This is a bit outrageous but what if the mayors of cities invaded by ICE and Border Patrol squadrons sent their own police force to the scene of raids or checkpoints to act like observers, film the ICE activities and create a file of information that might be needed later in court? Take the heat for doing so off ordinary citizens and ensure their safety.
They would NOT (except for unusual circumstances) ry to stop ICE, but act as witnesses who could not be harassed, intimidated, gassed or arrested on phony charges. They would be armed and filming all the time. They might discourage overly provocative behavior by protesters that gives ICE excuse to use excessive force. They might discourage ICE from even thinking about such behavior for any reason.
Unlike the state national guard, I believe they could not be "federalized" and thus neutralized.
Trump, Noem and other MAGA folks could not accuse them of being paid demonstrators or "domestic terrorists" without stirring up much ridicule. It might also put another nail in the MAGA pretentious to "support the blue."
Gov. Walz has threatened to call up the MN National Guard as a response to the DHS "surge" of ICE/CBP cowboy goons, and with trump regime thugs like Noem, Miller, and Homan excusing murder of ordinary citizens protesting fascist tactics, Walz better act on that matter pronto, as more shootings are virtually guaranteed, and the people of Minnesota desperately need protection from these gun-carrying hoodlums in uniform.
Brian, you fall into the same trap that Dems always fall into. Thinking that a slogan (or policy idea) isn't popular because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, didn't provide enough details. If only we had done that ("those of us who believe ICE must go to be explicit about what makes ICE unique, and specific about what fills the void when its gone"), the public would thoughtfully consider our ideas and would sanely understand that Dems offer the best, most considered policy option, and of course, vote for that.
Meanwhile, GOP yells CARAVANS!!!, BUILD THE WALL, etc, and they control all levers of power and just do whatever they want and don't give AF about whether the public approves of it.
You know what really kills momentum, talking about the bleeping specifics. GOP learned this long ago, if they ever cared. How about this instead, we keep yelling Abolish ICE because they're abusing and killing humans and everyone is seeing it on their TVs and phones every day. Why do we need more than that?
I don't think he's falling into that trap actually. He specifically says that the activists need to cut the candidates some slack and allow them to run to win. In that way, Dems need to act like Republicans for once...
Are you saying that GOP activists cut candidates slack? I guess I don’t see that although I’d agree that the GOP is generally more unified. I think that’s due more to their only real value being the accruing of power so they don’t have to worry about getting lost in the policy weeds. Whereas most liberal activists are actually trying to affect change on specific issues, and I would strongly argue that it’s not the activists’ responsibility to temper their voice. If you’re a Dem candidate who thinks they lost a race because someone who is in the trenches trying to help immigrants against the abuses of a federally funded police force is not cutting you enough slack…you might be a shit candidate.
Republicans absolutely act that way. The pro life activists don't harangue Trump about not going all the way on a national abortion ban. There is absolutely zero pressure on Mike Johnson to bring a trans sports ban to the house floor even though that was the number one issue for Republicans in the 2024 election.
Charismatic candidates can get the base on board without getting into the nitty gritty of policy laundry lists. They can communicate to the base, "I am on your side. I will take this thing as far as possible. Trust me."
This is the asymmetrical world we are forced to live in, but I believe this post has captured the reality of the current weakness among elected Dems. Rank and file advocates of a liberal democracy aren't willing to acquiesce to the Maga insistence: don't believe your lying eyes, particularly as he points out that ICE is abusive and now are murderers and everyone can see proof of it on their TVs and phones. If D.C. Dems use their own eyes and see what everyone else can see, that ICE is a rogue group of abusive murderers, then why not Abolish them? For morality sake alone, be loud and proud on this score.
Part of what makes ICE uniquely bad: their targets lack some of the basic due process protections we take for granted. E.g. if I understand correctly, immigrants are not, even in theory, entitled to legal representation, or impartial judges at hearings. And of course, as we are learning the hard way, once some group lacks due process then everyone does - they can just declare you a member of that group and, without due process, you can't challenge it.
Restoring these protections would be inconvenient for the government and police, sure. But Americans should not be giving up basic rights to make cops' jobs easier. It's kind of our whole thing.
ICE, with its masked goons, has become too like the SS to continue existing. Even the names sound similar. Grabbing and disappearing (or shooting) people is way too similar to what happened in Nazi Germany .
