▲ 297 ▼ Join the resistance (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 month ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml 158 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] iceonfire1@lemmy.world -7 points 1 month ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) I don't follow this stance when looking at the image. I believe the image is saying the democrats supported ICE until 2017 through 2020, when trump was in office. Come 2021 and the democrats are back in office, they continue to fund it. During the second trump administration, they are back to denouncing ICE. I think funding is used here in the context of what the democrats were calling for during the first trump admin. For example in 2018: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394978-warren-its-time-to-replace-ice/ Focusing on a wider range of candidates: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/some-democrats-with-eye-on-2020-abolish-ice/ However, by 2020 the views had shifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/abolish-ice/ And after the election abolishing ICE was no longer a priority. Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude? Even if I imagine myself as someone who thinks reform is possible, I can't understand how the view isn't that by maintaining the status quo the dems have exercised terrible negligence. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iceonfire1@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude? Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes. But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse? It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 3 points 1 month ago I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".) Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE. It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. I don't disagree. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) I don't follow this stance when looking at the image. I believe the image is saying the democrats supported ICE until 2017 through 2020, when trump was in office. Come 2021 and the democrats are back in office, they continue to fund it. During the second trump administration, they are back to denouncing ICE. I think funding is used here in the context of what the democrats were calling for during the first trump admin. For example in 2018: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394978-warren-its-time-to-replace-ice/ Focusing on a wider range of candidates: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/some-democrats-with-eye-on-2020-abolish-ice/ However, by 2020 the views had shifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/abolish-ice/ And after the election abolishing ICE was no longer a priority. Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude? Even if I imagine myself as someone who thinks reform is possible, I can't understand how the view isn't that by maintaining the status quo the dems have exercised terrible negligence. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iceonfire1@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude? Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes. But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse? It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 3 points 1 month ago I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".) Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE. It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. I don't disagree. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iceonfire1@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 child) Do you think what ICE is doing now is a fundamental shift from caused the initial outrage during the last admin, rather than just a jump in magnitude? Certainly ICE has shifted from its typical operation in previous administrations. The asylum policy was overhauled. Thousands more ICE agents were hired to conduct militarized raids with little to no oversight. The degree of evidence required for deportation has been lowered. Judicial review has been curtailed and ignored. These are significant changes. But the point I make is that the image presents a false premise. Democrats and Republicans agree that illegal immigration should be prevented. ICE is the agency tasked with this by each administration and it makes sense that it would be funded. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. If the behavior of the first admin was so abhorrent, wouldn't it be critical to ensure a future government couldn't as easily do the same or worse? It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 3 points 1 month ago I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".) Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE. It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. I don't disagree. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 3 points 1 month ago I think the false presence you are mentioning requires that readers agree that the dems were right to walk back criticism of ICE between 2018 and 2020, and that ICE as it exists from 2024-2026 deserves it this time. I'm going to assume the author does not agree with that viewpoint. Feel free to verify this against the Democratic party platform by year. It was my understanding that there is no overall platform, but each candidate has their own platform, i.e. let's say there are 5 different dem candidates (not for the same office), they will each have their own platform which is generally expected to be in line with the leadership. Unlike in other systems, if a person wants to be associated with a party, they are expected to follow the party platform or they will be kicked out. (If they are elected they keep their position, but they are "independent".) Is that incorrect? If not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the presidential platform. I know Biden didn't support defunding ICE. It's not so easy to prevent a future government from doing something. Even constitutional change, which is usually a very high bar, can be overruled by a judge or ignored if people allow it. I don't disagree. Maybe the best protection is an informed, active public like in France? Not really sure -- what do you think? I'm not sure what the protection you are referring to is. permalink fedilink source parent
