During Obama's years, there was a very small fringe of people that no one heard from that wanted ICE gone. And they were doing plenty of deporting back then under Obama's policies.
However under Trump's policies and following orders from him basically, there is now a growing movement to abolish ICE. Heck even a woman ruined a bunch of tourists outing at the Statue of Liberty on the 4th protesting ICE. A Senator recently has come out against, a few other democrats, and seems to be growing. Some are even calling for it's end because they think they are the ones separating families at the border, which they aren't as those are the border & custom agents.
So here is an agency that is simply following orders and policies of the current administration. Under Obama they deported illegals on a tiered system, criminals at the top of the list. Under Trump, they can deport any illegal. Personally I think Trump's way is not a good way because it can delude them down from being more effective in going after the illegals that should be deported before any others. Just my 2 cents on that.
Couple questions though.
Who would replace them?
Should they be replaced?
Why didn't Obama abolish them?
Did anyone call to eliminate the Army and Marines during Vietnam? Or did they protest how they were being used? The latter., though I bet a few hippies called for that.
I will say they are being treated as any fringe movement should. They had a piece about them on the Louisville news here about them sitting outside in a call to action of whatever. Those folks were hating life with the 106 degree heat index, but they say they have no plans to leave anytime soon. I found it amusing.
ICE does some great stuff with going after human trafficking. The issue isn't ICE, its atrocious policy like targeting non violent offenders with families or separating infants and toddlers from their mothers.
(07-05-2018, 09:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: ICE does some great stuff with going after human trafficking. The issue isn't ICE, its atrocious policy like targeting non violent offenders with families or separating infants and toddlers from their mothers.
ICE has two missions and this is where we're seeing a big conflict.
It has two separate agencies within it. It has ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations), which is dealing with deportations -- which deals with arrests and deportations after people have gotten a hearing, if one is due. Then it has HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), which is the agency that investigates actual transnational criminal activity.
What's happening right now is that HSI -- the people who are going after the drug dealers, child pornographers, the sex traffickers -- are saying that ICE is interfering with their mission, that the local police won't cooperate with them and also that ERO has taken up a substantial amount of their money.
And instead of actually having the resources to target real criminals, we've seen ICE spending this money driving around, picking up parents who drop off their kids at school, picking off parents walking on the sidewalk with their children next to them, and in some cases going door-to-door to go after green card holders who are here lawfully.
So it appears that they are more interested in creating a lot of fear and anxiety than actually arresting people whose presence is in any way detrimental to our country's interests.
(07-05-2018, 10:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: ICE has two missions and this is where we're seeing a big conflict.
It has two separate agencies within it. It has ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations), which is dealing with deportations -- which deals with arrests and deportations after people have gotten a hearing, if one is due. Then it has HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), which is the agency that investigates actual transnational criminal activity.
What's happening right now is that HSI -- the people who are going after the drug dealers, child pornographers, the sex traffickers -- are saying that ICE is interfering with their mission, that the local police won't cooperate with them and also that ERO has taken up a substantial amount of their money.
And instead of actually having the resources to target real criminals, we've seen ICE spending this money driving around, picking up parents who drop off their kids at school, picking off parents walking on the sidewalk with their children next to them, and in some cases going door-to-door to go after green card holders who are here lawfully.
So it appears that they are more interested in creating a lot of fear and anxiety than actually arresting people whose presence is in any way detrimental to our country's interests.
And some people find this all "amusing".
That all may or not be entirely true. But, are you sure that's the real cause of the protest? How are you certain that this isn't in retaliation to the so called "sanctuary cites or States" that defy the Federal authorities, that are being targeted by the current administration?
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-05-2018, 11:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That all may or not be entirely true. But, are you sure that's the real cause of the protest? How are you certain that this isn't in retaliation to the so called "sanctuary cites or States" that defy the Federal authorities, that are being targeted by the current administration?
It is all tied together. Sancuary cities object to ICE tactics of using valuable resources to destroy families and remove people who are not dangerous criminals.
(07-05-2018, 11:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is all tied together. Sancuary cities object to ICE tactics of using valuable resources to destroy families and remove people who are not dangerous criminals.
If those places don't want heat on the "harmless" illegal immigrants, then why don't they cooperate with Federal Law Enforcement Agencies when it comes to the ones that are dangerous felons?
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-05-2018, 11:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If those places don't want heat on the "harmless" illegal immigrants, then why don't they cooperate with Federal Law Enforcement Agencies when it comes to the ones that are dangerous felons?
I don't know about all the cities but most (including all in California) do cooperate with ICE when anyone has been convicted of a dangerous felony and even many violent misdemeanors like domestic violence.
(07-05-2018, 10:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: ICE has two missions and this is where we're seeing a big conflict.
It has two separate agencies within it. It has ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations), which is dealing with deportations -- which deals with arrests and deportations after people have gotten a hearing, if one is due. Then it has HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), which is the agency that investigates actual transnational criminal activity.
What's happening right now is that HSI -- the people who are going after the drug dealers, child pornographers, the sex traffickers -- are saying that ICE is interfering with their mission, that the local police won't cooperate with them and also that ERO has taken up a substantial amount of their money.