At this point, it's basically impossible to dispute that the way "defund the police" hurt Democrats was not because it was so toxic, but because right wingers managed to get Dems to infight over it.
Gotta give some marks for patience: these people wanted to blame "defund" for an election loss and they were going to, even if they had to wait six years to do it. For these people, if the Dems win, it was because they "successfully distanced themselves from woke," and if they lose, it's of course that they were "too woke." Tiresome.
I'm sure that some voter somewhere considered and rejected voting Dem because of this stuff that people want to fearmonger about. But I'm even more sure that Dems lost way more votes by running scared and being afraid to take their own side in a debate.
Eh, I think it's a pretty terrible slogan -- people don't want to feel unsafe, and by and large trust police with keeping their communities safe.
We infought over it because some people kept pushing it despite how obviously awful it was. But the infighting wasn't the problem, it was the awful slogan itself.
As far as ICE goes, I just want all those resources redirected into actually addressing things like immigration backlogs so that we don't let people in and let them mill around in limbo for years. I don't have great ideas how to sloganeer that though -- probably be eliminating ICE entirely and forming something that sounds sane that normie people can get behind.
"The alternative is for an angry base to bully Democrats into answering yes-or-no questions about abolishing ICE, without any depth of meaning, such that they enter forthcoming elections divided, and the reckoning never materializes."
Breaking with the party line is one of the post electorally powerful things candidates can do. The party should be vaguely pro-abolishment, while the candidates in swing states very much pro ICE. No matter what happens, nobody is going to touch ICE, just like nobody dares to touch Homeland Security, for multiple of reasons, the most simple is the discomfort when confronting ICE workers' union, which will be present and strong in 2028. We can only hope for humanization of this agency.
Wrong. We can and must get rid of ICE. Either through nullification, or through Congress.
Republicans paid no political price for vowing to get rid of any number of agencies over the years. (Exception being Rick Perry who forgot the third agency he wanted to get rid of...) The Department of Education, the IRS, the EPA, etc. All have been targets of Republicans over the years. And look where we are now.
That agencies were seen to be annoying and interfering with "default American" lives, that is paying taxes, or nagging that you should educate your child. ICE deals with "others". The woman murdered can be contextualized as a far-left activist. Generally, there is a big blind spot for suffering of "others" - like with Jim crow laws. Northern whites were genuinely unaware of that, but also tried not not learn about it.
"If you believe “defund the police” was a major political misstep, your theory of the case has to account for a four year lag...But zoom in and the tension makes more sense. Republicans were able to exploit “defund the police” to divide Democrats, and squeeze anxious front-line members. Whether or not it cost any Democrats their jobs, it certainly made their lives more difficult. And since there was no upshot at the federal level, what purpose did the ritual serve?"
I think you answered your own challenge in that first sentence, Brian.
It's certainly plausible that Democrats did well in the mid-terms and then 2020 all thanks to the incompetence of Trump's first term (not the least of which failures was his COVID response, of course, absent Operation Warp Speed), "defund the police" notwithstanding. And with Democrats losing the 2024 election by a slim margin, that anxiety "defund" created among some voters who went for Trump could just as easily been the cause of their pulling the lever for him.
It was a stupid phrase. Well-intentioned, I grant you, but politically stupid.
I and my fellow friends on the left were flabbergasted at the choice of the word "defund." Defund means "remove funding from," which means "abolish." In the city where I live, even among those on the left, abolishing the police was a far fringe position. It was particularly unpopular among middle- and working-class folks of color, who don't like institutional police racism but do like the notion of some public safety in their neighborhoods. The Right names its positions falsely to make them sound less malign. The left names its positions falsely to make them sound more extreme.
May I add that I believe one very potent argument against ICE is that, "ICE is the largest, most lavishly funded law-enforcement organization in the world." Does anyone really believe immigration, legal and otherwise, into the USA is the world's greatest law enforcement issue? I doubt it.
If the Supreme Court blocks future Democratic presidents from firing ICE agents and Trump appointees, Congress and the president can get rid of the agency and assign the remnant employees to desk jobs, where they are under the orders of new superiors. And also prosecute those who merit it and make all their lives miserable.
