Swalwell said the ongoing discussions he’s having with other Democrats would go further than that, making ICE funding contingent on first prohibiting masks.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If anyone talking about funding ICE doesn't get primary'd, they will absolutely tank any chance the dems have of taking congress in 2022, let alone the presidency in 2024.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    "Funding" ICE? Like, you're saying that it shouldn't have funding?

    I mean, ICE is the US's border control. Like, they enforce regulation of movement of people and goods. The US hasn't had uncontrolled borders in terms of people just rolling in and living and working there since ~1870 and I don't know if it's ever had fully unrestricted movement of goods; historically, high-tariffs/low-tariffs was a major part of American politics.

    I'm pretty confident that there's no chance of an open-border US happening in the foreseeable future (and ditto for probably all developed countries, though you might get stuff like the European Union...but that's more analogous to states in the US, where the EU just pushed border control to the outer perimeter of a collection of states that internally agreed to common rules on borders).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    ICE has no purpose. They've only been an agency since 2003. America was doing fine before 2003. In fact many of us think it was better back then!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    ICE has no purpose. They’ve only been an agency since 2003.

    That was just when the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service merged. The people and infrastructure and all that were already there. I mean, okay, sure, you could probably return to that state of affairs, split them up again on an organization chart, but I'm assuming that that's not what anyone saying that they don't want to fund ICE is concerned about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    ICE has a purpose but the existing organization now has rot to the core and needs to be fully razed to the ground and rebuilt or replaced with a different organization. Any continuation of any existing project or individual's employment there is the equivalent of trying to find the good people in the brownshirts. They'll just lie until they get the chance to abuse and torture people to their heart's content again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    And, frankly, the pitch of, "Join this group if you only want to have to enforce the law against immigrants" was always basically sanctioning a legal KKK.

    Regular law enforcement can and should handle the border.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    ICE needs to cease existing and its members investigated and jailed.

    Masks is fluff.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Swalwell voted to "thank ice"

  • source
  • I don't want ICE to operate without masks.

    I want ICE to not exist.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    If they're in the majority. The Supreme Court might be taking steps to make sure Republicans never lose the house again.

    I'm open to anyone who has hopium to share.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    And fully intend to cheat. It's not like the intense voting deregulation and structure changes have been for cost savings. The opportunity to vote your way out passed in many places with electronic voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    Yeah just like how they said they'll raise the minimum wage if they won a majority... I'll believe it when I see it.

  • source