To most of America, “abolish ICE” is a cry of the far left. Even Americans who dislike Trump’s attacks on undocumented immigrants wouldn’t necessarily tell you that ICE should be abolished; that seems far too radical.They’re forgetting that ICE is actually pretty new. It was only created in 2003, replacing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the same agency responsible for the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s).Since its creation, ICE’s budget has almost doubled, and its activity has expanded to triple the number of agents it employs. This expansion is shocking – and unwarranted. All evidence suggests that immigrants are far from the national security threat the Trump administration claims they are. Regardless of status, they’re more law-abiding than native-born citizens.And time and time again, immigration has been shown to have a net-positive effect on the US. economy, from growing tax receipts to increasing wages for native-born residents. In fact, undocumented immigrants typically pay more of their income in taxes than your average millionaire.More noteworthy than the economics, however, is that the individuals targeted by ICE are people – and all people are entitled to basic conditions of safety and for themselves and their families.When the majority of these immigrants are fleeing violence with roots in US intervention in Central America, the moral responsibility to offer safe haven becomes even more pressing. When government agencies neglect this responsibility, we all lose some of our humanity.What calls to abolish ICE actually do is beg the question: Why do we need an immigration system dedicated solely to terrorizing immigrant communities?Threats of ICE raids prevent undocumented people from going to work or sending their kids to school. Those in detention are denied access to basic hygienic products, subjected to severe overcrowding, and experience all manner of abuse. Several children have died.We spend about $7 billion a year on ICE. What would happen if we instead invested those funds in resettling asylum-seekers, or hiring more staff to process asylum applications? What if families fleeing violence in Honduras or Guatemala had to wait only a few weeks to find out if they could immigrate legally, as opposed to the current average of almost two years?The US carried out over a quarter million deportations last year. The $7 billion that funded these actions could have been used instead to resettle at least that many refugees(over 11 times what the U.S. accepted last year). It could also almost triple the funding of the government office that naturalizes around 700,000 new citizens each year.Which is more radical: Investing in communities that strengthen our country and honoring basic human decency? Or continuing to fund an agency that’s literally caused the death of children?As a concerned Jewish American, I believe none of us are safe until we’re all safe. We should be focusing our resources on welcoming new immigrants and helping them access the rights of citizenship – not subjecting them to detention and deportation.A better world, for immigrants and for everyone, is within our reach. ICE just isn’t a part of it.Excerpted from: ‘What “Abolish ICE” Really Means’.Courtesy: Counterpunch.org
from The News International - Opinion https://ift.tt/2YmOTbv
Sunday, August 4, 2019
What ‘never again’ means
Related Posts:
Prisoners of the pastEvery nation has a past. It is the task of historians to reconstruct it on the basis of documents, folklore, monuments, and archaeological evidence such as weapons, tools, inscriptions and coins.The past is interpreted differ… Read More
Civilians and strikesNearly 12,000 civilians have been killed by US-led air strikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014, according to a statement from the Iraqi High Commission for Human Rights.IHCHR spokesman Dr Ali A Al-Bayati said on Saturday that “a… Read More
Heritage and accountabilityIt has taken me a month to understand the wisdom of not maintaining clean toilets at the fabulous Taxila Museum. Yes, it may be a great inconvenience to a Buddhist pilgrim who might have travelled thousands of kilometres to s… Read More
Shifting the discussionI think we need to omit talking about carbon emissions when discussing climate change. This is what I see the mainstream media limit the discussion to. It’s why the Democratic Green New Deal is all the rage these days.This ne… Read More
Debating the constitutionIt is always nice to interact with young boys and girls studying in public universities, where most of them come from humble backgrounds. A recent visit to Khairpur in Sindh afforded me an opportunity to talk to students of P… Read More
0 comments:
Post a Comment