Before that happy day, make their lives miserable and socially reprehensible so they quit before the Trump regime is over with. And afterward form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on ICE and immigration enforcement abuses. This, by the way, is how you get around Trump's mass pardons of government officials. You can't be prosecuted--no, but you can be forced to testify in on national TV about your crimes and those of others.
Adopting a slogan like Abolish ICE and even stating this as a goal is a bad idea even if the argument is correct on many scores. Try explaining to ordinary voters why abolishing ICE would not mean that criminals who are illegal immigrants would be allowed to remain in this country. If we want a slogan that works try Reform ICE! End ICE Abuse or something similar and document everything that should end. Once (if) Democrats take power ICE’s budget can be slashed, how ICE should work with local police can be redefined, ICE personnel can be drastically reduced and better trained, etc. Abolish ICE covers too much and that will lose any propaganda war with those whose votes can be won by either side. The message that Democrats want criminal aliens to run roughshod over American citizens will be how Republicans will show in many people’s mind what the movement is about. I am afraid this perspective is over analytical wishful thinking from a person who is usually a sound strategic thinker.
I think you’ve overcomplicated it a bit. It really is about Trump (and potential Trump successors). Trump made no secret about wanting to use the military and National Guard to crush internal dissent, but was stymied both by military brass and the courts. His solution has been to turn a civilian enforcement agency (ICE) into a paramilitary goon squad that he can completely control through a pliant Cabinet Secretary. That isn’t acceptable now, and it shouldn’t be possible for future presidents. That’s why ICE needs to be completely reconfigured/abolished. It’s also why congressional Dems need to rein in ICE funding as part of future budget negotiations.
“ “Defund the police” ignited a panic among Democrats, but election polling that summer didn’t budge, and Democrats went on to win a governing trifecta in 2020.”
I think you are glossing over the 2020 House race. Going in the Dems had 233 and CW was that Dems were in a very favorable environment and, if anything, would add to that 233. They ended up losing 11 seats. Did “defund the police” cause this? Not inherently, but the Democrats’ inability to navigate it, can’t be ignored.
Plausibly, the loses of ‘20 set the stage for losing the majority in ‘22 and staying in the minority to this day. With those majorities we would live in a different, less precarious world today.
Thank you so much, Brian. Your essays are always so clear-eyed and clear-thinking, but this one is more so. After the really harrowing couple of weeks we just had, I'm even more grateful.
As always, Brian, well reasoned and within the realm of politically possible—as long as spines are involved. What I think should be abolished is the Department of Homeland Security, which has always sounded vaguely fascist and dystopian to me—and, it turns out, IS actually fascist and dystopian. Restructuring our immigration policy and enforcement should clearly be top of the Dem agenda. (Right after stacking the fucking court, haha) And let’s not forget that there was a popular bi-partisan immigration bill on the table, which Trump himself killed in 2024 “because he wanted to run on immigration.” Thank Stephen Miller for that, I’m sure. That evil vampire.
I think protesters can and will say whatever they want. This does not mean that legislators have to go along. I also agree with Brian on the legislative/administrative idea.
They don't have to, but they should. ICE shouldn't exist, and even stupid people are capable of understanding "ending ICE doesn't mean ending immigration enforcement" provided it's explained to them the right way.
If you absolutely insist on a more "acceptable" slogan for candidates in swing states to use, which also helps to provide the necessary explanation to those stupid people, I suggest "ICE Was A Mistake." Every time you say it, it would remind people that ICE hasn't existed for that long a time, that a decision was made relatively recently to create it, and that a decision could just as easily be made in the future to disband it and return its functions to the agencies they used to belong to.
“immigration policing should once again become a largely administrative function, enforced by FBI agents and local cops”
^does this mean that any Democratic congress that abolished ICE would also be required to force states and local governments to abolish their sanctuary laws and become active partners in the enforcement of US immigration law? That seems like a good deal to me, but it would require a big ideological sacrifice from deep blue electeds in their own states, and so it seems like you’re not going to get it. So then there just won’t be any interior enforcement in California, Illinois, New York, and the former ICE guys will get on the payroll in Florida and Arkansas, and…
That seems like a terrible deal to me, unless the concession from the other side also includes sweeping, permanent immigration reform. Sanctuary laws and things like them (such as Special Order 40 in Los Angeles, which I cannot suggest strongly enough that you look up on Wikipedia--pay special attention to the year of its issuance and the name of the chief at the time!) exist not just because of ICE specifically, not just because Orange Man Bad, but because immigration law in the US is fundamentally broken and has been broken since the days when Donald Trump was just a New York real estate guy that SPY magazine liked to make fun of for having small hands and bad taste.
