Abolishing ICE – USA Gov Policy

U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) , Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)- have introduced the “Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act.” The legislation would convene a “commission of experts” to provide a roadmap for Congress to implement an altered, and presumably weaker, form of immigration enforcement. The legislation is cosponsored byRepresentatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), José E. Serrano (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY).

The bill provides few specific details on what ICE should be replaced with. That’s probably intentional.

To a significant extent, the measure may be more of a rallying cry to the left. It also appears to be a bid to increase the potential vote on the Democrat line, since most newcomers to the U.S. tend to vote for that party at least until they become vested in the American economic system.

Peter Beinart, who describes himself as a liberal, provided this analysis in A 2017 Atlantic article of the radical Democrat position :

“Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. ‘The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,’ Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. ‘If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.’…As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism….Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.’”

Shane Savitsky, writing in Axios, gives his view of why democrats have moved left on Immigration:

Erectile dysfunction or male impotence is a pharmacy viagra typical health problem that last either for a short or for long time period. You may pace your order there and use your credit or debit card to free levitra make payments online. Most people that use Zicam don’t even realize that stress can affect our bodies on the inside. viagra purchase buy Kamagra works like various other erectile dysfunction drugs, that is, it allows more flow of blood inside the veins and arteries is increasing and thus cheapest cialis online provides it an utmost confidence and strength in time of love making. “Democrats are embracing immigration more than ever before. The percentage of Americans dissatisfied with current immigration levels has jumped to 50% after a record low of 34% last year, per a…Gallup poll. That change isn’t because Democrats want less immigration, though. It’s because many want more….Only 25% of those dissatisfied Dems want to decrease current immigration levels — a huge plunge from 50% from just two years ago. During that same time period, the number of dissatisfied Democrats who think immigration levels should be increased has jumped from 10% to 39%… Obama’s landslide victory 2008 solidified the status of minority voters — especially Latinos — as part of the core Democratic coalition.”

The blatantly partisan move by Democrats, and their increased use of soft violence and intimidation against opposition figures has met with stiff reaction. Paul Crookston, writing in the Free Beacon reports that “Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said…he will not be intimidated by protesters who confront him calling for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” McConnell had recently been accosted by demonstrators shouting “Abolish ICE” at a restaurant in Kentucky. The Senate Majority leader noted that several key Democrat senators, including Kirsten Gillibrand, (NY) Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) were essentially demanding “open borders.”

A FAIRUS study outlines the role noncitizens play in U.S. elections, a role primarily strengthening Democrats:

“…there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens have voted in recent elections. … noncitizens have been discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania…Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections…laws requiring voting registrants and voters to establish proof of citizenship have been repeatedly challenged in recent years. The most frequent objections to these reasonable measures are that voter fraud is a ‘myth’ and that voter ID requirements will unreasonably interfere with the right to vote. However, these claims seem patently unreasonable given that there have been numerous reports of unlawful voting by aliens but no virtually no reports of voters being disenfranchised.

“Marking a disturbing new trend, several municipalities…have begun allowing noncitizens to vote in town…State efforts to extend the franchise to noncitizens undermine the rule of law; blur the distinctions between citizens and noncitizens; and render U.S. elections susceptible to both fraud and foreign influence… In 2014, a study released by a team of professors from Old Dominion University and George Mason University estimated that approximately 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted In the 2008 presidential election. They also surmised that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm election.²⁰In addition, the study estimated that 80 percent of noncitizens who appeared to have voted cast their ballots in favor of one party. Noncitizens are believed to have voted in these elections in numbers great enough to have affected the outcome.”

Photo: Ice apprehending a fugitive (ICE photo)

Those advocating the abolition of ICE and opposing reasonable border controls should reexamine their positions, particularly in the aftermath of the Mexican election. Leftist candidate Lopez Obrador, known also by the nickname AMLO, will be the next president of Mexico. He believes that “All have the right to immigrate to the United States.” In essence, he has repealed America’s right to have sovereign borders. His approximately 53% victory was facilitated by the votes from the 12 million Mexicans living in the United States.

