so like i said, you'd be creating something to take it's place and enforce the same policy and call it something different. if you call that progress, fine. seems like a wild goose chase to me.



create new enforcement agency doesn't sound like real abolition

This post was edited by proccy on Jul 6 2020 10:39pm

Answer the question.

i believe i made myself clear in that regard already. if there is no enforcement agency to enforce the law, then the law in no practical way exists, since it's purpose is to be practiced

furthermore, if you abolish ICE but replace it with different powers, you aren't really abolishing enforcement of immigration policy, and it will likely continue to be practiced in a similiar way moving forward

so prior to 2003 america NEVER enforced any immigration policy?

Thiiiiiiiis.

back to this blasse stuffing of words into the mouth and complete missing of the point. i don't recall having said that in the slightest

That's a mischaracterization. The real debate went like this:

Handcuffs: X
Everyone Else: So you're saying Y?
Handcuffs: No, Y is not the same as X
Everyone Else: No, in fact, Y follows directly from X
Handcuffs: No, when I say X I mean just X
Everyone Else: But in practice, it would be impossible for Y to not follow from X. Also, those activists advocating for X are openly striving for Y.
Handcuffs: It would still in theory be possible to have X without Y.
Everyone Else: But not in practice, particularly when the public proponents of X have no interest in X-without-Y since Y is their actual end goal.
Handcuffs: *autistic screeching*

Why would it be a wild goose chase? Destroying the old department and starting a new one from the ground up is a good way to root out the old guard that might be doing things in a way you don't want them to but refuse to change. It could also help change the public's perception with a symbolic removal and renewal.

Still, that presumes you can't have policy or enforcement without ICE, which is also untrue.



Even in this very charitable take on the subject, Handcuffs is still right lol. There's ways to enforce immigration policy without a specific division dedicated to its enforcement.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 6 2020 10:49pm

so if ICE is absolutely necessary. How did enforcement happen prior to it's existence.

i never said ICE is absolutely necessary, either. man you are a piss lot (sorry guildie)

the point i was making is really eluding you guys and I don't understand why. maybe I can further clarify my personal position by simply saying : Reform of immigration law enforcement should be very seriously considered. Abolition of law enforcement is a modern communist revolutionary's pipe dream

if that helps