When a functioning economy and basic public safety are not only dependent on mass-scale breaking of immigration laws but on local police refusing to cooperate with federal officials on enforcement of those laws, that *should* serve as a strong signal that something is wrong with the laws.
Then you’re not going to convince them to permanently abolish ICE????
I dunno I thought everyone was on the same page here that ICE’s existence as a MAGA paramilitary was a huge threat to our political system and it was worth swallowing some bitter pills to disband it. But apparently you don’t want to swallow bitter pills, you want to swallow candy and snort unicorn dust and tell the voters to fuck off, and the voters will say instead… “nah, we’ll just keep ICE then”
You clearly don't understand what I said, either time, and I begin to suspect that you don't understand the issue at all.
The question of what sort of deals will need to be made to eliminate ICE as a political goon squad is an important one, but I'm going to have to insist on discussing it with people who are better at reading and thinking.
(Yes, this is an invitation for people who disagree with me about Brian's suggested deal, but are able to read and articulate an argument, to jump in. Brian especially!)
This is a bit outrageous but what if the mayors of cities invaded by ICE and Border Patrol squadrons sent their own police force to the scene of raids or checkpoints to act like observers, film the ICE activities and create a file of information that might be needed later in court? Take the heat for doing so off ordinary citizens and ensure their safety.
They would NOT (except for unusual circumstances) ry to stop ICE, but act as witnesses who could not be harassed, intimidated, gassed or arrested on phony charges. They would be armed and filming all the time. They might discourage overly provocative behavior by protesters that gives ICE excuse to use excessive force. They might discourage ICE from even thinking about such behavior for any reason.
Unlike the state national guard, I believe they could not be "federalized" and thus neutralized.
Trump, Noem and other MAGA folks could not accuse them of being paid demonstrators or "domestic terrorists" without stirring up much ridicule. It might also put another nail in the MAGA pretentious to "support the blue."
Gov. Walz has threatened to call up the MN National Guard as a response to the DHS "surge" of ICE/CBP cowboy goons, and with trump regime thugs like Noem, Miller, and Homan excusing murder of ordinary citizens protesting fascist tactics, Walz better act on that matter pronto, as more shootings are virtually guaranteed, and the people of Minnesota desperately need protection from these gun-carrying hoodlums in uniform.
Good idea.
Brian, you fall into the same trap that Dems always fall into. Thinking that a slogan (or policy idea) isn't popular because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, didn't provide enough details. If only we had done that ("those of us who believe ICE must go to be explicit about what makes ICE unique, and specific about what fills the void when its gone"), the public would thoughtfully consider our ideas and would sanely understand that Dems offer the best, most considered policy option, and of course, vote for that.
Meanwhile, GOP yells CARAVANS!!!, BUILD THE WALL, etc, and they control all levers of power and just do whatever they want and don't give AF about whether the public approves of it.
You know what really kills momentum, talking about the bleeping specifics. GOP learned this long ago, if they ever cared. How about this instead, we keep yelling Abolish ICE because they're abusing and killing humans and everyone is seeing it on their TVs and phones every day. Why do we need more than that?
I don't think he's falling into that trap actually. He specifically says that the activists need to cut the candidates some slack and allow them to run to win. In that way, Dems need to act like Republicans for once...
Are you saying that GOP activists cut candidates slack? I guess I don’t see that although I’d agree that the GOP is generally more unified. I think that’s due more to their only real value being the accruing of power so they don’t have to worry about getting lost in the policy weeds. Whereas most liberal activists are actually trying to affect change on specific issues, and I would strongly argue that it’s not the activists’ responsibility to temper their voice. If you’re a Dem candidate who thinks they lost a race because someone who is in the trenches trying to help immigrants against the abuses of a federally funded police force is not cutting you enough slack…you might be a shit candidate.
