I think it is more because TPTB not only appear unwilling to hold the few wrong-doers accountable but are actively trying to hinder the investigations into such. Where are the ICE officer whistle-blowers? Why are there no ICE officers coming forward to disclaim improper behavior? For example, ICE officers do not have the same authority to make traffic stops as state police, yet that seems to be part of their pattern.
The rot within ICE appears to be so significant that the next administration may need to clean house and start over.
I certainly think Kristi Noem was a poor choice and frankly never understood her appointment. She is and was completely incompetent. Again, other than an examination of the more high profile incidents, where much of the reporting has been wildly inaccurate, I don’t fully understand the issue. Admittedly, the public relations and optics by the govt have been poor at times.
That being said, the most vocal criticism is not that ICE needs to do a better job but should not be doing the job at all. We should provide a haven to some, even the most needy, and at the same time attract the world’s best and brightest. At the moment, we have a disaster that needs to be cleaned up. Personally, I’m not going to shy away from my support of the effort. It is one of the few areas where this administration is delivering (imperfectly) on what it promised to fix.
I don’t think that is valid. ICE has been doing the same “job” for decades but it was intentionally quiet about it.
The current administration is intentionally using tactics to create fear and distrust (“shock and awe”), which is why you are seeing so much kickback - and why the new Director specifically stated that he wanted to “quiet” the raids.
I think that is obvious, but you are in a significant minority. The admin has lost the narrative. Now, even some Republicans are in favor of abolishing ICE.
This marks the first time support has reached 50% in YouGov polling. Support for abolishing ICE has been steadily growing since January. At the same time, opposition to abolishing ICE has fallen since the start of the year, and now sits at an all-time low.
…
this marks the first time that at least half of Independents support abolishing ICE (52%). Most Republicans (68%) continue to oppose abolishing ICE, although about one-quarter (23%) now support it, which also marks a high point in support among Republicans.
A person has to REALLY dislike something to want to get rid of it entirely. My guess is that if there was more nuance to the question (something like “clean house”) that there would be even more Republican support.
For example, when asked about confidence in ICE, 40% of Reps surveyed stated that they had less than full confidence.
Note, that survey is from March. It is probably worse/higher today but I was not able to find a more recent yougov poll with the same questions.
I disagree somewhat. The problem post the Biden administration was also a lot more visible. The last administration was doing very little. In fact, DHS as a whole was giving lip service to the problem and refocusing on trying to address domestic misinformation as the next target.
I think the public still broadly wants enforcement of immigration policy. I’m sure most of us would prefer they handle the process as delicately as they can and out of the public eye. Whether it’s through ICE or other means, I’m indifferent as long at it is lawfully done. Part of what is causing this to play out in Public are democrat led cities and states where they are uncooperative with federal authorities. So, rather than quietly picking up someone caught up in a local charge, they are let go and agents then have to pursue them by other means. In the past, there has been far more cooperation between state and federal agencies. It is a sign of the times and the polarization of the people that run the parties. They are willing to put the public at risk to prove a point.
The problem isn’t limited to border security. Our immigration system is broken. As has been mentioned before, the bipartisan bill to address immigratiin was nixed because JTT wanted to make it a political leverage point.
Disingenuous people will say we didn’t need a bill, we only needed a president willing to enforce laws. That law enforcement does nothing to fix the broken immigration court system, asylum, temporary protection, nor provide a path to citizenship for people.
It’s easier for people to risk their lives trekking across jungles and deserts, than to come legally. It’s cheaper, it’s faster. We need immigrants. If we make it easier/cheaper/faster to immigrate legally, with proper vetting, it becomes easier to focus resources on those who choose the illegal path.
Last year was the first time in a half century that the US had net-negative immigration. Not only are the current policies morally depraved, they are economically cretinous.
We are here at this moment, in large part, because of whom was President and the policies he and his administration chose. We will hopefully resume thoughtful and principled immigration. Congress can flesh out what that looks like going forward. But, if the left simply wants to operate by no rules and take an extreme view on this issue as they have on many, there may never be a meeting of the minds.
I feel for those that are caught up in this that have the best of intentions. Unfortunately, Govt Policy is a broad sword rather than a surgical instrument. It is difficult to craft it based on the hard luck case.
And if the extreme right wants to continue jailing US citizens and murdering immigrants in the streets…
Strawman arguments seem to be your thing.
Your earlier statements seem to imply that the cruel policies of the current administration are Biden’s fault. Biden deserves lots of blame for how he handled things, but he’s not responsible for what is being done now.
If I’m honest, if I had to choose between an open border and the deplorable actions being carried out now…I’d choose open border every single time. Fortunately, we don’t have to make that decision.
I think you’d find that many progressives want a secure border AND compassionate, effective immigration policy. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
That isn’t factual. Millions were both returned and turned away under the prior administration. And as stated previously, the current admin killed a bipartisan law that would have fixed a lot of the things you likely complain about.
In the 12 months after Title 42 ended, the Biden administration ramped up deportations under the standard U.S. immigration framework, Title 8, and removed or returned 775,000 unauthorized migrants—more than in any previous fiscal year since 2010. From May 2023 through March 2024, 316,000 migrants were processed via expedited removal, more than in any prior full fiscal year. And for the first time since FY 2010, in FY 2023 more migrants were returned directly across the border, mostly to Mexico, than were removed from the U.S. interior. Whereas President Barack Obama was labeled by some as the “deporter in chief,” this new trend may earn President Joe Biden the title of “returner in chief.” Notably, authorities have deported migrants to more than 170 countries during the current administration, which may be the most ever.
