Oh come on, dont shed crocodile tears. It was your choice to use the slogan of a divisive radical far-left policy as the title for a thread about a concrete case where ICE is doing something objectionable.

If your goal was to have a discussion about kicking out college students over online-classes, you would have chosen a very different title. The tldr is that you chose this specific title because you wanted to steer the discussion toward shitting on ICE, over this specific case and also just in general. And now that you're unexpectedly meeting resistance and counter-arguments from the other side of the ideological spectrum, you're complaining and calling us snowflakes.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2020 08:52pm

if we abolish ice how am i going to chill my martinis

That part is a lot like trump and virus logic.

No, not at all. The idea that the responses are "unexpected" is laughable. PaRD skews heavily to the right.

I'm right in calling out the stupidity of the assertion that "Abolishing ICE = abolishing immigration policy", and your amended comment about it being "enforcement" and not "policy" is also incorrect.

Enforcement of immigration law is divided across U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The idea that Abolishing ICE = Abolishing enforcement, abolishing policy altogether, and any other non-nuanced hot take you want to continue to put forward is just factually incorrect. If ICE were abolished, we'd still have immigration policies, and we'd still have enforcement through CBP and USCIS...

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 6 2020 09:03pm

ice is racist and martinis are cultural appropriation, you dirty shitlord

with the hearts of the republic's enemies.

What I wrote in the beginning still applies and still is the crux of this debate:





Are you seriously suggesting that the calls to "abolish ICE" are only meant to single out an inefficient government agency, only meant to spur administrative reform without actually altering the "tightness" of the country's border regime? No offense, but that's delusional. It is painfully obvious that the main intention of "abolish ICE" is not administrative restructuring but switching to a (significantly) more soft border regime.

I'm not doing to continue to waste more time on a point that originated from a misunderstanding of the American immigration system. Abolishing ICE doesn't mean abolishing immigration policy OR enforcement. Both are just bad takes.

You're welcome to reply however you wish, but I'm done responding to this take. I'll reply to posts relevant to the information in the OP.

T4t

... are you purposefully being obtuse or?

There are tens of millions of people that come to this country annually, most of them legally some illegally. It's actually not that difficult to get into the us circumventing CBP, we have thousands of miles of land borders.

You need a mechanism to enforce immigration policy for people who overstay their visas or people who ignore the proper channels of entry.

US is a great place to be, without ICE you would have tens of millions of people buying one way tickets here on tourist visas and legally entering and never leaving.