it was it would be replaced by something else. Problem is

I believe that ICE is now a campaign issue, and the Democrats better have a strong answer to this, because we all know how this is going to get played

[DeminPennswoods]

15. When you see pictures of kids being taken from parents,

what is on the back of the vests, in big yellow letters, being worn by those doing the taking?

I C E

I'm sure I'm not the only American who sees those letters and automatically associates them with Trump's ongoing war on immigrants. The backs of the jackets/vests might as well say "GESTAPO".

"Abolish ICE" is a short, sweet stand-in for getting rid of every awful thing Trump and his minions are doing to people who want only to start a new life in the US.

[ehrnst]

77. And it is exactly what the GOP wants - to be able to say that Dems want "NO BORDER SECURITY"

And if we say - reassign the various departments in ICE to other agencies, who do you think gets to do that?

PEEOTUS - and what will stop him from moving Border Patrol to the Pentagon?

Or the National Guard?

[DeminPennswoods]

81. You are trying to argue policy, "Abolish ICE" is messaging

I'd be willing to bet only a small minority of Americans know how all the different missions of immigration services and border security/enforcement have been combined in an agency now named ICE.

People see ICE and associate it with all the bad things Trump is doing to immigrants.

Dems can worry about details later.

[spanone]

16. You'd think repealing heathcare would have been a mine field for republicans.....it was not

but with trumps 24/7 megaphone and 24/7 fox support, he could easily win this battle

[LenaBaby61]

42. Not only what you said ....

But how much gerrymandering, voter-suppression, cross-checking, new voter ID laws and ruskie interference ARE we going to have this fall? We know that all of those things will be going on this next election, but our biggest hope is to get folks ID's straight then get them registered to vote, make sure that they can vote and get them to the polls to vote en mass if possible.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Ice is not the problem. The ones giving it the orders are

I guess I missed all the abolish ICE post when President Obama was in office.

We have to have some force to enforce our boarders because we will never let in everyone who wants to immigrate here. But we can do it with compassion and in a lawful and respectful manner.

[still_one]

25. of course you missed it because it was not being used intentionally as an abusive institution

against asylum seekers under President Obama as it is being used now

ICE was created around 2002-2003 I think

[GulfCoast66]

29. That was my point

We will always have some law enforcement agency insuring our immigration laws are enforced.

Only when we have Sadistic leaders are those agencies used to inflict suffering for sufferings sake.

And you are correct. Created after 911. Militarized as well.

Before that it was the Boarder Patrol. And I think under the department of commerce or labor.

I would not mind rebranding ICE and dividing its role into multiple agencies. But that is not something we should run on in November.

[still_one]

33. We are on the same page Gulf

[melman]

32. You think?

Why don't you know? If you're going to pontificate about it shouldn't you know the history?

[still_one]

34. well gee, that is mighty tolerant of you to allow me to express my opinion, on a DEMOCRATIC forum

[George II]

45. No thinking allowed, dontcha know.

[still_one]

49. LOL

[melman]

58. What?

Here's what you said..

"ICE was created around 2002-2003 I think"


Why don't you know how, when and why ICE was created? These are not insignificant details.


And about this DEMOCRATIC forum..

Used to be that people on this DEMOCRATIC forum wouldn't be so protective of things from the dark days of Bush/Cheney. But times do change.

[Cha]

56. "Pontificate".. you're projecting.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was formed pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, following the events of September 11, 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement

[melman]

59. No

I'm actually not. You have entirely missed my point.

[Cha]

60. Yes, you are.. your point is being rude.

[melman]

62. omg

[Cha]

63. Yeah, you don't like it when someone calls you on it.

[melman]

64. No, that's really not it

[still_one]

65. Well, If you're going to pontificate about it perhaps you should share what you "REALLY" mean

[melman]

70. I did

[betsuni]

75. Oh, melman. We know the history.

You accused someone of being "protective of things from the dark days of Bush/Cheney." Still trying to make both sides the same, warmongering, blah blah blah propaganda happen, old stuff. We know the history. Time to think of something new. Pretty please?

[NurseJackie]

19. Agreed. This is not a winning strategy.

[Voltaire2]

23. If we continue to sit down every time they scold us

we will continue to lose election after election after election.

[Voltaire2]

26. The stupidity of our hard ass immigration policy is the problem.

What we have done over the last 30 years is "raise the transactional cost" of crossing the border from effectively zero to thousands of dollars. The militarization of the borders hasn't stopped the migration, it has guaranteed that what used to be essentially a circular seasonal migration has become a permanent migration.