And instead of actually having the resources to target real criminals, we've seen ICE spending this money driving around, picking up parents who drop off their kids at school, picking off parents walking on the sidewalk with their children next to them, and in some cases going door-to-door to go after green card holders who are here lawfully.
So it appears that they are more interested in creating a lot of fear and anxiety than actually arresting people whose presence is in any way detrimental to our country's interests.
And some people find this all "amusing".
This is a pretty good take on the problem with ICE. What I always find interesting is that ICE was created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in an effort to streamline things. It was intended to separate out the enforcement from the other stuff that was all combined together within INS, and then customs was thrown in there as well. What was intended to help alleviate some of the bureaucratic headaches has actually made them worse in many ways. While it was often a headache having the folks that would deport you under the same INS heading as those that provided help, the missions of the USCIS and ICE/CBP are intricately woven together in many ways and so separating them out makes doing their jobs a little more difficult.
I think what needs to be done is that we need to discuss what the alternatives would be. Just sticking with the "abolish ICE" message makes it seem like these people do not want immigration enforcement, when that isn't their intention at all. But the optics of it are terrible.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-05-2018, 11:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If those places don't want heat on the "harmless" illegal immigrants, then why don't they cooperate with Federal Law Enforcement Agencies when it comes to the ones that are dangerous felons?
ICE agents — like any law enforcement officer — put themselves in harms way. They deserve respect for that. I believe the majority do that every day, especially when they're going after the really bad guys.
But, not every ICE agent wants to get shot at by a felon. And even those that take those risks still have to meet quotas. If you have a finite amount of resources (vehicles, labor hours, etc.) and you can round up 20 unarmed illegals in a single afternoon working down at a local business, or try to set up a raid to capture 1 illegal who killed someone ... which is going to get you closer to your quota? And be easier?
That's the issue some people have with ICE's mindset. I don't think anyone wants felons — illegal or otherwise — running around their streets. But the resources don't always go to capturing those guys, it often gets chewed up rounding up the ones just here trying to work.
(07-06-2018, 07:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a pretty good take on the problem with ICE.
That was a "cut and paste". I usually post the link when I do this but I just forgot
(07-06-2018, 07:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what needs to be done is that we need to discuss what the alternatives would be. Just sticking with the "abolish ICE" message makes it seem like these people do not want immigration enforcement, when that isn't their intention at all. But the optics of it are terrible.
(07-06-2018, 12:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know about all the cities but most (including all in California) do cooperate with ICE when anyone has been convicted of a dangerous felony and even many violent misdemeanors like domestic violence.
And, what's up with forcing employers to "tip off" employees, 72 hrs in advance that the Federal inspectors are coming? If that isn't circumventing Federal Law, what is?
Recent legislation and even trade articles for employers seem to tell a different story about how "compliant" California is with Federal Immigration Laws.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
Yes I have. That is why I specificsally mentioned Californis. SB 54 requires the state to cooperate with Feds when dealing with dangerous felons and other immigrants convicted of violent misdemeanors like domestic assault.
Maybe you should check it out instead of just listening to the fear mongers.
(07-06-2018, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I have. That is why I specificsally mentioned Californis. SB 54 requires the state to cooperate with Feds when dealing with dangerous felons and other immigrants convicted of violent misdemeanors like domestic assault.
Maybe you should check it out instead of just listening to the fear mongers.
Are you sure? Seems to me that the major premise of SB 54 is to withhold cooperation with Federal Law Enforcement agencies.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-06-2018, 11:29 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And, what's up with forcing employers to "tip off" employees, 72 hrs in advance that the Federal inspectors are coming? If that isn't circumventing Federal Law, what is?
Like I said before. It is intended to protect working tax payers who contribute to the community.
Employers can still be fined if they are found to be knowingly employing undocumented immigrants and AB 450does not prevent ICE from examing employment records to verify this.
(07-06-2018, 11:43 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you sure? Seems to me that the major premise of SB 54 is to withhold cooperation with Federal Law Enforcement agencies.
Yes I am sure. It is right there in the link you provided.
The bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to notify ICE of the scheduled release of persons confined to state prisons for the conviction of a violent or serious felony.
This also applies to a list of violent misdemeanors like domestic violence.
(07-06-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well things could heat up here in Louisville tomorrow as the III%ers stage a counter protest. Here's to hoping all remains peaceful.
Agreed. I’ll have a family member there with the IIIers. Hopefully everyone will stay peaceful.
Quote:A reporter measured the sidewalk at various points from the property line to the curb outside the ICE office and found it to be a little more than 8 feet at its widest but narrower in other parts. All of the tents currently exceed the 4-foot limitation being imposed by the city.
Police spokeswoman Jessie Halladay said if Occupy ICE doesn't create the pathway by Sunday, the department will serve the group with a written notice. If they still don't comply, they will be taken to court.
Louisville officials note that Occupy ICE has not applied for a permit or identified a lead contact. Police say they asked the group to apply for a permit on Tuesday, but the group did not.
Additionally, police say since the protest began on Monday, the group was contacted "multiple times each day" by officers who attempted "to provide safety information and attempt to begin a dialogue about concerns for their safety and that of the public."
"Those attempts at two-way communication were unsuccessful," the city wrote.
Ibañez said the permit was presented as an option for the protest, but the group didn't pursue it because they didn't want the time to be limited and because "that's not how civil disobedience works."
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
