Everyone realizes that ICE during democratic administrations are performing the normal functions of border security, which we must have in this country, but during Republican administrations they basically become an authoritarian purging tool.
ICE is not responsible for border security you imbecile. They are an internal immigration agency, border “security” is handled by various other goons of the state. So specifically what part of ICE do you find necessary?
While I am aware ICE does not do anything related to border security and I’d like to live to see a world without borders, in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations. Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations.
We’re not talking about a socialist nation. We’re talking about the present day US.
Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Other than “weird religious groups,” all of that would be much easier to control with mostly open borders. When you have desperate people crossing the border, completely outside the system, then it’s much easier to hide contraband in that mass of people. Making immigration a formality doesn’t mean getting rid of basic customs checks entirely.
As for weird religious groups, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. The US is full of some of the weirdest religious groups in the world. I’m not sure there’s any religious group out there that’s weirder or more dangerous than the Christian nationalists we already have.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
I’m not talking about completely abolishing borders overnight. I’m talking about removing, for lack of a better word, the political component of borders. If people could freely cross borders with only a simple check to see if they’re carrying anything illegal, then borders have begun to “wither away.” Yes, they still exist, but only as a simple administrative function.
Wall of text elaborating on what I mean:
Let’s imagine a future that’s well on it’s way to communism, where borders still exist but have become nothing more than checkpoints for invasive species, a world where people grow up with them not meaning anything more than that. Perhaps those people would notice that natural habitats don’t map cleanly to borders, that it doesn’t make sense to have a checkpoints between two countries with shared habitats, or to not have checkpoints between different habitats in the same country. So, they simply decide to redraw borders around natural habitats, since the only function of the borders is to check for invasive species. In that world, where an inconceivable decision can be made so casually, we can say that borders, as we understand them, have ceased to exist. Yes, there are still lines on maps and checkpoints and searches, but they’re an entirely different thing from what we call borders today, so much so that we can reasonably say that borders have been abolished.
And perhaps their children will find that education about invasive species has improved to the point that the checkpoints never find anything anyway and are no longer necessary, perhaps they will reorganize the administration of natural habitats to remove these hard lines entirely, seeing as nature doesn’t follow hard lines, and regarding them as outdated.
It’s the same way, I find it hard to imagine how a world could function without some form of money. Certainly, if we tried to do it overnight, by decree, it wouldn’t work. But, if say housing was provided by the state, then people would be less desperate for money because they’re no longer scrambling to make rent. Someone who decides to stay in a relationship because renting on their own would be too expensive, would be free to decide such things based on how they really feel. In turn, perhaps someone decides that working out and staying fit will be a better way to appeal to a partner than making money, and so their drive for money decreases. An artist, who might otherwise take whatever commission they can find because they need to pay rent, might be more selective and exercise more creative control over their work. Etc.
We could imagine a world where all of the basic necessities of life are provided for without money, but money is still used for collectables and rare items. Like in Star Trek, there are some people who care a lot about “gold pressed latinum,” but there are others who don’t care about it at all. While currency exists, collecting it has become little more than a hobby, and it’s not someone anything needs. You could reasonably say that money, as we understand it today, has been abolished in Star Trek.
I think you might have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to run defence or even really discussing US border fascism. The other users post and your response just made me think about how stuff like that would work in a socialist world, which is why I put that at the top. Its the framing for the rest of the question.
Open borders, essentially. Massive reforms to streamline the immigration process to make it a formality so that people don’t have a reason to immigrate illegally, and treat it as a paperwork violation if they do, since that’s what it is.
Completely dismantle immigration courts which are kangaroo courts where young children have to defend themselves against threat of deportation with no right to an attorney. Full due process for immigrants.
If an immigrant commits a crime, deal with it the same way as anybody else committing a crime.
So again, why is ICE or anything like it remotely a “must have?”
