[peab]

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

[fzeroracer]

ICE as an agency was created in 2003. Most of the posters here are older than it by a significant factor. We can live without it and create another agency to enforce immigration laws that isn't thoroughly rotted and filled with criminals.

[rmah]

Yes, but it's essentially just a re-branded INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were conducting raids to catch undocumented immigrants (often at workplaces) for as long as I can remember (i.e. back into the early 1980's). IIRC, spanish speakers called them "la migra".

[cdrnsf]

You can enforce immigration laws without shooting people in the face, ramming into their vehicles, ripping them out and putting them in illegal chokeholds, shipping them to prisons in El Salvador, firing tear gas at legal observers and on and on.

It also wasn't an agency prior to 9/11. It should be dissolved. All ERO agents should be prosecuted and or barred from all future public service.

[peab]

Oh interesting, i didn't know it was a post 9/11 agency.

[cdrnsf]

It was born out of INS but it and DHS have its roots in the security apparatus that developed thereafter. It's become progressively worse leading up to the weaponization we're seeing now.

[vel0city]

> Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

I don't think there are many developed countries where their immigration officers are routinely tear gassing students and bystanders, no. I don't think there are many developed countries where their immigration officers are detaining indigenous peoples in private, for-profit detention centers without charging them with any kind of crime.

Feel free to point out other developed countries where this is now just a routine occurrence though.

[peab]

Hm, you seem to be replying to an argument that I did not make. this seems to fall under:

> I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable

[vel0city]

The argument about getting rid of ICE isn't about having zero enforcement of immigration laws. It is about getting rid of this entire stack of management and agents. I guess that's what you're not understanding.

ICE is recent. We don't need ICE, the organization and people that are currently doing what they're doing, to continue to be a part of the government. If the whole organization is behaving badly, the whole organization should be scrapped and a new organization with different people and a different plan and enforcement style should be created.

ICE was created in 2003. We had immigration enforcement actions happen well before 2003. Getting rid of ICE does not mean "no longer enforce immigration laws".

[peab]

I see, I can understand the argument better now, thanks!

Looking it up, it seems that ICE used to be part of INS, which was broken up into: -USCIS: Handles services (green cards, citizenship). -CBP: Handles the borders (Border Patrol and ports of entry). -ICE: Handles interior enforcement (raids, investigations, and deportations).

So I'm not really sure I follow. If we get rid of ICE, who handles Handles interior enforcement (raids, investigations, and deportations)? Another org?

This feels like people who argue to get rid of the police, and replace it with "Community Security Forces", or something of the likes.

[vel0city]

> If we get rid of ICE, who handles Handles interior enforcement (raids, investigations, and deportations)? Another org?

Yes, a different org, back under the Department of Justice, staffed by very different people and with a different way of going about enforcement of immigration law. I'd argue there have been a lot of issues with the Department of Homeland Security and that massive parts of the organization should probably be reworked.

The DHS' mission is supposedly all about protecting people from terrorist attacks, go read the arguments on why it was a good thing right after it was created to see that kind of connection[0]. Why do we have an organization designed to fight terrorists in charge of handling civil infractions? Its no wonder we have agents treating everyone as a terrorist; its what the department is supposed to focus on, fighting terrorists! Its almost like maybe we should have a different group of agents equipped to handle potential terrorist threats to the agents making sure foreigners aren't overstaying visas or working while not authorized to work.

In another direction but related to this, we should also pretty much scrap and redo all of our immigration laws as well. They really don't work well and are generally pretty bad. Note I'm not saying we should have no immigration laws at all, but the systems we have today are largely dumb, ineffective, and just end up hurting a lot of people while not really doing much good for the American people.

> This feels like people who argue to get rid of the police, and replace it with "Community Security Forces", or something of the likes.

A lot of what the police do these days probably should be re-tasked to different, potentially new agencies with different trainings and different focuses. Police these days are expected to handle such a wide range of community issues, many of which probably don't need the same kind of people who respond to violent threats and what not. When someone is experiencing a mental health crisis we probably shouldn't send people who spend their days training to perceive every action as a threat to be handled with a gun as the first line responder. When there's someone on the street strung out on drugs having the police respond and put them in jail/prison probably isn't helping the situation.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20071114000911/http://www.dhs.go...

[toast0]

A protest movement can't be very subtle. A clear and short message like "No ICE" or "ICE Out" is much preferable to "We would like an immigrations and and custom enforcement agency that respects people and the law, efficiently inspects imports, checks in on visa overstayers, pursues charges against business owners that have a business practice of not checking work eligibility of new hires, and works with competent, trained agencies to perform traffic stops and home/office raids or trains their own officers for such"

[peab]

but it's directionally wrong. It's like the BLM protests that had main messages of abolishing the police - those had terrible consequences [1]. "Reform" would be a better direction.