Republicans absolutely act that way. The pro life activists don't harangue Trump about not going all the way on a national abortion ban. There is absolutely zero pressure on Mike Johnson to bring a trans sports ban to the house floor even though that was the number one issue for Republicans in the 2024 election.
Charismatic candidates can get the base on board without getting into the nitty gritty of policy laundry lists. They can communicate to the base, "I am on your side. I will take this thing as far as possible. Trust me."
This is the asymmetrical world we are forced to live in, but I believe this post has captured the reality of the current weakness among elected Dems. Rank and file advocates of a liberal democracy aren't willing to acquiesce to the Maga insistence: don't believe your lying eyes, particularly as he points out that ICE is abusive and now are murderers and everyone can see proof of it on their TVs and phones. If D.C. Dems use their own eyes and see what everyone else can see, that ICE is a rogue group of abusive murderers, then why not Abolish them? For morality sake alone, be loud and proud on this score.
Part of what makes ICE uniquely bad: their targets lack some of the basic due process protections we take for granted. E.g. if I understand correctly, immigrants are not, even in theory, entitled to legal representation, or impartial judges at hearings. And of course, as we are learning the hard way, once some group lacks due process then everyone does - they can just declare you a member of that group and, without due process, you can't challenge it.
Restoring these protections would be inconvenient for the government and police, sure. But Americans should not be giving up basic rights to make cops' jobs easier. It's kind of our whole thing.
ICE, with its masked goons, has become too like the SS to continue existing. Even the names sound similar. Grabbing and disappearing (or shooting) people is way too similar to what happened in Nazi Germany .
At this point, it's basically impossible to dispute that the way "defund the police" hurt Democrats was not because it was so toxic, but because right wingers managed to get Dems to infight over it.
Gotta give some marks for patience: these people wanted to blame "defund" for an election loss and they were going to, even if they had to wait six years to do it. For these people, if the Dems win, it was because they "successfully distanced themselves from woke," and if they lose, it's of course that they were "too woke." Tiresome.
I'm sure that some voter somewhere considered and rejected voting Dem because of this stuff that people want to fearmonger about. But I'm even more sure that Dems lost way more votes by running scared and being afraid to take their own side in a debate.
Eh, I think it's a pretty terrible slogan -- people don't want to feel unsafe, and by and large trust police with keeping their communities safe.
We infought over it because some people kept pushing it despite how obviously awful it was. But the infighting wasn't the problem, it was the awful slogan itself.
As far as ICE goes, I just want all those resources redirected into actually addressing things like immigration backlogs so that we don't let people in and let them mill around in limbo for years. I don't have great ideas how to sloganeer that though -- probably be eliminating ICE entirely and forming something that sounds sane that normie people can get behind.
Whatever you say, bro
I mean it's like the lowest-polling thing ever; I don't think its issue was "infighting".
Say bro you whatever
"The alternative is for an angry base to bully Democrats into answering yes-or-no questions about abolishing ICE, without any depth of meaning, such that they enter forthcoming elections divided, and the reckoning never materializes."
Breaking with the party line is one of the post electorally powerful things candidates can do. The party should be vaguely pro-abolishment, while the candidates in swing states very much pro ICE. No matter what happens, nobody is going to touch ICE, just like nobody dares to touch Homeland Security, for multiple of reasons, the most simple is the discomfort when confronting ICE workers' union, which will be present and strong in 2028. We can only hope for humanization of this agency.
Why should candidates in swing states take an unpopular position like being pro-ICE?
This doomerism is just disguised permission-granting.
While being pro-ICE might currently poll not as good, being pro-ICE means being anti-Democrat party, which is very strongly popular.
By this logic, being pro-Republican-party should be strongly popular, because it's anti-Democrat-party, but that's obviously not the case.
Say it loud, say it proud: better things aren't possible! Who's with me?
Wrong. We can and must get rid of ICE. Either through nullification, or through Congress.
Republicans paid no political price for vowing to get rid of any number of agencies over the years. (Exception being Rick Perry who forgot the third agency he wanted to get rid of...) The Department of Education, the IRS, the EPA, etc. All have been targets of Republicans over the years. And look where we are now.
That agencies were seen to be annoying and interfering with "default American" lives, that is paying taxes, or nagging that you should educate your child. ICE deals with "others". The woman murdered can be contextualized as a far-left activist. Generally, there is a big blind spot for suffering of "others" - like with Jim crow laws. Northern whites were genuinely unaware of that, but also tried not not learn about it.