Let’s say this happens and a large amount of people come into the country in a short period of time. They can move anywhere they want and many of them move into your neighborhood and now they make up the majority of your town’s population. They don’t share your values, they’re a different class than you, and they feel the town should adapt to their way of life. The character of your town completely changes.
What do these things you’re saying actually mean? How the hell are other proles a “different class” than me? What in the vagueposting about values, Great Replacement fuck are you actually talking about? What is the concrete concern here?
Taco trucks on every corner! The horror! What will happen to our sophisticated culture and way of life?! What will happen to:
Speaking as a leftist who was born and raised in the Bible Belt, it’s bold of you to assume that I shared the values of my town or neighborhood in the first place.
More seriously, cultural diversity is a strength in a similar way biodiversity is. Bringing together the knowledge, experiences and perspectives from across the world is an asset that will only help us to make wiser, more informed decisions that account for factors that one culture might have as a blind spot.
Furthermore, accepting and respecting immigrants will help build a sense of solidarity. Even if they don’t value inclusivity, welcoming and including them is the first step towards showing them the benefits of such values.
Also, your argument is literally the exact argument used for redlining, when PoC were segregated from white neighborhoods. “What if a black person moved next door to you? What if a whole bunch of black people move in? There goes the neighborhood!” It was racist bullshit then and it’s racist bullshit now, but it also illustrates another point, which is that there are already many different cultures within the US that are free to move wherever they please already. For example, I was born and raised in the South, but I moved to a different region with a different culture and different values. The only difference between me and an immigrant is that one of us crossed an imaginary line called a state line and the other crossed an imaginary line called a national border.
I hate to post greentext, but immigration is an issue where you can literally just do this:
Because you’re a real free thinker with such novel concepts as “guys we have to vote for genocide, its the most important election of our lifetime! Incrementalism is this cool new thing I just invented, the system will let us reform it and all we have to do is give more power to fascists!”
If I was interested in “parroting the views of others” I’d still be in the South and I’d be a conservative just like my parents, religious leaders, and (many of) my teachers were.
What I said is my genuine opinion and the result of critical, independent thought. If I happen to agree with the arguments some people make, it’s coincidental.
Frankly, I doubt many people on the anti-immigration side could say the same thing. They freak out over it because the TV tells them to, even though it doesn’t actually affect them at all.
Most if not All of our law enforcement agencies are completely out of control. Under both republicans and Dems. Laws are not followed. Remediation by the courts is not a given. Under this system its not reasonable to say, "we must have border security forces". Its like saying we must have drug sniffing dogs in a world where every dog has gone rabid. Sure they will bite and kill, but we must have that function they used to do. No. Just no. Plenty of other countries make this an administrative process, and even now ICE is rounding up people on civil charges, immigation violation is not a criminal charge and never has been.
They’ve never performed the “normal functions” of border security. They’ve always pretty openly been racists who kidnap, torture, and deport people that they don’t like. We don’t need that at all.
Help me see the line between “normal” and authoritarian.
This article comparing obama to the first trump presidency calls out that trump did not prioritize the enforcement goals he put forth. Obama did prioritize them, but included a blanket priority to remove anyone who entered illegally after 2014. I don’t see how the distinction between targeting individuals convinced or charged/suspected of criminal activity has any meaning if the obama priorities include blanket removal of people who entered after 2014.
My perspective is that the distinctions only have meaning to those who prioritize the appearance of respectability, or those seeking to minimize disruption to sectors of the US economy that rely heavily on the ability of capitalists to exploit the uncertain status of undocumented individuals.
Perhaps that is where the line sits for those who feel that the dems being on board with ICE during obama but opposing it during trump was reasonable and consistent.
This article compares Biden and the second trump admin. (It’s got a different take than the first but I’ll be honest I just googled comparisons of the two admins and assumed the facts would be accurate and that I didn’t need to read into their analysis, if you disagree with the facts I’m happy to listen).
