Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
Note that the investigatory group within ICE (Homeland Security Investigations) that is key to fighting human trafficking is almost entirely separate from the rest of ICE and has raised being part of ICE in the current environment, because of the backlashes the rest of ICEs practices have been producing, as inhibiting their work, because it reduces the willingness of people they need voluntary cooperation from to work with them, because “ICE”.
So, another reason to dismantle ICE.
The existing laws should be enforced, and they haven't been for decades. If the laws should be changed, then congress should work to change them. Allowing millions of people to evade the law because of feelings is not a solution.
No matter what your views on immigratiom policy are otherwise, I don't see how that's a great reason for preserving the present organization.
If you view the present legality as correct, it's a reason to have the enforcement function in a competent and effective organization that is broadly respected by the public, but that doesn't sound like ICE.
So the answer is no, I wasn't because I was unable to be outraged due to my lack of information.
Here is Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance policy".
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-ze...
This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy.
This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so.
edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.
do i get extra argument points for not liking ICE no matter who's sitting in the white house?
If you don't want them held until trial, what should we do instead? They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.
If you cross the border to request asylum, doesn't matter if walking or by using a star trek teleporter, you are committing no crime. They are breaking no laws.
The only people who were being released were the ones which border authorities themselves deemed "low risk", and were released with ankle monitoring, and even then only released because we refuse to process them in anything approaching a timely manner.
Taking petty stabs at ICE (like making it harder for them to do CI/CD) seems pretty unhelpful.
It is NOT false. You need to be either at a port of entry or in the US to apply. You have one year to do so.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/qu...
> You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States.
You may apply even if convicted of a crime (although it doesn't mean it will be granted)
> Yes, but you may be barred from being granted asylum depending on the crime
Those are called death camps.
A concentration or internment camp is where you stick people who you don't trust, so you can keep an eye on them. Prisons are essentially a form of concentration camp, but the key distinction is that you have to be found guilty of something to end up in prison. It's probably more accurate to think of a concentration camp as a long term jail.
> Those are called death camps.
I try to not engage in political discussions, but I'm going to strongly disagree with you. The popular definition (i.e. actual living language) of a "concentration camp" is "where people are killed" - for example, see Wikipedia page Auschwitz concentration camp.
Google gives the OED definition, "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."
While colloquially a lot of these terms are conflated, the literature seems to make a clear distinction.
One pattern I've seen, is that some people use "concentration camps" to refer to bad ones, and "internment camps" to refer to okay ones, and maybe that's a an okay distinction, but the reality is often a lot less black and white than our words would like to suggest.