8 ms·

ICE is not a partisan organization, it's a government agency. If you pay taxes, you support ICE, and are their customer, period.

pm90 7y ago
> ICE is not a partisan organization, Only if you have your head deliberately under the sand in the face of all the reporting that has been done so far about wanton cruelty inflicted on human beings by this agency, including but not limited to: * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants If none of these policies affect you, yeah you can say "By the laws of the US, ICE is a non partisan branch of the Government". But the actions of the agency and its leadership have shown that its decidedly not so.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- olah_1 7y ago
  People that deliberately commit crimes typically suffer all of these things, yes. If you believe that illegally crossing a border is not a crime, then that's a different discussion that could be had.
  - detcader 7y ago
    If you disagree with the Constitution (Eighth Amendment), I would lead with that caveat.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    People who deliberately commit crimes typically suffer risk of being deported when they committed no crime because of racial profiling?
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    The people who crossed the border seeking asylum are not committing a crime (seeking asylum is not illegal unless you stay in the country after being denied at a hearing), and even the people who are crossing illegally are committing a misdemeanor. Do you also support such conditions for people who get parking tickets?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - killface 7y ago
    It's a misdemeanor -- on the same level as jaywalking. and for that, they get executed, their children get raped and sold into slavery, and their women simply disappear. but sure, it's about punishing criminals :eyeroll:
    - thrower123 7y ago
      Are you talking about today, or the way Caesar treated the Helvetii?
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    It's so historically interesting to see people repeat the sins of their forefathers by carrying water for fascists. You people absolutely trip over yourselves to punish the Other. > If you believe that illegally crossing a border is not a crime This is the first step for refugee seekers. It's not a crime, it's an imaginary line in the sand, and, if you actually cared so much for the sanctity of these imaginary lines, you'd sooner be seeking to decolonize to atone for the genocide and plunder of our settler ancestors. But, hey, that'd be a consistent position, and we can't have that getting in the way of hoarding our stolen wealth.
- btgeekboy 7y ago
  The agency will live on past the current administration. The main function of ICE is needed. The policies imposed upon them from above are the root of the problem and need to be removed. But they will be gone in time, hopefully sooner rather than later.
  - kick 7y ago
    ICE didn't exist until 2003, and isn't necessarily needed.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Sort of. The organization ICE didn't exist. The functions of ICE were executed by other organizations in the government and (correct me if I'm wrong) no additional responsibilities were really added to ICE whole-cloth; it's more of a post-9/11 consolidation of resources. Abolishing ICE without considering the need for those responsibilities and what org, if any, should take them on is certainly risky. But technically, yes, we could abolish ICE and route things ICE does (immigration management, customs enforcement, non-military border security) to other executive departments (not necessarily back to their originating department, since instituting ICE also abolished some of its predecessor departments).
    - hollerith 7y ago
      The US has had Border Patrol agents for 100 years. From 1920-1940 they were organized under the Department of Labor; from 1949 to 2003, the Department of Justice; since 2003, Homeland Security.
      - kick 7y ago
        ICE isn't border patrol; they don't patrol American borders. That's CBP, which is a separate wing of the DHS, and focuses on an entirely different area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
- maximente 7y ago
  you are making a convincing argument that the organization is extreme, but you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not it is partisan. to do so you'd need to compare and contrast its behavior across administrations under different political parties. as one data point, roughly same # of people were deported under bush/obama (the definitions changed, so not quite apples to apples data wise).
- MattP86 7y ago
  * also separation of children from smugglers. Stoping human trafficking is primary role of ICE.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Important to note that there are different divisions of ICE. The division that tackles International crime (HSI) is different from the one that subjects immigrants to cruelty (ERO). https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeking-split-from-ice-agents-say-trumps-immigration-crackdown-hurts-investigations-morale/2018/06/28/7bb6995e-7ada-11e8-8df3-007495a78738_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeki...
