https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/...e_code=1.MFA.8jCA.bBac2mzqibFN&smid=url-share DHS is trying to subpoena various social media companies to get information about the holders of accounts that are anti ICE. The ranking minority members of the various House and Senate committees should make public statements that if they hold the gavel in 2027, they will hold hearings on potential abuses. Make Zuckerberg and Musk etc. realize that the era of unilateral disarmament is over. Make them tell their legal departments to follow the law and not engage in precompliance.
Yes, we have a casual acceptance of violence, we have more guns than people, mass shootings are the norm, and we love us some MMA/UFC so much so that we're about to turn the White House lawn into a gladiator arena. But of course, our experiences shape our views, and they're not always fixed over a lifespan. For instance, I too thought the death penalty should be 100% abolished until I sat through a brutal capital murder trail (1988) which was particularly gruesome and horrific. It took 10 years to track down the murderers and bring them to justice, I saw up close how their senseless violence ripped apart a family that I loved, and I would've been A-OK with those sorry bastards getting death over life in prison.
The ads in November will write themselves https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3meucnwgbrs2o
Maybe Jeffries was sideswiped a bit here. But Dems should be running on completely re-vamping ICE and not allowing it to be Donnie's personal goon squad. https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com/post/3mev5vk5ols2e
This is turning into the defund the police all over again. It's why I hate shortened slogans like this. What exactly does Abolish ICE mean in reality? That needs to be expanded upon and messaged accordingly. Clearly what Trump is doing is terrible and horrific. But, so is no ICE. There exists a huge chasm of options resting between those choices.
There needs to be something like ICE, but it doesn’t have to be called that. I think it would be a great idea to dissolve the org and build an entirely new one with a clear charter and purpose that specifically. Everyone who works in the org will have to reapply. Maybe even grandfather in time in the previous org. I don’t believe the ship can be righted.
And that is the greater point I'm making: when it comes to a difficult choice, we turn to violence as the answer. But once we start, where does it end? As is clear, specifically on the death penalty, many in society justify that it should be in place. We justify that it is the correct thing to kill another human. And I'm coming to the conclusion more and more that it is because we don't really, as a society, truly respect life.
I disagree. The defund police was a disaster of a message because society had not yet accepted (and still doesn't) that police are heavily prone to violence and aggression and power trips. But it was phrased specifically around minorities, so the White population was able to push back, on both sides of the aisle. That is despite what it really meant. Abolish ICE is different because we are seeing that they are not just going after minorities (Latino) but everybody. The whisking away of detainees has had no broad support. The detaining of people for very clearly exercising their 1st Amendment rights (protests, speech, etc) has been violated, overturned, and violated again. The targeting of kids is stomach turning and makes them look not like a police force but monsters. And then they killed two White people. And those are just the easy examples. There are hundreds - thousands - more. That is down the line, but I think a lot of people understand that abolishing ICE is going to mean removing the massive increase in street thugs being around. Mind, I have said that we can't really "abolish ICE" because it is a need to have in our current society. It really needs to be reformed, entirely. And that is what is being proposed, to some level, with the current shutdown demands the Democrats are making. The view, I see, is that this is less Trump and more Noem and Miller. Trump will be able to separate himself from what is going on because he is the President and not making the decisions.
Or sometimes we want to rid our society of brutally sadistic murderers, and we'd like to encourage others not to follow in their footsteps. And sometimes we may be gripped with the emotion that comes from seeing innocent people brutally victimized. So, maybe it's precisely because we do respect life. If you've never sat through something like that, it may be hard for you to truly empathize.
We already have mechanisms to deal with criminals, and a legal system that (ostensibly) offers due process. With ICE, the cruelty has become the point. When I was running a legal services agency, I'd see attorneys running out of the office to help kids who'd been scooped up by ICE without any reason or cause. When law-abiding residents are living in fear of random imprisonment or death, we can no longer pretend to have any semblance of democracy, but have slid straight into totalitarianism.
Some doubts about the death penalty being a solution: a) Our history of using it against innocent people, especially by law officials. No chance to overturn that miscarriage of justice, like others who were exonerated after decades of unjust imprisonment. The criminal got one charge less to their name. No justice for the criminal's victim either. b) *Encouragement* goes both ways: criminals will escalate to murder hoping to eliminate any surviving victims. c) Convenient for authoritarian govt's: sends the political message that Your gov't is here for Your safety. Then, it is applied to eliminate political enemies and *unwanted* minorities. Such regimes must justify their iron fist rule and the dead penalty is a perfect tool. A life for a life is an appealing rule for society, but I recall regimes applying it against the innocent while claiming to protect the innocent.
Yes, it's a complex issue and there are valid arguments on both sides. And, one's own experience can shape one's own views, of course.
You are justifying the use of violence by an arbitrary standard: "brutally sadistic." You added murder, but what about somebody who tortures and rapes, but doesn't kill? What about the somebody being "brutally and sadistically" beaten, but ended up not dying? I would be willing you can come up with all kinds of justifications as to why somebody should be executed. I'm not saying you are being horrendous or anything like that, but it tends to be how we, in the US, justify the use of the death penalty. [Person behaved in a way that we strenuously object to] and therefore deserves to die. I would disagree that there are valid arguments on both sides. I don't think there is a valid argument that allows for the death penalty. Approving the death penalty approves of the state to execute people. And it gives members of the state the belief that they can kill somebody because they are acting in the interest of the state. See the examples given by @bigsoccertst1 as to how that works as a failure.
ICE as an institution isn’t old enough to rent a car, right? It’s a post 9/11 creation, is what I’m saying.
Look at you agreeing with Karl Marx! "The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general". —Karl Marx
The idea that an agency less than a quarter century old can’t be abolished doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t necessary for 225 years of American history.
there already is something like ICE.. It is called the FBI and US Marshall Service. Seriously, a lot of the issues being caused by ICE would be resolved if it were FBI agents/US Marshalls performing the tasks. The FBI and US Marshalls gets actual warrants, they don't go around randomly ramming vehicles on the suspicion that they might be undocumented, they don't (generally) get in confrontations with civilians that result in them shooting people, etc, etc. By and large, the FBI's agents are highly trained, they have established procedures for legally detaining people and they don't randomly grab people off the street.
Yeah… That seems like overkill to have such a highly trained force in charge of deporting people who overstay their VISA or sneak in. Most of these people are nonviolent, so I’d imagine that 99% of what this org would do is like parking cop duty. The big money needs to be spent on beefing up the immigration courts: more buildings, more judges, more lawyers.
It's a symbol of the culture that exists. It won't solve the problem, but is a sign that the culture is being examined, and hopefully for positive change. Mind, you should take note that I approve of the elimination as I've been talking about the culture that existed before the creation of ICE for a while.
The militarization of domestic police forces is another thing that needs to be tackled. The whole look is intimidating and wrong.
Radley Balko needs to get quoted as often as Rick Perlstein does around here, IMHO. (No shade to Perlstein, to be clear).