In reaction to the terror of September 11, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) were created as part of the largest re-organization of the US government since 1947. ICE and DHS are new, not historic or traditional, agencies of enforcement within the borders of the USA. I’d offer that both of them are likely unconstitutional, and that neither of them has done anything to protect the security and safety of American citizens. Rather, both agencies look like tools of repression that can and will eventually be used against the American people themselves. Together, they look like double-trouble.
So when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for the abolition of ICE, and suggests that it would be possible to dissolve DHS as well, she is not being radical or ill-considered. Neither of these agencies is worth the money they cost. Neither has a good history of effective action. And neither is necessary to secure the safety of our country.
When these agencies were created, many conservatives objected, along with liberals. Both of these agencies are the epitome of expensive and intrusive big government. Why do we have them, again? From the Side, Ocasio-Cortez sounds correct in her thinking that ICE and DHS should be abolished.
What do you think about getting rid of ICE and DHS?
It matters, because ICE raids across the country are coming this weekend. This sort of round-up is reminiscent of the actions of fascist countries in the past, not a democracy in the 21st century. Is this what we want the US to be?
And it’s double-trouble in New Orleans this weekend, too, when an already flooding Mississippi River meets a rising storm surge caused by the growing storm Barry. The Venice of America is going to get filled with water. Again.
Sure, New Orleans faces a big storm, but for some, there’s an upside. No ICE raids for Louisiana, for now.
This New Yorker article makes a really good argument for impeachment. And I’m not just saying that because he makes the same arguments I’ve been making for the last three months.
Pelosi’s normally acute political judgment is failing her, and the historical precedent she is evidently relying on—the impeachment of President Bill Clinton—is not analogous. In fact, based on the past half century of political history, suppressing an impeachment inquiry seems more likely to help insure Trump’s reëlection. If this happens, Pelosi’s formidable reputation, based on a lifetime of public service and her role as the first female Speaker of the House, will suffer.
Asserting that a Senate acquittal would allow Trump to claim vindication elides the fact Trump has already claimed vindication, a falsehood which the Democrats’ failure to pursue impeachment would only strengthen. It also overlooks how a Senate trial always reinforces either the severity of the alleged crimes and the persuasiveness of the evidence, or the lack thereof. Nixon resigned only when Senate Republicans told him that his case would not survive a trial. Trump’s domination of the G.O.P. does make it all but impossible that the Senate would vote to remove him. But evidence presented by the House impeachment managers would enrage independents as well as Democrats, on the eve of the election, putting pressure on vulnerable Senate Republicans as well as on Trump. The electorate would, in effect, do the job that the Senate refused to do.
Um, yeah…. but the window for impeachment is closing quickly. If impeachment looks like an election year stunt, the result will be quite different.