ICE no more?
- Thread starter hunkgolden
- Start date
I hope the Democrats run hard on this issue. It’s an absolute loser for them. Gillenbrand from NY, Maxine Waters, the Socialist Latina who knocked off Joe Crowley in the Primary....
I'm loading up on ammo. I read the dems want to do away with the police after ICE.
Dems definitely have issues with the laws of this country and the police who are sworn to uphold those laws. Striking how often the dems/Stalins are always at odds with officers.
Any many of the people on the right wonder where ‘civility’ has gone. I have seen so many on the right lose their collective minds over the attempt to change the status quo in this country when ‘liberals’ propose the ideas and then applaud a President who is ‘changing how things are done in this country.’
I doubt ICE gets abolished but you have to wonder why it can’t be reformed...like gun laws, healthcare, and immigration.
I doubt ICE gets abolished but you have to wonder why it can’t be reformed...like gun laws, healthcare, and immigration.
The left is openly calling for the abolishment of ICE. You act as if the right made up this story. I don't know about losing our minds - I actually hope the left actively runs on a platform of getting rid of ICE. Perhaps if the liberal ideas weren't so Stalinesque people would be more open to their ideas.
Lol. It was actually the President of the United States who made the statement that the police would be next to go after the dems got rid of ICE.
They are calling for reform of immigration policy along with replacing or reforming ICE because of the many social and economic costs associated with ICE and CBP. From the ACLU:
‘...These enforcement programs pose a variety of threats to civil liberties: They implicate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the constitutional guarantee of due process, and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and freedom from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. ICE’s enforcement practices also impose heavy social costs, tearing American families apart and undermining community trust in law enforcement.’
For the party that champions individual and state rights laid down by a strict reading of the Constitution...it seems that there are blurred lines when it comes to people outside of the GOP party. For example, the outrage over Sarah Sanders being denied in a restaurant when Joe Biden was refused in a similar fashion and the GOP applauded that owner. I believe it is the GOP who hasn’t pushed the ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ ideas to refusal of services.
Whatever you say. Sounds like you agree with Trump and his demonizing of the democrats.
You’re an odd duck who seems very angry. I hope this is just your online persona and that you’re totally different in person. But I digress...I don’t think I was demonizing dems but I do stand by my statement that it sure seems like they always have issues with the laws of this country and those sworn to uphold those laws.
Oh JFC. It seems like the other party has issues with following the law and law enforcement. The dems say that too.
Sounds like the Trumps hyperbole is working on you...........or maybe you actually decided to negatively characterize millions of people on your own.
The dems say that conservatives have issues with the law and police officers? Don't think you'll find too many people who agree with that assertion. You seem volatile. Am I misreading you? You ok?
You guys horde guns to protect yourself from a tyrannical government aka the law and police
Conservatives, for the most part, are happy with the majority of our laws and fully support our police force. There are some who feared a repeal of the 2nd amendment when Obama was president. I think you’ll find most people purchase guns for two reasons: 1. Personal protection and 2. hunting. Protection from a tyrannical government would be about reason 75.
You need to make some conservative friends. I think you’ll find we’re pretty normal people.
Yeah I'm chatting with one of your conservative friends in the cake thread. Nice guy.
Lol. I haven't seen you try this argument method before......but I'm not surprised.
Maybe you would like to comment on Trump's assertion that "you get rid of ICE you're going have a country that you're going to be afraid to walk out of your house." You agree with that?
That's fear mongering at it's finest.
I know right?!
individuals just need to stop questioning authority , and obey their government. the state is trustworthy and rules in the peoples best interest
Sorry to see you’ve tapped out by playing the nazi card.
I know right?!
individuals just need to stop questioning authority , and obey their government. the state is trustworthy and rules in the peoples best interest
Bob - both sides play the fear card. Have you not heard the fear from the left over Kennedy’s replacement?
card?
I agree with you.
one photo is a bad little citizen fighting government authority. the other photo is a bunch of law abiding citizens following their government
crazy liberals, wanting to put an end to a state run program.
Oh here’s the obligatory ‘you seem angry ‘ retort from numbnuts hunkgolden when he’s been backed into a corner. Such a typical and pathetic Fox News/trump lemming.
I’m a liberal and guess what? I also am happy with a majority of our laws and also fully support the police force. This doesn’t mean both can’t be improved.
Only halfwits thought Obama wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment though. Anyone with a functioning brain.....you know, that lump three feet above your ass.....knew he wasn’t even close to thinking about repealing it.
Well, the idea that the supreme court could have a conservative majority for the next forty years is a very good possibility. The idea that Americans should be afraid of leaving their homes if ICE is shut down is freakin asinine and not realistic. I'm not surprised you made the lame attempt to conflate the two.
Why don't you sack up and just defend or object to his statement?
Yes, the same group that defended a group that shares similar thoughts and feelings to many on the right (you know, those ‘good people’ as Trump called them that marched in Charlottesville, VA and ran a car in to a crowd) in the 1970’s to march through a Chicago suburbs: Nazi’s. The ACLU, as defined by their own website works ‘to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Why would you be against an organization that so clearly battles to ensure your individual rights upheld in the Constitution?
Pretty obvious you are attempting to create an argument and then win said argument. I have no interest in playing your self esteem building game. Take care.
Because they've turned into an arm of the Democratic Party. They march in the streets with illegal aliens. They try to protect illegals with valid orders of deportation by judges from deportation (they are trying to countermand actual laws).
Why did they take the side of the gay couple in the Colorado bakery case, and not the baker? (And as you know, the baker won in the USSC.) Why do they constantly try to interfere with ICE operations? Why do they often take up environmental cases with parties that have no real standing in court? Why did they not take up the case of Richard Spencer in Charlottesville, protecting his right to freedom of speech or Patriot's Prayer in Portland or numerous conservative commentators on college campuses?
The ACLU used to be even-handed. Now they are transparent. They support left-wing causes almost exclusively, despite the rhetoric they put out stating they are even-handed.
Maybe they don’t support people, like Spencer, who has openly called for violence? Also, when you read the decision of the USSC in reference to the baker, he may have ‘won’ but the decision wasn’t 100% for religious freedoms when it comes to businesses. Read a publication like NPR that isn’t talking points from Fox or MSNBC and you’d understand that.
‘Throughout the opinion, Kennedy seemed to be balancing the ledger, trying not to disturb public accommodation laws like the one in Colorado and reiterating that gay people may "not be treated as outcasts." While a member of the clergy clearly cannot be forced to conduct a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple, in violation of his religious views, Kennedy said, Colorado "can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals."’
You are clamoring here when the ACLU was defended the rights of individuals from discrimination, when in fact...the court sees it much more as an issue with how the state of Colorado was upholding it’s own laws. The decision was more about upholding the system of law and how the case was tried rather than anything else. If one of Colorado’s judges hadn’t openly challenged the bakers religion and called ‘disturbed’ I believe...it never would have made it to the USSC.
Create an argument......I asked a damn question! I quoted your President and asked if you agree with what he said.
You created like 6 threads about the immigration issue......wtf were you trying to do?
If you can't bring yourself to deal with tough questions about things Trump says maybe you should go somewhere else. Arguments are pretty much what happens here.
Sorry, he’s President of the USA - all legal citizens’ President, including you.
