It’s Time for Action on ICE After Minneapolis. The Democrats Are Flailing.

Okay, here’s a breakdown of the key arguments and themes presented in the provided text, along with a summary of its overall message.

Core Argument:

The article argues that despite public outcry and evidence of excessive force, Democratic leaders are failing to take meaningful action against ICE (Immigration and Customs enforcement) following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex pretti in Minnesota.It criticizes their tepid responses—characterized by symbolic gestures, vague statements, and prioritizing political calculations over concrete changes—as a betrayal of their constituents and a perpetuation of the status quo. The author posits that the Democratic party is constrained by a fear of alienating moderate/conservative voters and donors, preventing them from adopting bolder stances like abolishing ICE, despite growing public support for such measures.

Key Points & Supporting Evidence:

* Lack of Accountability: Attorney General keith Ellison hasn’t charged the officer who killed Renee Good. The inquiry into Alex Pretti’s death is similarly stalling, despite video evidence. This lack of accountability is central to the critique.
* Insufficient Leadership from Walz: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is criticized for prioritizing scolding protesters over forcefully defending his constituents and for failing to provide concrete plans to expel ICE from the state. His request for President Biden to “restore calm” is seen as naive given the administration’s support for ICE.
* Hypocrisy & Empty Rhetoric: Leaders like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Sen. Tina Smith engage in angry rhetoric (profanity-laced statements), but it’s dismissed as “sound and fury signifying nothing” as it’s not backed by substance.
* Democratic Party’s Hesitancy: Most Democrats are reluctant to call for the abolition of ICE, despite a growing plurality of voters supporting it. Figures like andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer offer only vague calls for “openness and accountability.” Obama and Clinton offer condolences but lack concrete proposals.
* Political Calculations: The party is described as paralyzed by a fear of alienating moderate voters and donors, leading to inaction.
* Failed Reform Efforts: proposed “reforms” like those suggested by Sen. Chris Murphy (mask bans, ending quotas) are painted as insufficient as ICE has shown no willingness to comply. The author references past instances where ICE/DHS have been shielded from accountability.
* ICE’s Deceptive Response: The administration actively lied about the events surrounding Pretti’s death, demonstrating a lack of good faith.
* Legislative Efforts (Limited): Rep.Delia Ramirez is highlighted as a rare exception for introducing a bill to restrict ICE’s use of force, but its chance of passage in the GOP-controlled House is considered slim. Moulton’s calls for abolition are noted, but seen as an outlier.

Use of Rhetorical Devices:

* Pull Quotes: Used to emphasize key points (the lack of support from leaders, the party’s internal constraints).
* Hyperbole: “Cowards” (Moulton’s description of ICE) and strong language used to describe the leaders’ inaction.
* Sarcasm: The dismissal of Frey and Smith’s profanity as “sound and fury.”
* Links and citations: The article heavily relies on referenced URLs (from The Intercept, NBC News, the Marshall Project, etc.) to bolster claims and provide evidence.

Overall Tone:

The tone is highly critical and accusatory, aimed at exposing what the author perceives as a deep hypocrisy and failure of leadership within the Democratic Party. It is also frustrated, conveying a sense of urgency and disappointment with the lack of meaningful action.

Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the text or analyze it further!

What steps can Democrats take to reduce ICE’s influence on local police after the Minneapolis incident?

It’s Time for Action on ICE After Minneapolis. The Democrats Are Flailing.

The recent events in Minneapolis, stemming from the tragic death of Amir Locke during an ICE-assisted no-knock raid, have laid bare a critical failure of leadership within the Democratic party. While calls for police reform echo loudly, the continued collaboration between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) remains largely unaddressed, creating a dangerous and unacceptable situation for communities of color. This isn’t simply a matter of local policing; it’s a national issue demanding federal accountability and a clear stance from those who claim to champion civil rights.