If we carry forward the idea that it is just to prioritize the arrest of undocumented individuals with arrests and convictions, the percentage of annual ICE arrests that were of people with arrests or convictions were:
2022 (biden): 32.5%
2023 (biden): 43.3%
2024 (trump): 71.7%
Yes, there has been a significant increase in deaths in ICE custody since 2024. I have not found annual stats for deaths involving border enforcement, so I don’t know that a meaningful comparison can be made about the use of force overall. And yes, trump is deporting people to countries where they have no status. Biden did that too, however, by extending the trump initiated title 42 expulsion where people are expelled to their country of last transit. I guess the question is, do people feel that if there are a larger number of individuals with criminal charges or convictions deported, do they feel the increase in deaths at the hands of the enforcers are justified? How many deaths, injuries or use of force or detention are justified in boarder enforcement?
Finally, yes, trump is using the deployment of ICE as a threat against people in cities he considers his enemies. I don’t understand why this, in particular, is causing uproar. Not because I agree with it, but because I think there are so many different reasons it could upset people and I want to understand which ones are upsetting whom and why. For example it could be that:
it shatters the illusion of immigration enforcement as the good guys.
it forces those who oppose ICE in general to take a stand or appear hypocritical, potentially overwhelming existing support networks and leaving people scrambling and exhausted.
it is an implied threat against those with status (as bystanders or suspects themselves) with the implication that having status should be protection from state use of force.
it implies that more ‘good’ individuals who are without legal status will be removed
I’m sure I’m missing some.
To be clear, I’m not seeking to agree with people on their stance or cause them to agree with mine. This is why I have avoided giving my opinion on the topic of ICE overall. I just don’t understand what people see when they say this time is so much different than the last.
It’s clear the bar for the activities of ICE (and CBP) being acceptable is very different for different people and I wonder if that’s the key to the disagreement on if the meme is “fair”.
it shatters the illusion of immigration enforcement as the good guys.
I think you hit the crux of the matter with this one. Liberals need to believe they and the state they uphold are the good guys and Trump just makes it too damn hard for them.
Everyone realizes that ICE during democratic administrations are performing the normal functions of border security, which we must have in this country, but during Republican administrations they basically become an authoritarian purging tool.
ICE is not responsible for border security you imbecile. They are an internal immigration agency, border “security” is handled by various other goons of the state. So specifically what part of ICE do you find necessary?
I was wrong. I was too focused on seeing ICE so many times in the image.
Thank you for admitting fault. Sorry for insulting you. Why was your reflex at seeing critique of democrats to run defense for ICE?
Lmao, what? Why?
While I am aware ICE does not do anything related to border security and I’d like to live to see a world without borders, in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations. Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
We’re not talking about a socialist nation. We’re talking about the present day US.
Other than “weird religious groups,” all of that would be much easier to control with mostly open borders. When you have desperate people crossing the border, completely outside the system, then it’s much easier to hide contraband in that mass of people. Making immigration a formality doesn’t mean getting rid of basic customs checks entirely.
As for weird religious groups, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. The US is full of some of the weirdest religious groups in the world. I’m not sure there’s any religious group out there that’s weirder or more dangerous than the Christian nationalists we already have.
I’m not talking about completely abolishing borders overnight. I’m talking about removing, for lack of a better word, the political component of borders. If people could freely cross borders with only a simple check to see if they’re carrying anything illegal, then borders have begun to “wither away.” Yes, they still exist, but only as a simple administrative function.
Wall of text elaborating on what I mean:
Let’s imagine a future that’s well on it’s way to communism, where borders still exist but have become nothing more than checkpoints for invasive species, a world where people grow up with them not meaning anything more than that. Perhaps those people would notice that natural habitats don’t map cleanly to borders, that it doesn’t make sense to have a checkpoints between two countries with shared habitats, or to not have checkpoints between different habitats in the same country. So, they simply decide to redraw borders around natural habitats, since the only function of the borders is to check for invasive species. In that world, where an inconceivable decision can be made so casually, we can say that borders, as we understand them, have ceased to exist. Yes, there are still lines on maps and checkpoints and searches, but they’re an entirely different thing from what we call borders today, so much so that we can reasonably say that borders have been abolished.