The extraordinary concept of abolishing the federal agency responsible for keeping America’s borders secure has come under attack in recent weeks. A key figure, New York’s Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) has joined the chorus of those seeking to eliminate it. As both a Senator from a large state and a potential contender for the Democrat nomination for president, she is neither an outsider nor an irrelevant figure.

Obrador’s leftist politics could turn Mexico into another Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua. If that occurs, the number of his citizens seeking to leave will skyrocket, flooding the U.S. with refugees.

But there is an even more immediate danger. Leftist regimes within the Western hemisphere have established military ties with Russia, China, and Iran. Adding Mexico to that list, particularly considering its large presence on America’s southern border, presents a threat of the highest magnitude.

A growing danger from Latin America already exists. Moscow’s has placed landing facilities for nuclear bombers and a spy station in Nicaragua. It has plans to place other heavy military equipment in the country. Russia’s Sputnik News notes that Nicaragua’s military training center was “constructed with Russia’s assistance and named after the legendary WW2 hero, Soviet Marshal Zhukov.” The U.S. Naval Institute revealed in 2016 that “In late April Russia started shipping shipped T-72B tanks to Nicaragua.

The America’s Report has also linked Ortega to Iran “Iran has been making inroads into Latin America for some time, especially in countries with strong Chavista influence, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and dangerously Nicaragua, which is very close in distance to the US… We have to consider that Iran has already used Hezbollah to attack what it considers enemies in Latin America, when they blew up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the early -90’s killing and wounding hundreds…When Ortega became President of Nicaragua in 2007, [Iranian leader] Ahmadinejad considered his ascension so important that he was in Managua to attend the inauguration. Ortega even honored Ahmadinejad with two of the country’s most prestigious awards….Nicaragua is providing a safe place where Iran can send Revolutionary Guards and move them in and around the region.

In 2015, Pravda reported “Russia and Cuba agreed to train Cuban specialists in Russia. This long-term strategy imposes obligations on Russia to supply its allies in Latin America with advanced weapons, including air defense systems, aircraft and warships.
Improving lifestyle with good nutrition, exercise and good habits will matter the most in the successful treatment of the physical causes. generico viagra on line robertrobb.com This restricts the flow of blood to the penis, causing erection. tadalafil tab Check all the other policies of the online drug online purchase of cialis store. Simple television shop presents to you the obvious anecdote about tremendously need levitra generika of those advisors managing those issues.
Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency has reported that there are plans to deploy warships in Latin American. Iran has been seeking to broaden ties and cooperation with Latin American states, including Mexico, iVenezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Colombia.

The Center for Security Policy calls Russia in Latin America “The problem we have chosen to ignore…Russian activities closer to home in the Western Hemisphere have been largely overlooked or perhaps just disregarded. There have been reports of increasing Russian military cooperation with countries in Latin America that are hostile to the United States, mainly Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. This includes agreements between Russia and the above named countries that would enable Russia to place their naval logistic facilities in Venezuelan, Cuban and Nicaraguan territory.

Beijing’s presence is increasingly being felt within the Western Hemisphere as well.

Paul Coyer, writing for Forbes reports that “Beijing’s investments globally are rarely undertaken with solely business goals in … In the case of Huawei, as the largest telecommunications equipment supplier in the world [with] strong ties to China’s military and intelligence services, [has a] considerable role in building many of Latin America’s telecommunications and information networks. [that is] is a boon to Chinese intelligence.

An Official Chinese document notes that “Since 2013, the Chinese leadership has set forth a series of major initiatives and measures on strengthening China’s relations and cooperation with Latin America and the Caribbean in a wide range of areas.” It is of concern that trade is seen as a means to further other goals, and military cooperation plays a significant role. The document notes:

“China will actively carry out military exchanges and cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries, increase friendly exchanges between defense and military leaders from the two sides, strengthen policy dialogue and set up working meeting mechanisms, conduct exchanges of visits between delegations and vessels, deepen professional exchanges in such fields as military training, personnel training and UN peacekeeping, expand pragmatic cooperation in humanitarian relief, counter-terrorism and other non-traditional security fields, and enhance cooperation in military trade and military technology.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.