Hacker News Reader

Comment by thehappypm | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I think we can have a more humane policy enforced by INS without masked ICE agents killing and running over people in the streets.

Agreed, but abolishing the agency task with immigration enforcement altogether means… We won’t have immigration enforcement

You can hire qualified people better suited to the job. Not the mob pulled in by the current administration through profligate bonuses, lowered standards and an unwavering tolerance for violence and racism.

Agreed. But that’s different from the Reddit style “abolish ice” argument.

That's a completely different question. You're doing pancakes/waffles.

Do you think the only way to enforce civil infractions, like immigration violations, is by raiding an apartment building by helicopter at 1 AM?

Do you think the appropriate way to handle people SUSPECTED of having an expired visa is by throwing them in an overseas prison without trial?

Do you think it's RIGHT to throw pregnant women into a prison camp and deny them medical care, just because something was filled out wrong on their immigration paperwork?

I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.

Here's some advice for future debates: drop the petty whataboutisms, quit making strawmen to attack, and address the actual criticisms.

If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders. It’s kind of what an open border is. Where is the false equivalency?

If you go back and read the comment you are responding to, you will see this text:

> I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.

The false equivalence, then, is right here:

> If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders.

Where you again just skip over the enumerated criticisms and pretend that all border enforcement must be done in such an aggressive and violent manner without regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.

If you don't want to acknowledge the difference between "enforce immigration law in a civil and reasonable manner" and "terrorize neighborhoods and execute citizens to make a point", then I can't help you.

“Abolish ICE” doesn’t mean “fix its problems”.

Abolishing a criminal organization and jailing the unqualified thugs who have spent the last 2 years terrorizing and murdering citizens in the street does not mean "quit enforcing immigration".

ICE was created in 2002 as part of the notorious Homeland Security Act. Do you think immigration law was just... not enforced before that?

Hint: Immigration law was previously handled by an agency called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with customs enforcement being handled by US Customs. ICE has shown complete disregard for the Constitution, a common issue with the agencies created by the Homeland Security Act.

Dismantling ICE does not mean stopping border enforcement. It means decentralizing that power and devolving immigration enforcement to agencies better equipped to handle it while protecting the rights of American Citizens.

> jailing the unqualified thugs who have spent the last 2 years terrorizing and murdering citizens in the street

That is precisely the work of Operation Puppet Master.

ICE has been around for over 20 years, yet only the last 2 have been problematic to you. Abolishing it seems rash

It is a lack of imagination to think that the current iteration of immigration enforcement and visa policy is the only alternative to open borders.

No, it is a lack of imagination to think that abolishing ice is the only solution.

Realistically, do you think whataboutisms are the proper way to address the question at hand?

Both suck. Lets find a way to fix both before spending an eternity on a stupid circular argument.

completely abolishing ice altogether, is functionally equivalent to having open borders, because they are the people who are supposed to be enforcing immigration law. “Abolish ice” is just as radical as advocating for open borders. How about we fix the problems with ice?

> because they are the people who are supposed to be enforcing immigration law.

No they are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Customs_and_Bord...

Which was preceded by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol an agency established in 1924, or 102 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com