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  > * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants You've proven beyond all doubt that these actions are indeed partisan. Hence, we ought to resist the party that revved this into high gear - the one led by the deporter in chief [1]!! Resist! [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office-as-deporter-in-chief https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office...
- CorruptedArc 7y ago
  It truly isn't a partisan organization. The Dems buried their heads when this happened under President "Deporter & Chief" Obama. People are pretending this issue is new because they didn't take the time to learn about it years ago. Some media reported on it under Obama, but few took the time until they were looking for ammunition against Trump.
  - pm90 7y ago
    No, don't do this both sidesim over here. Obama prioritized deportation of those with criminal backgrounds. He created the DREAM program to help the millions of immigrants who spent most of their life in the US. Its not the same.
    - CorruptedArc 7y ago
      The DREAM act has been around since 2001 and at its peak never even had even a million members throughout its existence. Illegals with a criminal background have always been preferred for deportation in the US. But my question how is which ICE is a government entity partisan for following the immigration edicts of the current administration? Also looks like Both Sideism can go into the large book of unnecessary and arbitrary -ism words people have come up with during this presidency.
      - pm90 7y ago
        The act was never passed into law whereas Obama gave actual legal status to Dreamers and attempted to do the same for their parents too.
geofft 7y ago
Whether government agencies do their work effectively is absolutely a partisan matter. Remember the founding of CFPB? Remember Rick Perry campaigning on getting rid of the Department of Energy? Remember the per-party vote on the act that created DHS? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml I mean, yes, ICE is a government agency, but it's political parties that decide which government agencies exist and what they do.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
Whether it’s the by-the-book definition of partisan, it is still reasonable for people to have strong moral or ethical objections to working for this client.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  But not to receiving their services, apparently.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    I can’t pick and choose where my taxes go any more than I can pick and choose which constitutional amendments I want to see enforced. I can’t stop a war but I can choose not to work for military contractors.
    - joyeuse6701 7y ago
      Yes you can. You may give up your citizenship in exchange for another.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Without rabbit-holing too far on this, I'd note that the people in concentration camps at the border were trying to do that. May not be as simple as you seem to be asserting.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    There are quite a few Americans who would prefer to receive no services from ICE. "Abolish ICE" is a concept that has even started to gather steam in Congress itself.
  - geofft 7y ago
    According to the Washington Times (a right-wing news organization), 49% of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from FAIR (a right-wing pro-ICE advocacy group). https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/half-of-americans-now-live-in-sanctuaries/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/half-of-ame... I think that makes it clear that a sizable number of Americans are opposed to receiving ICE's services, only receive them because there isn't actually a way to opt out of them, and are doing the next closest thing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hnruss 7y ago
If you pay taxes, you "support" the entire government. That doesn't mean that you are in favor of all of the things that it is doing. If you pay taxes, you are a citizen, not a "customer". These things are not the same.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  This is key. Modeling citizens as customers of government leads to all sorts of bad conclusions (including that government can choose to refuse service; there's a reason most of the developed world has no legal concept equivalent to the ancient "writ of Outlawry.").
- sneak 7y ago
  Taxes are not voluntary. I pay taxes for the sole reason that I do not support armed men coming to my house to jail me for not paying taxes. They are paid under duress. I do not consent.
  - undersuit 7y ago
    No. You entered into an agreement with your employer and the US government when you were hired. You gave them permission by consenting to work within the system and you probably filled out some sort of form with a W in front of it. You may work outside of the system.
    - sneak 7y ago
      I made no such agreement with the government. You are manufacturing consent where none exists. The sole reason I pay is because of the threat of force, the promise of a gun to my head if I do not. There is no consent.
      - Rebelgecko 7y ago
        Who will put a gun to your head if you stop working in the US?