Regardless, two things can be wrong at the same time. Biden could have failed to adequately enforce the border and Trump can be violating law and due process in how he tries to remove people here today.
I’m saying the current President is in power due in no small part to the public’s decision that they had enough. Election outcomes are often pendulum swings from one side to the next.
That’s because the names and faces of those that paid the price never make your radar. Everybody knows George Floyd. Hardly anyone remembers Laken Riley and Rachel Morin. 111 Officers died in the line of duty in 2025. You probably don’t know them either. There is this strange moral line that runs through progressive thinking. It is the idea that violence is perfectly acceptable as a consequence of protecting what is viewed as an oppressed class.
Through 2020-2024, they seemed perfectly fine with leaving it open. The truth is many only say they want it because they are now out of power. They really intend to make the choice you articulated, which is leave it open rather than risk denying anyone the possibility of entry. MA had several cases where felons convicted of murder and other heinous acts picked up on local charges were simply released back into the public rather than cooperate with Immigration enforcement. Governor Waltz just criticized the deportation of Vang following the end of his criminal sentence. He sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl of for 4 years after entering the US illegally.
Is this where the modern progressive wants to direct its compassion?
It’s best to explain this way. If I have a hen house and stop 2 wolves at the gate and 1 get through and then I put you in charge of the hen house and you stop 20 at the gate and let 10 through, you are correct. You stopped more coyotes than I did.
I do and I have seen you commonly use this as a default response when you no longer want to address the points of the discussion. You literally said you would prefer that the border remain open than deal with the current approach. The logical conclusion is that the violence that occurred as a result to innocent US citizens is fully acceptable as a consequence. That’s not a strawman argument, it’s exactly what happened as the result of open borders and local authorities releasing known violent offenders here illegally back on to the streets.
So you disagree with Walz, okay, I don’t where one progressive differentiates themselves from another until you articulate it. I can’t read minds.
Sorry, I meant to change that to wolves vs coyotes and missed one. Upon writing it originally, I realized someone might suggest it was a double entendre and that I was being racially insensitive. You can play that card with me but it will have absolutely no impact. I have no preformed prejudices towards any ethnic groups. I evaluate people one on one.
There are three typical debate behaviors with some progressives.
Accusation of racism and prejudice are used to destabilize the discussion
Their argument is often Emotive
They couch themselves and their arguments as the more virtuous.
Policy discussion, if we want to have that, is colder and has to be more than just intent.
It would be concerning had violent crime gone up as a result of loose immigration policies, but it didn’t. In fact, it went down. We’ve talked about it ad nauseum on this board.
I don’t recall accusing anyone of racism, you just can’t help yourself!
Demonizing immigrants isn’t necessarily racist, but it’s certainly xenophobic.
Emotions don’t make arguments less credible, logical fallacies and infactual statements do.
Is being against the police abusing and killing people virtue signalling? Check out those holier-than-thou progressives who don’t want to live in a Gestapo state!
No amount of violent crime is acceptable whereby it could have been prevented by enforcing the immigration laws. Second, almost 1/2 all violent crimes are not even reported according to some crime data.
Of course you think you are living in Germany in 1933 . It’s all part of the performative package.
You’re right. A masked police force that is above the law is totally normal stuff. My bad. I remember when we had roving gangs of untrained brutalizers in past administrations.
“AP’s review examined public records involving cases of ICE employees and contractors who have been arrested since 2020, including at least 17 who have been convicted and six others who are awaiting trial. Nine have been charged in the last year, including an agent cited last month for assaulting a protester near Chicago while off-duty.”
Looks to me like they are not above the law.
One of the things that interests me about the “progressive” today is how they have flipped their priorities. It was largely focused on the poor in the US. Because of that, it was a group that was very anti illegal immigration and even going back further anti legal immigration. They viewed that migration as detrimental to low paying jobs, housing, and public services for the existing poor and low wage earners in the US. Even as recently as 2007, Bernie Sanders and other “progressives” objected to the bi partisan bill that would have given amnesty to many illegals and created a clear pathway to citizenship.
I hear your comments that you would rather we go back to a wide open border than what is occurring now. A situation where young people were regularly dying from fentanyl overdoses, minors disappearing as they come across, and Americans in our poorest areas being put at risk by some entrants with long histories of violence.
It seems to me the progressive today cares little for the welfare of the poor in this country. While there may be things critique about how enforcement is being handled, you seem to show zero concern for the millions of lives put at risk by doing nothing. The collateral damage is perfectly acceptable. What they say is true, your ideas really do nothing more that dispense misery in equal measure.
I don’t know the status, did the officer commit a crime? One of the things that’s advisable is not to interfere directly in police action and while carrying a weapon of your own. Like some, do you simply take the view every fatal consequence is the fault of law enforcement. Do you take that same view with domestic policing? There were 1200 fatal shootings last year alone.
Should we still not enforce immigration rules or is that harm and loss of life acceptable to you? That was choice posed in this discussion, along with absurd comparisons to Germany in 1933.
. It’s all part of the performative package.