[1] In 2020, during the height of the protests and the pandemic, low-income communities of color experienced the sharpest increases in firearm violence and homicides https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/firearm-deaths/index.html [2] Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Black (52%), Latino (66%), and Asian (61%) Americans oppose defunding the police. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-communities-of-color-want...

[toast0]

> but it's directionally wrong.

A time honored protest chant is "hey hey, ho ho, [target of protest] has got to go." That's just how protests work --- don't like what someone or an agency is doing, march to get rid of them. Getting rid of them may not be achievable or desirable, but it resonates.

Given the number of high profile shootings related to totally unnecessary situations the agency has put its agents into with apparently zero preparation and training, it's not surprising that people want it to go. I don't remember this kind of thing when INS was doing activities with the same kinds of reported goals.

[cdrnsf]

ICE didn't exist prior to 9/11. There's no reason it can't be dissolved.

[peab]

that's a fair point

[timeon]

Original concept is dead when they are used as militia against states that did not vote for current administration.

[jyounker]

ICE has been turned into a secret police force. If you'd like a history of the border patrol in the US, then here is an excellent introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdStIvC8WeE

[pxc]

Years ago, this book provided me with a useful introduction to the history of immigration to the United States and various crackdowns (vigilante and official) against it.

It's not a difficult read, but its authors are leftists and the language may sometimes be difficult for readers with sensitivities related to the goodness of Democrats or Republicans or whatever.

(I think maybe I'll re-read it today as well; it's been a long time.)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7861.No_One_Is_Illegal

[bluGill]

My libertarian philosophy is not compatible with immigration laws in general. I'm not quite let everyone in - but I require strong reason to not let someone in. People should have the right to move, only restricted in the worst cases.

[immibis]

"I don't understand why people protest the Gestapo as a concept. Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

[CompanionCubee]

> "Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

[vel0city]

> In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

Tons of these ICE agents are in unmarked vehicles and wear no official insignia. The guy who shot Renee Good did not, on any part of his body or exposed gear, actually have ICE insignia on him.

[rmah]

It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively. Immigration enforcement is required. Illegal immigration should be discouraged. ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically. But immigration laws should still be enforced. I imagine you'd agree that if ICE agents/supervisors act beyond the scope of their duties or with excessive force, they should be disciplined/prosecuted. I also have a hard time understanding people who don't agree with what I just wrote. I can only imagine those that want to disagree think I'm writing with some sort of underlying agenda and in code to push some broader political narrative (I'm not).

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> rather innocuous comment

It may appear innocuous yet it normalizes ICE's actions as mere "immigration enforcement". Their actions are far more and far worse than that, as you note:

> ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically.

It is not an issue of immigration laws being enforced, it is an issue of rights being infringed. The "overly aggressive" tactics being "used politically" is exactly the problem.

[nobody9999]

>It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively.

Despite the ridiculous narrative that Obama and Biden were "bringing in illegals en masse to vote for Democrats," if you look at the actual numbers, it's not surprising that folks are down-voting that comment.

Mostly because those previous administrations (Obama and Biden) managed to deport many more undocumented folks than either this or the previous Trump administration, without the thuggery, violence and murder we're seeing now.

I'd note that even without the gratuitous violence and intimidation, folks were also protesting Obama's and Biden's ICE activities.

Because the real issue around immigration in the US is that our system is broken and we haven't constructively addressed those problems for nearly 40 years.

So no. I'm not surprised by the down-votes because there's nuance that's being glossed over and, while doing so, giving violent thugs a pass by claiming that they're "enforcing the law," even though they're doing a crap job while harming our citizens, legal residents and helping to destroy what's left of our civil society.

I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.

[rmah]

It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.

[nobody9999]

>It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.

I combined my response to your comment[0] and its parent[1], as I mentioned:

   I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a 
   few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.

Rather than disagreeing with you, I was attempting to add nuance and additional substance. As the site guidelines[2] recommend:

   Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone 
   says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. 

You appear to have assumed bad faith on my part. Why is that? Was I not clear enough? What could I have added to the above to be clearer?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46620707

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46618048

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[peab]

> ICE's current tactics seem overly aggressive to me and, yes, seem to be used politically. But immigration laws should still be enforced.

Yeah, it's strange that this take is so polarizing.

> I imagine you'd agree that if ICE agents/supervisors act beyond the scope of their duties or with excessive force, they should be disciplined/prosecuted. Yes of course, it's hard to disagree with that.