And perhaps their children will find that education about invasive species has improved to the point that the checkpoints never find anything anyway and are no longer necessary, perhaps they will reorganize the administration of natural habitats to remove these hard lines entirely, seeing as nature doesn’t follow hard lines, and regarding them as outdated.
It’s the same way, I find it hard to imagine how a world could function without some form of money. Certainly, if we tried to do it overnight, by decree, it wouldn’t work. But, if say housing was provided by the state, then people would be less desperate for money because they’re no longer scrambling to make rent. Someone who decides to stay in a relationship because renting on their own would be too expensive, would be free to decide such things based on how they really feel. In turn, perhaps someone decides that working out and staying fit will be a better way to appeal to a partner than making money, and so their drive for money decreases. An artist, who might otherwise take whatever commission they can find because they need to pay rent, might be more selective and exercise more creative control over their work. Etc.
We could imagine a world where all of the basic necessities of life are provided for without money, but money is still used for collectables and rare items. Like in Star Trek, there are some people who care a lot about “gold pressed latinum,” but there are others who don’t care about it at all. While currency exists, collecting it has become little more than a hobby, and it’s not someone anything needs. You could reasonably say that money, as we understand it today, has been abolished in Star Trek.
I think you might have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to run defence or even really discussing US border fascism. The other users post and your response just made me think about how stuff like that would work in a socialist world, which is why I put that at the top. Its the framing for the rest of the question.
What would you like the border to be managed?
Open borders, essentially. Massive reforms to streamline the immigration process to make it a formality so that people don’t have a reason to immigrate illegally, and treat it as a paperwork violation if they do, since that’s what it is.
Completely dismantle immigration courts which are kangaroo courts where young children have to defend themselves against threat of deportation with no right to an attorney. Full due process for immigrants.
If an immigrant commits a crime, deal with it the same way as anybody else committing a crime.
So again, why is ICE or anything like it remotely a “must have?”
Let’s say this happens and a large amount of people come into the country in a short period of time. They can move anywhere they want and many of them move into your neighborhood and now they make up the majority of your town’s population. They don’t share your values, they’re a different class than you, and they feel the town should adapt to their way of life. The character of your town completely changes.
You’re okay with that?
What do these things you’re saying actually mean? How the hell are other proles a “different class” than me? What in the vagueposting about values, Great Replacement fuck are you actually talking about? What is the concrete concern here?
Taco trucks on every corner! The horror! What will happen to our sophisticated culture and way of life?! What will happen to:
Speaking as a leftist who was born and raised in the Bible Belt, it’s bold of you to assume that I shared the values of my town or neighborhood in the first place.
More seriously, cultural diversity is a strength in a similar way biodiversity is. Bringing together the knowledge, experiences and perspectives from across the world is an asset that will only help us to make wiser, more informed decisions that account for factors that one culture might have as a blind spot.
Furthermore, accepting and respecting immigrants will help build a sense of solidarity. Even if they don’t value inclusivity, welcoming and including them is the first step towards showing them the benefits of such values.
Also, your argument is literally the exact argument used for redlining, when PoC were segregated from white neighborhoods. “What if a black person moved next door to you? What if a whole bunch of black people move in? There goes the neighborhood!” It was racist bullshit then and it’s racist bullshit now, but it also illustrates another point, which is that there are already many different cultures within the US that are free to move wherever they please already. For example, I was born and raised in the South, but I moved to a different region with a different culture and different values. The only difference between me and an immigrant is that one of us crossed an imaginary line called a state line and the other crossed an imaginary line called a national border.
I hate to post greentext, but immigration is an issue where you can literally just do this:
It’s hard not to read your response as a parroting of the views of others.