Back when there was essentially no border patrol, people crossed over, worked here during the agricultural season, and then went back home to be with their families. It was a "circular migration pattern". We "fixed" that by setting up massive checkpoints at the major cities on the border and then by fencing and patrolling. Now once you get across, you stay here, because the risk and cost is too great. We didn't keep people out, we locked them in.

But carry on with the stupid, because you know, Donald Fucking Trump will say bad things if you don't.

ref: malcom gladwell revisionist history season 3 episode 5 http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/25-general-chapman's-last-stand

learn something.

[GaryCnf]

28. Those defending the establishment leaders

who provide fodder for right wingers to attack liberals in our party because political pragmatism demands we walk in lockstep with popular opinion (as opposed to, say, leading popular opinion) need to remember that in 1992, at the height of the party's great leap rightward, a majority of Americans did not support interracial marriage.

Kowtowing to public support for immoral institutions by attacking fellow democrats for taking principled stands is rately a good idea.

[George II]

61. In 1992, at the height of the party's mythical "great leap rightward"....

....after the election dust settled we Democrats held the White House, a 56-44 majority in the Senate, and 258-176 majority in the House.

[GaryCnf]

85. You do remember

That the great leap LOST us seats in both the Senate (-1 initially, -2 after Hutchison took over Bentsen's seat) and the House (-9) AND couldn't get us a simple majority of the popular vote in the presidential election . . . oh, and the leapers we ran in 1992 were run out of office 2 years later, costing us control of both chambers of Congress.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that pandering to the center is good politics and having a Democratic Party with principles isn't.

[George II]

86. At the time Democrats had one of the biggest combined majorities in history. It was almost....

...inevitable that Democrats would lose a nominal number of seats.

Majority is majority, I don't pooh pooh that.

As for 1994, don't just look at the numbers, look at the political dynamics of that election (i.e., Clinton was under an unprecedented attack from even before he took office)

[GaryCnf]

87. In any event

The great leap rightward brought us less than nothing in 1992 over the (in the eyes of the authors of the great leap) the "soft" party they declared in need of replacement.

"Under unprecedented attack" setting aside that the DLC/Third Way/"New wing needs to get a new whine to explain away its inability to inspire OUR BASE, the fact is that, notwithstanding Bill's personal issues, his agenda was largely being passed in Congress using the very same centrist coalition that the DLC/Third Way/"New wing STILL claim are the key to political success. EVEN with centrist legislative successes from 1992 to 1994, Republicans still massacred us in the 1994 election because we had voluntarily moved the bar so far right that the insanely right wing Tea Party was able to act like their social agenda wasn't that much further right than what was already being passed by a "Democratic Congress" (actually by a centrist coalition of Democrats and Republicans).

[R B Garr]

83. Another bogus slam on Bill Clinton

Luckily Bill Clinton beat the GOP at their own games. He actually got elected for starters, then proceeded to own them with his fiscal plans which resulted in a balanced budget by the time he was done. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy some 25 years ago, long before it became someone else's idea.

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in 25 years.

Enough of the distortion and negativity just to promote one person.

[ucrdem]

30. It's the wrong fight. We need to abolish the DHS. It's a massive boondoggle and costs a fortune.

ICE and anything else in it that's worth saving can be moved elsewhere, like back to HHS, if it still exists. I agree that it shouldn't be a military function, but some kind of border checking is going to be necessary for mostly economic reasons like keeping bugs out and also for processing legal immigration and naturalization. Abolishing ICE is a nice slogan but falls apart as a policy as soon as you look at it.

[yallerdawg]

31. ICE is a reactionary rightwing creation.

INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was perfectly serviceable and much more benign.

Standing down on the militarization of our government "law" enforcement agencies, ending the notion of a private para-military political arm fulfilling a tin pot sociopath's vision of an all-white America, these are all Democratic policies we can support.

Of course R's would lie about it and create a bullshit narrative of 'open borders.' That's the game they play.

[c-rational]

37. Good post still_one, including all your responses. Ice has been militarized by its current leaders

and too often asylum seekers are conflated with immigrants.

[Jake Stern]

38. Disconnect

Dems: "People need to get off their asses and fight back against the cruel Trump policies that separates families and locks up people just looking for a better life! Take to the streets! Make your voices heard!"

Protestor: carries sign that says "Abolish ICE"

Dems: "Sweet Baby Buddha! Put that shit down! Are you nuts?!?"

[treestar]

41. Yeah that is a dumb slogan

Reform would be the word.

