A slogan instead of a policy

[Ricordanza]

I was glad to see the tens of thousands of people who turned out for the demonstrations on Saturday against Trump's immigration policy. I would have gone to the Philadelphia demonstration--but decided that being on my feet for two or three hours in nearly 100 degree heat was not the wisest course of action.

But I'm disturbed by the latest slogan of the anti-Trump resistance: the call to "abolish ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). As noted by the article below, this goal is being advanced by such notables as Senators Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand:

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... 776e1.html

Why are they pushing this empty slogan? The immigration laws need to be administered by a federal agency. One can take issue with those laws as well as the way they are enforced, but this is a federal government function, and if not ICE, then what do they propose?

We've heard similar nonsense from the right, with their calls to "abolish the IRS." Again, federal taxes need to be collected, and a federal government agency is needed to do that.

Well, I guess the lesson in all of this is that, left or right, it's easier to come up with slogans than policies.

[RebLem]

So maybe we should abolish the FBI and figure out all the laws the FBI enforces and create a different agency for the enforcement of each law? Why should the immigration law have its own enforcement agency? No one is suggesting that immigration laws not be enforced. Just that when we have a particular agency devoted to it alone, they need to find work to do even if immigration is not a problem, and that means they get into mischief. If you have a general law enforcement agency for the enforcement of all federal laws, you can allocate resources in a more logical way. In an age when the net migration of Hispanics is away from the US, ICE has to invent hysteria to justify its existence. That's the problem the ABOLISH ICE movement seeks to remedy.

[jbuck919]

Yeah, I got an e-mail from Gillibrand's organization (my junior senator, remember), and I was shocked to see this. Assuming this is really coming from her, among other things, she has put every Democrat running for the House on the spot (as if they did not have a hard enough time of it already), since they are all sure to be asked if they stand by the slogan.

[lennygoran]

every Democrat running for the House on the spot (as if they did not have a hard enough time of it already), since they are all sure to be asked if they stand by the slogan.

This is no time to be further energizing Trump's base-Maxine Waters didn't help either-I'm watching a blue wave disintegrating and a red wave starting to move in-we need a new indictment from Mueller! Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

every Democrat running for the House on the spot (as if they did not have a hard enough time of it already), since they are all sure to be asked if they stand by the slogan.

This is no time to be further energizing Trump's base-Maxine Waters didn't help either-I'm watching a blue wave disintegrating and a red wave starting to move in-we need a new indictment from Mueller! Regards, Len

I wonder if it was Chuck Schumer in his response to Maxine Waters who was no help. There's the NY Senate delegation: 2 for 2.

[lennygoran]

I wonder if it was Chuck Schumer in his response to Maxine Waters who was no help. There's the NY Senate delegation: 2 for 2.

What do you think he should have done? Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

I wonder if it was Chuck Schumer in his response to Maxine Waters who was no help. There's the NY Senate delegation: 2 for 2.

What do you think he should have done? Regards, Len

Not bought into the worst possible (and incorrect) interpretation of Waters's remark, as did Nancy Pelosi.

[lennygoran]

Not bought into the worst possible (and incorrect) interpretation of Waters's remark, as did Nancy Pelosi.

John still the comment seems to speak for itself-Michelle Obama said when they go low we should go high. Regards, Len

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents,"

[Ricordanza]

Trump now says that calls to abolish ICE will hurt the Democrats, and I think he's right!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/p ... v=top-news

And I agree that urging people to confront members of the Trump administration at restaurants and other public places (or worse, at their homes) will backfire.

These kinds of slogans and tactics feed into the narrative that progressives are crazy, kooky, etc.

[jbuck919]

Not bought into the worst possible (and incorrect) interpretation of Waters's remark, as did Nancy Pelosi.

John still the comment seems to speak for itself-Michelle Obama said when they go low we should go high. Regards, Len

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents,"

This was a rhetorical flourish. She knows perfectly well that these people never show up in an ordinary public context, except on rare occasions when they are protected to the nth degree by public-supported security. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately if we want to retain some toehold on government by the people), a congresswoman has no such protection, and she might end up being the next Gabrielle Giffords (who ironically was something like Kirsten Gillibrand's best friend in the House).

And Hank, I agree. "Abolish ICE" was an unbelievably stupid thing to do. It is like Russian Roulette in reverse, with the Dems now having put the last bullet in the only empty chamber.