“It Is A Terrorist Organization”: Leading Democrats Call For Abolishing ICE

images-e1529890639738.jpgIt was in vogue in past years for Republicans to call for the elimination of the IRS, a ridiculous and demagogic call. Now Democrats appear to have their own demagogic rallying cry in suggesting the elimination of ICE.  Various Democrats went to the airways in the last week to suggest that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be abolished, including Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) who wrote in a Medium pos that ICE had to be abolished “to protect our families.”  Sen. Kamala Harris (D. Cal.) also said that the elimination of ICE might have to be occur to protect innocent people.  New York Democratic candidate and former “Sex in the City” star Cynthia Nixon went as far to call ICE a “terrorist organization” and demanded its abolishment.


Blumenauer declared “We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion.”

Sen. Kamala Harris suggested that we might have to “start from scratch” by eliminating the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency:

“There’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role, and the way that it is being administered, and the work it is doing. And we need to probably think about starting from scratch.”

For her part, Cynthia Nixon stated

“ICE has strayed so far away from its mission. It is supposed to be here to keep Americans safe but what it has turned into, frankly, is a terrorist organization of its own that is terrorizing people who are coming to this country.”  She also stated “I think we need to abolish ICE. That seems really clear. They have strayed so far from the interests of the American people and the interests of humanity.”

We have seen the gradual erosion of both civility and substance on both sides of this debate.  These leading Democrats are fully aware that the elimination of ICE would be absurd but there is a race to position themselves in the most extreme possible position on the subject.  This does not bode well for the Democrats in 2020.  Trump clearly believes that immigration is the ultimate wedge issue for voters and polls would seem to support that view.  What may play well in the primaries could give Trump a significant advantage in the general election with independent and moderate voters.

122 thoughts on ““It Is A Terrorist Organization”: Leading Democrats Call For Abolishing ICE”

  1. Oky1, I didn’t see any big celebration for the 100th anniversary of IRS. Gee I must have missed that one.

  2. Whatever problems the illegal aliens have should be addressed in their own countries. Not here.

  3. This is one of those statements that make it clear that the Democratic Party supports open borders, at the expense of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

  4. Another great article by Andrew McCarthy:

    The current crisis is the fallout of a category error. We have a security problem that has been exacerbated by laws that, depending on your perspective, are either foolish or cynically designed to enable illegal immigration. The fact that bad laws make the security challenge worse does not mean that good laws would solve it. Better laws cannot transform a security challenge into a legal problem.

    We can have humanitarian sympathy for the plight of migrants fleeing dystopian societies while still recognizing that the United States government exists to protect the American people. Our government should do as little harm as is practical under the circumstances. Its first duty, however, is to secure the border.

    1. What security issue is there? Crime rates in the border regions are at the lowest levels in several decades.

      Abolishing ICE would be nothing radical since it didn’t even exist until 2003 and we would simply go back to the previous immigration enforcement system we had before ICE was established.

      1. Crime rates are at their lowest levels in decades? Therefore let’s dismantle the law enforcement agency most responsible? That doesn’t seem to be a logical option.

        1. Olly, …
          We can also take a look at abolishing police departments in communities where crime is down.
          Obviously, they are no longer necessary.😒
          The honor system may work in these communities, where the lower crime itself will motivate those with criminal tendencies to rightously walk on the straight and narrow😇.
          The 21st Century Nixon is much worse that the other Nixon.
          And the head of the DNC lauded the anti-ICE “progessive socialist” Cortez, the 28 year old New Yorker who won the primary victory, as “the new face of the Democratic Party”.
          It may not be evident in mid-term November election, but by 2020 the Democrats will either nominate a far left fringe candidate, a “centrist” Democrat, or a moderate.
          Most will rally around the nominee, and the “new face” oc the Dem. Party for that cycle will become known.
          Just as the GOP may have a better- defined “face” if there’s a nomination challenge by a Jeff Flake, John Kasich, or others.
          Should be interesting, especially if DNC head Perez turns out to right, and a “Cortez-like” face is the image and policies the Democrats decide to go with.
          Maybe they’ll go for abolishing the Dept. Of Homeland Security as well, based on the “logic” that it, too, didn’t even exist until c.2003.

          1. Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SECURITY CRISIS AT THE BORDER. We could abolish ICE without any real consequence. Local police and state police can catch drug dealers, arms dealers, and human traffickers. People are going back to Mexico at a higher rate than they are coming here.

            If ICE were abolished, it would be nothing radical because immigration law in the US was enforced by the Dept. of Justice before 2003, and the border patrol enforced immigration law at the border.

            We did well at enforcing immigration law under Reagan and Clinton before ICE was created and we would simply revert back to their system of law enforcement if it was abolished.

            1. Marry A H.,
              In the wake of 9-11, intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies were reorganized.
              New agencies were created, and in some cases new names for existing agencies.
              In about 2003 ICE was the the revised name for the border security agency ( I don’t remember the previous title), and ICE was put under the new Dept. Of Homeland Security.
              These measures were taken to address numerous intelligence failures prior to 9-11.
              I’m summarizing these actions based on my understanding of how, and why, ICE came about.
              There are conflicting claims about whether there is “a border crisis”.
              Not to put too fine a point on it, but “border problems” can be overstated, or understated, depending on what words you use.
              E.G., “border crisis”, “border problem”, “border issues”, etc.
              So based on your observations and definition, the “border situation” can not accurately be described as a “crisis”.
              I’m not challenging your statement that there is no crisis….”crisis” may well be too strong a word to describe problems involved with illegal immigration.
              I’ll call it border “problems”. We’ll both avoid the word “crisis”, and having said what it ISN’T, you can substitute your own word(s) for the word crisis.

  5. “It was in vogue in past years for Republicans to call for the elimination of the IRS, a ridiculous and demagogic call. ”

    Getting rid of the IRS is still in vogue in among many Americans.

    How the hell do ignorant fools of today think the USA survived Without the IRS?

    1. “It was in vogue in past years for Republicans to call for the elimination of the IRS, a ridiculous and demagogic call. ”

      Getting rid of the IRS is still in vogue in among many Americans.

      How the hell do ignorant fools of today think the USA survived between 1776 to 1913 Without the IRS?

    2. Oky, the IRS is a tax collecting agency. The U.S. Government has always had tax collecting agencies. Any government does except in some libertarian wet dream where everything is financed by user charges and lotteries. You can resort functions between discrete tax collecting agencies, but you’ll still have the taxes and the collecting agencies. That’s what made “abolish the IRS” such a stupid idea. The problems associated with the IRS have to do with the substantive content of tax law (all the preferences written in for well-connected business sectors like oil and real estate), with some of the troublesome procedures meant to attach the assets of tax scofflaws, and with the discretionary power attendant upon the award of ‘tax exempt status’.

  6. Three cheers for affirmative action project Kamala Harris, she of the failed California bar exam experience and substandard law school acceptance by quota.

    If you can’t make it as a lawyer, be a politician!

Comments are closed.