665

Don’t Stop at ICE, Says Progressive Dem: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security (theintercept.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rep. Delia Ramirez is expected to introduce a bill to abolish the Department of Homeland Security and eliminate all immigrant detention in the United States on Tuesday, the Illinois Democrat shared exclusively with The Intercept.

The Reimagining Safety Act would repeal “duplicative and overreaching terrorism laws,” according to the bill summary and text, and curtail the widespread surveillance state that emerged in the wake of 9/11 terror attacks.

It comes the day after agents from Homeland Security Investigations searched the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in what the Department of Justice has described as an opaque “federal criminal investigation.” HSI is a component of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the agency at the center of mounting concerns about the violent weaponization of DHS against immigrants and the Trump administration’s perceived political enemies.

The sweeping legislation faces long odds in Congress, but Ramirez argues that strictly limiting the government’s immigration enforcement apparatus is critical for public safety in the wake of yet another shooting by federal immigration agents.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds radical.

But I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't abolish DHS

[-] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Homeland Security was a Bush Administration creation too, in the wake of 9/11 that they used to do things they long wanted.

Just as they submitted the patriot act like 10 days after, a thousand page law referencing other laws, something that would take years to create. They had it already, that was their wish list.

Homeland Security denies the Bill of Rights applies to them, and should be abolished.

[-] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

The next time there's a 9/11 blowback on our soil, they won't have pre drafted the patriot act 2.0.

They'll just ask Grok to draft it, and all the Reps will pass it, after having had Grok read it for them. Then it will pass, hallucinations and all, without anyone having actually read it in full.

And then, years later, judges will ask Grok how we should interpret it, when deciding if the countless human rights violations were legal under it

[-] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ha ha, it sounds all too plausible I'm afraid, meaning it's not stupid enough for what will happen in the future, sorry, I don't make the rules.

But we are on the Patriot Act III now, they did II just a year or two after the first one. But, as the aforementioned rule suggested, they will likely name it something much more stupid. We are like the reverse of the improvement curve of computer chips fitting more transistors onto a chip.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

If they were worried about open boarders before, just wait til they see what it takes just to get our farms restaffed.

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2026

665 points (98.8% liked)

politics

31660 readers

2382 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News