Because you’re a real free thinker with such novel concepts as “guys we have to vote for genocide, its the most important election of our lifetime! Incrementalism is this cool new thing I just invented, the system will let us reform it and all we have to do is give more power to fascists!”
Right back at you.
If I was interested in “parroting the views of others” I’d still be in the South and I’d be a conservative just like my parents, religious leaders, and (many of) my teachers were.
What I said is my genuine opinion and the result of critical, independent thought. If I happen to agree with the arguments some people make, it’s coincidental.
Frankly, I doubt many people on the anti-immigration side could say the same thing. They freak out over it because the TV tells them to, even though it doesn’t actually affect them at all.
Most if not All of our law enforcement agencies are completely out of control. Under both republicans and Dems. Laws are not followed. Remediation by the courts is not a given. Under this system its not reasonable to say, "we must have border security forces". Its like saying we must have drug sniffing dogs in a world where every dog has gone rabid. Sure they will bite and kill, but we must have that function they used to do. No. Just no. Plenty of other countries make this an administrative process, and even now ICE is rounding up people on civil charges, immigation violation is not a criminal charge and never has been.
No and no
They’ve never performed the “normal functions” of border security. They’ve always pretty openly been racists who kidnap, torture, and deport people that they don’t like. We don’t need that at all.
Help me see the line between “normal” and authoritarian.
This article comparing obama to the first trump presidency calls out that trump did not prioritize the enforcement goals he put forth. Obama did prioritize them, but included a blanket priority to remove anyone who entered illegally after 2014. I don’t see how the distinction between targeting individuals convinced or charged/suspected of criminal activity has any meaning if the obama priorities include blanket removal of people who entered after 2014.
My perspective is that the distinctions only have meaning to those who prioritize the appearance of respectability, or those seeking to minimize disruption to sectors of the US economy that rely heavily on the ability of capitalists to exploit the uncertain status of undocumented individuals.
Perhaps that is where the line sits for those who feel that the dems being on board with ICE during obama but opposing it during trump was reasonable and consistent.
This article compares Biden and the second trump admin. (It’s got a different take than the first but I’ll be honest I just googled comparisons of the two admins and assumed the facts would be accurate and that I didn’t need to read into their analysis, if you disagree with the facts I’m happy to listen).
If we carry forward the idea that it is just to prioritize the arrest of undocumented individuals with arrests and convictions, the percentage of annual ICE arrests that were of people with arrests or convictions were:
Yes, there has been a significant increase in deaths in ICE custody since 2024. I have not found annual stats for deaths involving border enforcement, so I don’t know that a meaningful comparison can be made about the use of force overall. And yes, trump is deporting people to countries where they have no status. Biden did that too, however, by extending the trump initiated title 42 expulsion where people are expelled to their country of last transit. I guess the question is, do people feel that if there are a larger number of individuals with criminal charges or convictions deported, do they feel the increase in deaths at the hands of the enforcers are justified? How many deaths, injuries or use of force or detention are justified in boarder enforcement?
Finally, yes, trump is using the deployment of ICE as a threat against people in cities he considers his enemies. I don’t understand why this, in particular, is causing uproar. Not because I agree with it, but because I think there are so many different reasons it could upset people and I want to understand which ones are upsetting whom and why. For example it could be that:
I’m sure I’m missing some.
To be clear, I’m not seeking to agree with people on their stance or cause them to agree with mine. This is why I have avoided giving my opinion on the topic of ICE overall. I just don’t understand what people see when they say this time is so much different than the last.
It’s clear the bar for the activities of ICE (and CBP) being acceptable is very different for different people and I wonder if that’s the key to the disagreement on if the meme is “fair”.
I think you hit the crux of the matter with this one. Liberals need to believe they and the state they uphold are the good guys and Trump just makes it too damn hard for them.
ICE didn’t exist until 9/11 because they’re functions were served by other agencies. It’s always been a grift.
So there was no border control in Murica before 2003?
Are you being ironic or