"If you believe “defund the police” was a major political misstep, your theory of the case has to account for a four year lag...But zoom in and the tension makes more sense. Republicans were able to exploit “defund the police” to divide Democrats, and squeeze anxious front-line members. Whether or not it cost any Democrats their jobs, it certainly made their lives more difficult. And since there was no upshot at the federal level, what purpose did the ritual serve?"
I think you answered your own challenge in that first sentence, Brian.
It's certainly plausible that Democrats did well in the mid-terms and then 2020 all thanks to the incompetence of Trump's first term (not the least of which failures was his COVID response, of course, absent Operation Warp Speed), "defund the police" notwithstanding. And with Democrats losing the 2024 election by a slim margin, that anxiety "defund" created among some voters who went for Trump could just as easily been the cause of their pulling the lever for him.
It was a stupid phrase. Well-intentioned, I grant you, but politically stupid.
I argued this exact point at the time. Wording matters. If you have to explain your slogan, it’s the wrong fucking slogan.
I and my fellow friends on the left were flabbergasted at the choice of the word "defund." Defund means "remove funding from," which means "abolish." In the city where I live, even among those on the left, abolishing the police was a far fringe position. It was particularly unpopular among middle- and working-class folks of color, who don't like institutional police racism but do like the notion of some public safety in their neighborhoods. The Right names its positions falsely to make them sound less malign. The left names its positions falsely to make them sound more extreme.
May I add that I believe one very potent argument against ICE is that, "ICE is the largest, most lavishly funded law-enforcement organization in the world." Does anyone really believe immigration, legal and otherwise, into the USA is the world's greatest law enforcement issue? I doubt it.
If the Supreme Court blocks future Democratic presidents from firing ICE agents and Trump appointees, Congress and the president can get rid of the agency and assign the remnant employees to desk jobs, where they are under the orders of new superiors. And also prosecute those who merit it and make all their lives miserable.
Before that happy day, make their lives miserable and socially reprehensible so they quit before the Trump regime is over with. And afterward form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on ICE and immigration enforcement abuses. This, by the way, is how you get around Trump's mass pardons of government officials. You can't be prosecuted--no, but you can be forced to testify in on national TV about your crimes and those of others.
If a future Dem administration fails to expand the Supreme Court and admit DC and PR as states, it might well be the last Dem administration.
Re-assign them to all the East Bum-Fuck parts of the country and have them clean restrooms, dig ditches etc.
Adopting a slogan like Abolish ICE and even stating this as a goal is a bad idea even if the argument is correct on many scores. Try explaining to ordinary voters why abolishing ICE would not mean that criminals who are illegal immigrants would be allowed to remain in this country. If we want a slogan that works try Reform ICE! End ICE Abuse or something similar and document everything that should end. Once (if) Democrats take power ICE’s budget can be slashed, how ICE should work with local police can be redefined, ICE personnel can be drastically reduced and better trained, etc. Abolish ICE covers too much and that will lose any propaganda war with those whose votes can be won by either side. The message that Democrats want criminal aliens to run roughshod over American citizens will be how Republicans will show in many people’s mind what the movement is about. I am afraid this perspective is over analytical wishful thinking from a person who is usually a sound strategic thinker.
The upcoming funding fight, if any, will be a bellwether of how the Dems intend to go forward.
Here’s a slogan: Abolish ICE, Enforce THE LAW.
I think you’ve overcomplicated it a bit. It really is about Trump (and potential Trump successors). Trump made no secret about wanting to use the military and National Guard to crush internal dissent, but was stymied both by military brass and the courts. His solution has been to turn a civilian enforcement agency (ICE) into a paramilitary goon squad that he can completely control through a pliant Cabinet Secretary. That isn’t acceptable now, and it shouldn’t be possible for future presidents. That’s why ICE needs to be completely reconfigured/abolished. It’s also why congressional Dems need to rein in ICE funding as part of future budget negotiations.
“ “Defund the police” ignited a panic among Democrats, but election polling that summer didn’t budge, and Democrats went on to win a governing trifecta in 2020.”
