3 ms·

Each agency obviously has a fixed annual budget. It cannot be exceeded until the following year except by some limited reshuffling of funds. I am not saying th

Each agency obviously has a fixed annual budget. It cannot be exceeded until the following year except by some limited reshuffling of funds. I am not saying that it's ideal for ICE to go bankrupt, only that it is important for it to have better intel and always respect human rights, failing which America stands much to lose.

kragen 1y ago
No, it is not correct that each agency has a fixed annual budget. If the head of ICE were to write a letter to Congress saying that they would have to close all the border checkpoints and lay off all the agents next month because they were out of money, Congress would have the option of appropriating additional funds from the Treasury, a so-called "supplemental appropriations bill", a process which in the US they use regularly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_States)#Supplemental_appropriations_bills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_St... and in particular this happened four times in "fiscal year 2024": https://www.govinfo.gov/features/federal-appropriations-fiscal-year-2024 https://www.govinfo.gov/features/federal-appropriations-fisc... This is an option they would almost certainly take, in preference to leaving the borders unguarded. The Federal Tort Claims Act governs the process: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45732 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45732 I agree that ICE needs to start respecting human rights, but giving it better intel runs counter to that purpose, and getting damages judgments in courts will probably not affect it one way or the other.