pm90 7y ago

> ICE is not a partisan organization, Only if you have your head deliberately under the sand in the face of all the reporting that has been done so far about wanton cruelty inflicted on human beings by this agency, including but not limited to: * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants If none of these policies affect you, yeah you can say "By the laws of the US, ICE is a non partisan branch of the Government". But the actions of the agency and its leadership have shown that its decidedly not so.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
olah_1 7y ago
People that deliberately commit crimes typically suffer all of these things, yes. If you believe that illegally crossing a border is not a crime, then that's a different discussion that could be had.
- detcader 7y ago
  If you disagree with the Constitution (Eighth Amendment), I would lead with that caveat.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  People who deliberately commit crimes typically suffer risk of being deported when they committed no crime because of racial profiling?
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  The people who crossed the border seeking asylum are not committing a crime (seeking asylum is not illegal unless you stay in the country after being denied at a hearing), and even the people who are crossing illegally are committing a misdemeanor. Do you also support such conditions for people who get parking tickets?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- killface 7y ago
  It's a misdemeanor -- on the same level as jaywalking. and for that, they get executed, their children get raped and sold into slavery, and their women simply disappear. but sure, it's about punishing criminals :eyeroll:
  - thrower123 7y ago
    Are you talking about today, or the way Caesar treated the Helvetii?
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  It's so historically interesting to see people repeat the sins of their forefathers by carrying water for fascists. You people absolutely trip over yourselves to punish the Other. > If you believe that illegally crossing a border is not a crime This is the first step for refugee seekers. It's not a crime, it's an imaginary line in the sand, and, if you actually cared so much for the sanctity of these imaginary lines, you'd sooner be seeking to decolonize to atone for the genocide and plunder of our settler ancestors. But, hey, that'd be a consistent position, and we can't have that getting in the way of hoarding our stolen wealth.
btgeekboy 7y ago
The agency will live on past the current administration. The main function of ICE is needed. The policies imposed upon them from above are the root of the problem and need to be removed. But they will be gone in time, hopefully sooner rather than later.
- kick 7y ago
  ICE didn't exist until 2003, and isn't necessarily needed.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Sort of. The organization ICE didn't exist. The functions of ICE were executed by other organizations in the government and (correct me if I'm wrong) no additional responsibilities were really added to ICE whole-cloth; it's more of a post-9/11 consolidation of resources. Abolishing ICE without considering the need for those responsibilities and what org, if any, should take them on is certainly risky. But technically, yes, we could abolish ICE and route things ICE does (immigration management, customs enforcement, non-military border security) to other executive departments (not necessarily back to their originating department, since instituting ICE also abolished some of its predecessor departments).
  - hollerith 7y ago
    The US has had Border Patrol agents for 100 years. From 1920-1940 they were organized under the Department of Labor; from 1949 to 2003, the Department of Justice; since 2003, Homeland Security.
    - kick 7y ago
      ICE isn't border patrol; they don't patrol American borders. That's CBP, which is a separate wing of the DHS, and focuses on an entirely different area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
maximente 7y ago
you are making a convincing argument that the organization is extreme, but you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not it is partisan. to do so you'd need to compare and contrast its behavior across administrations under different political parties. as one data point, roughly same # of people were deported under bush/obama (the definitions changed, so not quite apples to apples data wise).
MattP86 7y ago
* also separation of children from smugglers. Stoping human trafficking is primary role of ICE.
- pm90 7y ago
  Important to note that there are different divisions of ICE. The division that tackles International crime (HSI) is different from the one that subjects immigrants to cruelty (ERO). https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeking-split-from-ice-agents-say-trumps-immigration-crackdown-hurts-investigations-morale/2018/06/28/7bb6995e-7ada-11e8-8df3-007495a78738_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeki...
throwGuardian 7y ago
> * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants You've proven beyond all doubt that these actions are indeed partisan. Hence, we ought to resist the party that revved this into high gear - the one led by the deporter in chief [1]!! Resist! [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office-as-deporter-in-chief https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office...
CorruptedArc 7y ago
It truly isn't a partisan organization. The Dems buried their heads when this happened under President "Deporter & Chief" Obama. People are pretending this issue is new because they didn't take the time to learn about it years ago. Some media reported on it under Obama, but few took the time until they were looking for ammunition against Trump.
- pm90 7y ago
  No, don't do this both sidesim over here. Obama prioritized deportation of those with criminal backgrounds. He created the DREAM program to help the millions of immigrants who spent most of their life in the US. Its not the same.
  - CorruptedArc 7y ago
    The DREAM act has been around since 2001 and at its peak never even had even a million members throughout its existence. Illegals with a criminal background have always been preferred for deportation in the US. But my question how is which ICE is a government entity partisan for following the immigration edicts of the current administration? Also looks like Both Sideism can go into the large book of unnecessary and arbitrary -ism words people have come up with during this presidency.
    - pm90 7y ago
      The act was never passed into law whereas Obama gave actual legal status to Dreamers and attempted to do the same for their parents too.

geofft 7y ago

Whether government agencies do their work effectively is absolutely a partisan matter. Remember the founding of CFPB? Remember Rick Perry campaigning on getting rid of the Department of Energy? Remember the per-party vote on the act that created DHS? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml I mean, yes, ICE is a government agency, but it's political parties that decide which government agencies exist and what they do.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

Whether it’s the by-the-book definition of partisan, it is still reasonable for people to have strong moral or ethical objections to working for this client.

creaghpatr 7y ago
But not to receiving their services, apparently.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  I can’t pick and choose where my taxes go any more than I can pick and choose which constitutional amendments I want to see enforced. I can’t stop a war but I can choose not to work for military contractors.
  - joyeuse6701 7y ago
    Yes you can. You may give up your citizenship in exchange for another.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Without rabbit-holing too far on this, I'd note that the people in concentration camps at the border were trying to do that. May not be as simple as you seem to be asserting.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  There are quite a few Americans who would prefer to receive no services from ICE. "Abolish ICE" is a concept that has even started to gather steam in Congress itself.
- geofft 7y ago
  According to the Washington Times (a right-wing news organization), 49% of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from FAIR (a right-wing pro-ICE advocacy group). https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/half-of-americans-now-live-in-sanctuaries/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/half-of-ame... I think that makes it clear that a sizable number of Americans are opposed to receiving ICE's services, only receive them because there isn't actually a way to opt out of them, and are doing the next closest thing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hnruss 7y ago

If you pay taxes, you "support" the entire government. That doesn't mean that you are in favor of all of the things that it is doing. If you pay taxes, you are a citizen, not a "customer". These things are not the same.

shadowgovt 7y ago
This is key. Modeling citizens as customers of government leads to all sorts of bad conclusions (including that government can choose to refuse service; there's a reason most of the developed world has no legal concept equivalent to the ancient "writ of Outlawry.").
sneak 7y ago
Taxes are not voluntary. I pay taxes for the sole reason that I do not support armed men coming to my house to jail me for not paying taxes. They are paid under duress. I do not consent.
- undersuit 7y ago
  No. You entered into an agreement with your employer and the US government when you were hired. You gave them permission by consenting to work within the system and you probably filled out some sort of form with a W in front of it. You may work outside of the system.
  - sneak 7y ago
    I made no such agreement with the government. You are manufacturing consent where none exists. The sole reason I pay is because of the threat of force, the promise of a gun to my head if I do not. There is no consent.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      Who will put a gun to your head if you stop working in the US?