[George II]

43. I don't think it's constructive. That idea should be dropped until after November. THEN....

....we Democrats can raise the issue, especially when we hopefully have a majority in the House and possibly the Senate.

Until then we're just giving the deplorables ammunition.

[B2G]

47. We do this and we won't have the House for long. Nt

[Me.]

46. You Are Right & Kamala Harris Agrees

This is her comeback to the WH

Harris personally fired back and used her campaign account to broadcast the message.

“As a career prosecutor, I actually went after gangs and transnational criminal organizations. That’s being a leader on public safety. What is not, is ripping babies from their mothers,” Tweeted Harris, who previously served as California’s attorney general.

Harris said last week she wants to see a reorganization at the immigration agency.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-white-house-twitter-ice-harris-warren-20180702-story.html

[George II]

55. That's what we should be calling for, a reorganization, not a ban.

[MFM008]

51. We did fine without

Them before, we will again.

[BlueTsunami2018]

52. Yes, this is footshooting at its worst.

They should be saying we need to reform or repurpose it, not abolish it. It’s an incredibly complex issue and Americans do not do nuance well. I can see the ads already. It’s not good.

[joshcryer]

54. It's fine in perfectly safe seats.

But a non-winning strategy in more purple or red seats.

[Jakes Progress]

57. Some people would rather feel good about themselves

than actually help the cause. They like chest thumping and ranting. They lack nuance and understanding. They cost us votes when we have more than sufficient evidence that we need all votes we can get.

But they like how they feel about themselves because they were so pure and noble and forceful.

This includes left wing politicians playing to their base the same way right wing politicians play to their base. If they are in safe districts, they can rant away. It costs us nationally.

Don't we wish more republican asshats would go off reservation and rant about punishing women who get abortions or about how the families at the border are just luck we don't shoot them?

Same thing when we do it. It helps the other side.

[still_one]

66. Among some there appears to be a cut your nose off to spite your face strategy

[still_one]

67. Among some there appears to be a cut your nose off to spite your face strategy

[Jamaal510]

68. K&R

[bdamomma]

69. I will go with reorganization

of what Customs and Border Control is supposed to do. Was ICE tRump's idea???

[radius777]

72. Agree, the issue is most Americans support authority,

and always think law/military/etc are 'good' (lol), which is why cops always get off, why voters voted for Bush (and by proxy his illegal war to continue) despite the protests, why Trump is getting away with his gestapo tactics against immigrants, etc.

And illegal immigration is a problem, even Obama was concerned about the border, so you do need an enforcement agency, and most voters would react to the idea of not having such an agency as similar to not having a police department... not good.. and they'll easily cast Dems as 'weak on crime etc'... 'won't protect me' ... that Dems historically have a weakness on (Carter, Dukakis, etc).

The strongest angle to play against ICE brutality is similar to that against police brutality, work to expose the abuses and the interwined racism/xenophia, hold protests, etc.

Ultimately ICE's current tactics are driven by the Orange fascist, the real problem.

[still_one]

73. You are right

[Alea]

74. Yep, great post!

[Hoyt]

76. I think "abolish ICE" means stop the Nazi junk. But agree that white wingers or too stupid to

get the distinction.

We have the Border Patrol, local police, and some other agencies that look for terrorists (except the domestic white wing ones). ICE was implemented after 9/11 for purposes unrelated to treating poor people coming here for a better life like dirt and criminals. Not sure we absolutely need ICE to be involved in enforcing borders, but we sure don't need them involved in this NAZI crud.

There will always be GOPers -- mostly white wing racists/bigots -- who will act appalled at any attempt to rein in the border klan, but we can't sit by and do nothing because the racists/bigots have found something new to hate about.

[ehrnst]

78. I believe that it's like calling for Thomas to resign - NOW IS NOT THE TIME.

DOTUS gets to determine where customs and investigations of international traffiking go if ICE is dismantled- and they could go to the Pentagon or National Guard.

[ehrnst]

79. Even BLM doesn't call for abolishing traffic stops. (nt)

[kcr]

82. Dems can never get it right, no matter what they do.

It's either They're so weak! They don't know how to message! They just roll over and cave!

But every time they ever say anything, it's NO! Don't do that! If we say that, WE'LL LOSE!!!!111

And it's never the other way around. You'll never hear a right winger pissing their pants in fear of their message getting attacked. Who is the weak one? I say it's those who are afraid to say anything. Stop being afraid. You're letting them win. The media gives right wingers a voice and lets them control the narrative, and that's part of the problem. The solution is not to be weak and cave in. We'll never be heard.