The Minneapolis Case: A stark Reminder

The details surrounding Amir Locke’s death are harrowing. Serving an arrest warrant in a homicide investigation, Minneapolis police, acting on information provided by ICE, executed a no-knock warrant. Locke,a Black man,was startled awake while holding a legally owned firearm and was fatally shot.

This incident highlights several key concerns:

* The inherent dangers of no-knock warrants: These warrants, often justified by drug-related offenses or immigration violations, escalate situations and increase the risk of violence.

* ICE’s expanding reach: ICE’s role isn’t limited to border enforcement; it actively collaborates with local police departments, effectively turning them into immigration agents.

* The disproportionate impact on communities of color: Data consistently shows that communities of color are disproportionately targeted by ICE and subjected to aggressive policing tactics.

* Lack of transparency: The initial justification for the warrant and ICE’s involvement were shrouded in ambiguity, fueling public distrust.

Why Democrats Are Failing to Address ICE

The Democratic party’s hesitancy to meaningfully challenge ICE stems from a complex web of political calculations. Fear of being labeled “soft on immigration” by political opponents, coupled with a reliance on law enforcement unions for endorsements, has created a paralysis that prevents bold action.

Hear’s a breakdown of the key obstacles:

* Political pressure from moderate Democrats: Many moderate Democrats are reluctant to alienate law enforcement or risk backlash from voters concerned about border security.

* Influence of law enforcement lobbies: Police unions and associations wield significant political influence, lobbying against reforms that would limit their authority or collaboration with ICE.

* Internal divisions within the party: The Democratic party is deeply divided on immigration policy, with differing views on border security, deportation, and pathways to citizenship.

* Lack of a cohesive strategy: There’s no unified Democratic plan to address ICE’s overreach and protect vulnerable communities.

The Need for Federal Action: Limiting ICE’s Power

The solution isn’t simply to call for police reform at the local level.It requires federal intervention to curb ICE’s power and protect civil liberties. Several concrete steps can be taken:

1. end 287(g) Agreements: These agreements allow state and local law enforcement agencies to act as ICE agents, effectively deputizing them to enforce federal immigration laws. Terminating these agreements would considerably reduce ICE’s reach.
2. Restrict ICE Detainers: ICE detainers request that local jails hold individuals suspected of immigration violations beyond their scheduled release date. These detainers often violate due process rights and contribute to wrongful detention. Federal legislation should limit the use of ICE detainers.
3. Increase Oversight and Accountability: ICE operates with a shocking lack of transparency and accountability. Congress should increase funding for oversight bodies and empower them to investigate allegations of abuse and misconduct.
4. Defund ICE: Redirecting funds from ICE to community-based organizations that provide legal assistance, social services, and advocacy for immigrants would be a more humane and effective approach to immigration management.
5. Pass the new Deal for Immigrants: This comprehensive legislative framework, championed by progressive organizations, would address the root causes of immigration, provide pathways to citizenship, and protect the rights of immigrants and refugees.

The Impact of ICE Collaboration on Communities

The collaboration between local police and ICE creates a climate of fear and distrust within immigrant communities.Individuals are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement if they fear deportation. This undermines public safety and erodes the social fabric of our communities.

Consider these real-world consequences:

* Victims of domestic violence: Immigrant women are often reluctant to seek help from law enforcement if they fear that their abuser will report them to ICE.

* Witnesses to crimes: Immigrant witnesses may be hesitant to come forward if they fear deportation.

* Access to essential services: Immigrant families may avoid seeking medical care, education, or other essential services if they fear being targeted by ICE.

A Call to Action: Beyond Rhetoric

The time for empty promises and symbolic gestures is over. Democrats must demonstrate genuine leadership by taking concrete action to limit ICE’s power and protect vulnerable communities. This requires:

* Strong public statements: Democratic leaders must unequivocally condemn ICE’s overreach and commit to protecting the rights of immigrants.

* Legislative action: Congress must pass legislation to end 287(g) agreements, restrict ICE detainers, and increase oversight and accountability.

* Community engagement: Democratic leaders must engage with