>

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Cynthia Nixon Calls for the Abolishment of ICE

The almost always policy wacky Cynthia Nixon, the former Sex and The City star who is running for Governor of New York, has a better position on ICE than many libertarians.


  -RW  

6 comments:

  1. More libertardian idiocy! Yes, if we could only let in the entire dirt/turd world, that would be such a victory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see Cynthia could have a really good position she just hasn’t thought out yet.
    “Kill the kids before they are born, then they can’t be taken from their parents.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. “And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world.... immigrants must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
    Mexican presidential candidate Obrador

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course ICE should be abolished along with all government agencies. If we have to do this agency by agency ICE is further down the list than the agencies that can and do allow the redistribution of property of the productive to the non-productive both of which are populated by immigrants and natives.

    If we are going to do this in the most productive order for the advancement of freedom those agencies of redistribution are not at the top of the list. We should start with the agencies that control money. Next up should be education.

    Nixon doesn’t care about freedom and I doubt she cares about immigrants beyond the use she can make of them for her political aspirations. She is just glomming on to the latest headlines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Alex

      It’s a little unclear to me whether you’re saying that ICE shouldn’t be abolished until after other agencies are abolished, or that working towards its abolition shouldn’t be a priority over doing so for more destructive agencies.

      If it’s the former, I’d say that we should always favor abolition of all appendages of the state, in whatever order possible, the faster the better. If the latter, I’d say that you need to consider not only the potential effects of abolition, but also chances of influencing a successful outcome given the political climate.

      Delete
    2. For the most part it is the latter. But with government there is the probability that the eliminated agency is just replaced by another or its operations are taken over by an existing agency.

      Your point about a successful outcome is a good one that gives weight to the order of agency elimination I suggested, but forecasting the effects of the abolition of an agency on political climate is difficult. I would choose to get rid of the agencies in the order their elimination become available and deal with the outcome as it comes.

      Delete