I think you are glossing over the 2020 House race. Going in the Dems had 233 and CW was that Dems were in a very favorable environment and, if anything, would add to that 233. They ended up losing 11 seats. Did “defund the police” cause this? Not inherently, but the Democrats’ inability to navigate it, can’t be ignored.
Plausibly, the loses of ‘20 set the stage for losing the majority in ‘22 and staying in the minority to this day. With those majorities we would live in a different, less precarious world today.
Thank you so much, Brian. Your essays are always so clear-eyed and clear-thinking, but this one is more so. After the really harrowing couple of weeks we just had, I'm even more grateful.
As always, Brian, well reasoned and within the realm of politically possible—as long as spines are involved. What I think should be abolished is the Department of Homeland Security, which has always sounded vaguely fascist and dystopian to me—and, it turns out, IS actually fascist and dystopian. Restructuring our immigration policy and enforcement should clearly be top of the Dem agenda. (Right after stacking the fucking court, haha) And let’s not forget that there was a popular bi-partisan immigration bill on the table, which Trump himself killed in 2024 “because he wanted to run on immigration.” Thank Stephen Miller for that, I’m sure. That evil vampire.
I am very skeptical that protesters brandishing Abolish ICE signs would be helpful. Agree 100% on the legislative/administrative moves.
I think protesters can and will say whatever they want. This does not mean that legislators have to go along. I also agree with Brian on the legislative/administrative idea.
They don't have to, but they should. ICE shouldn't exist, and even stupid people are capable of understanding "ending ICE doesn't mean ending immigration enforcement" provided it's explained to them the right way.
If you absolutely insist on a more "acceptable" slogan for candidates in swing states to use, which also helps to provide the necessary explanation to those stupid people, I suggest "ICE Was A Mistake." Every time you say it, it would remind people that ICE hasn't existed for that long a time, that a decision was made relatively recently to create it, and that a decision could just as easily be made in the future to disband it and return its functions to the agencies they used to belong to.
“immigration policing should once again become a largely administrative function, enforced by FBI agents and local cops”
^does this mean that any Democratic congress that abolished ICE would also be required to force states and local governments to abolish their sanctuary laws and become active partners in the enforcement of US immigration law? That seems like a good deal to me, but it would require a big ideological sacrifice from deep blue electeds in their own states, and so it seems like you’re not going to get it. So then there just won’t be any interior enforcement in California, Illinois, New York, and the former ICE guys will get on the payroll in Florida and Arkansas, and…
>That seems like a good deal to me
That seems like a terrible deal to me, unless the concession from the other side also includes sweeping, permanent immigration reform. Sanctuary laws and things like them (such as Special Order 40 in Los Angeles, which I cannot suggest strongly enough that you look up on Wikipedia--pay special attention to the year of its issuance and the name of the chief at the time!) exist not just because of ICE specifically, not just because Orange Man Bad, but because immigration law in the US is fundamentally broken and has been broken since the days when Donald Trump was just a New York real estate guy that SPY magazine liked to make fun of for having small hands and bad taste.
When a functioning economy and basic public safety are not only dependent on mass-scale breaking of immigration laws but on local police refusing to cooperate with federal officials on enforcement of those laws, that *should* serve as a strong signal that something is wrong with the laws.
Look, if the voters have to choose between the following…
Voters: who is going to enforce immigration law?
A: ICE.
B: Your local and state police forces.
C: Absolutely no one.
They will go B > A > C
Yeah, no shit. What voters prefer and what is actually a good deal are two entirely separate questions. It's a terrible deal.
Then you’re not going to convince them to permanently abolish ICE????
I dunno I thought everyone was on the same page here that ICE’s existence as a MAGA paramilitary was a huge threat to our political system and it was worth swallowing some bitter pills to disband it. But apparently you don’t want to swallow bitter pills, you want to swallow candy and snort unicorn dust and tell the voters to fuck off, and the voters will say instead… “nah, we’ll just keep ICE then”
You clearly don't understand what I said, either time, and I begin to suspect that you don't understand the issue at all.
The question of what sort of deals will need to be made to eliminate ICE as a political goon squad is an important one, but I'm going to have to insist on discussing it with people who are better at reading and thinking.
(Yes, this is an invitation for people who disagree with me about Brian's suggested deal, but are able to read and articulate an argument, to jump in. Brian especially!)