cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/57843646
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7466583
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/23007
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., questions Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on May 6, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
With two U.S. citizens shot to death in the streets of Minneapolis in just over two weeks, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents abducting and detaining children as young as 2 years old, Americans might be forgiven for expecting a forceful response from the country’s nominal opposition party.
Unfortunately, in the United States, that party is the Democrats. Their refusal to react proportionally to the threat of President Donald Trump and his army of secret police with “absolute immunity” is only making things worse.
Even before Alex Pretti was shot dead on Saturday — in the back, seconds after his concealed and holstered gun was disarmed by federal agents — the brutality of ICE and Custom and Border Protection’s occupation of Minneapolis demanded definitive action.
[
Related
Even Democrats Who Crafted ICE Funding Compromise Are Questioning It](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/21/democrats-ice-funding-compromise/)
When they had the chance, that’s not what Democrats delivered. At the federal level, seven House Democrats — including mainstream media darling Washington Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and outgoing Maine Rep. Jared Golden — voted with their GOP counterparts last week to pass a bill giving even more money to ICE. That vote came after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to whip his caucus into opposing the legislation, instead simply “recommending” a no vote.
Senate Democrats reportedly plan to kill the bill — knowing it would force a government shutdown — but their commitment to holding the line must be treated with suspicion. One notable exception is Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., who introduced legislation to restrict ICE’s use of force, a bill she’s characterized as “the bare minimum.” Even that bill is unlikely to pass through the GOP-controlled House.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz was unable to meet the moment as early as January 7, when Renee Good was killed. Rather than forcefully show up for his constituents, Walz prioritized preemptively scolding protesters, posting: “Trump wants a show. Don’t give it to him.”
While Walz has been clear that he is angry over ICE’s presence in the state and has asked that they leave, he’s failed to provide any clear directives or policy proposals for expelling the agency from his state. Attorney General Keith Ellison has yet to bring any charges against Jonathan Ross, Good’s killer, something Walz could order him to do under state law.
Minnesotans are out in the streets calling for action, but beyond public statements, they’re not getting much material support from their leaders.
What Walz did do on January 20, days before Pretti’s killing, was to invite the president to “join me, and others in our community, to help restore calm and order and reaffirm that true public safety comes from shared purpose, trust, and respect.”
Mere hours after Pretti’s killing — and, importantly, drawing on the same playbook used with Good’s killing — the administration made clear there was no “shared purpose, trust, and respect” to “reaffirm” with Minnesota. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino both held press conferences in which they blatantly lied about the events of Pretti’s death, which was caught on video from multiple angles. Walz’s demand that “the state must lead the investigation” into Pretti’s death is falling on deaf ears, just as it did with Good’s killing.
[
Related
We Can Fight This: Minnesota’s General Strike Shows How](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/24/strike-minnesota-ice-renee-good-alex-pretti/)
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has been angrier, dropping “fuck” in his press conferences — something Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith has done as well. But this deployment of profanity only serves to remind the public that sound and fury often signifies nothing. Minnesotans are out in the streets calling for action, but beyond public statements, they’re not getting much material support from their leaders, least of all Frey, who earlier this month wouldn’t even entertain abolishing ICE, even after the agency killed one of his constituents.
Meanwhile, the Democratic base has been demanding action on ICE for months. Eager to make political hay, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat with his sights set on the Senate seat held by Ed Markey, called ICE “cowards” and threatened to defund the agency and prosecute its officers. But Moulton and most elected Democrats fall short of calling to abolish the institution outright — a position now held by a plurality of voters.
Leaders like Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Democratic Governors Association, vaguely called on Saturday for “transparency and accountability” after “what happened today in Minneapolis,” without specifying what concrete steps might be taken to deliver either. Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle issued a statement in the wake of Pretti’s death that was heavy on the concern but light on substance. Former President Bill Clinton was more forceful, calling this a moment “where the decisions we make and the actions we take will shape our history for years to come” but declining to suggest what, exactly, people should do.
Setting aside the morality of suppressing anger over state killings of civilians, it’s politically shortsighted on the part of Democrats and their allies. But the party is trapped in a world of its own creation, where committing to anything that might alienate mythical moderate conservative voters or, more importantly, donors, is anathema.
The party is trapped in a world of its own creation, where committing to anything that might alienate mythical moderate conservative voters or, more importantly, donors, is anathema.
One specific idea gaining traction is impeaching Noem, a plan all but guaranteed to fail. So are demands from border hawks like Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy that ICE agents stop wearing masks, end quotas, or give in to other “reforms.” ICE and DHS have shown no willingness to bend to any constraints, and when the White House tells them they’re shielded by “absolute immunity” for their actions, any efforts to reform a malignant agency are dead on arrival.
A strong opposition party would take the initiative and, even if done cynically, attach itself to the growing public anger for political gain. Steering the popular upswell into some form of action would allow Democrats to gain power and perhaps even win elections. Instead, they appear to understand their role as tamping down the energy and enthusiasm for change and ensuring whatever comes out of the Pretti outrage is defanged and does not challenge entrenched power structures.
[
Related
Kat Abughazaleh on the Right to Protest](https://theintercept.com/2025/11/01/briefing-podcast-kat-abughazaleh-indictment-protest/)
Fear of making an actual stand is so widespread there’s a cottage industry of advisers and think tanks devoted to encouraging elected Democrats to moderate at every turn. There’s something amoral to the whole project, exemplified by how the popularists — a group of centrist think tankers who endorse triangulation on issues based on polling results, as long as those issues aren’t Israel or Abolish ICE — have reacted to the occupation of Minneapolis.
Even after Good’s killing, Adam Jentleson, founder and president of the think tank Searchlight Institute, was smearing left organizing around “Abolish ICE” as a “political albatross” that’s unrealistic and damaging to the movement; now he’s seizing on Pretti’s death as a moment to course-correct. Paul E. Williams, who’s supposed to be the left-whisperer of the popularist cohort, said hours after Pretti’s killing (and reams of other evidence of abuse and torture at the country’s largest detention center) that he still didn’t have a problem with Democrats like Gluesenkamp Perez voting to fund ICE, only that she was criticizing Frey and Walz for their reaction to the shooting.
It shouldn’t be this difficult to oppose funding the agency on moral grounds after it kidnapped two children, aged 5 and 2, in a week, let alone the killing of American civilians. Much like the politicians they flatter, these groups have nothing of substance to offer — only empty gestures and grating platitudes.
But for the rest of us, they’re what we have. You don’t have to be a Democrat to understand that the party is an important part of organized opposition at the federal level. They need to wake up to the role we sorely need them to play and take action, before it’s too late.
The post It’s Time for Concrete Action on ICE. Sadly, We Have the Democrats. appeared first on The Intercept.
From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.
Nice tagteaming.
You can’t reply to me directly, so you have a flunky jump in and then divert.
Come up with an actual plan yet, or is all you can do insult me for asking?
Supporters of fascism, even if incidental, need to be called out as they are, and we need to focus the conversation on why their activities are harmful. No reader of this thread owes someone, who, even as a biproduct of their actions, supports fascists, just like the example here shows.
For those reading this thread, these apologists for the Democratic party, a party that at this point mostly supports the fascist policies of the Trump administration, are best used as an example, for your own purposes. You owe them nothing. They hold no value in helping us understand where we need to go beyond that.
More insults and not anything like a plan.
To quote ‘Malcolm In The Middle’ I expected nothing of you, and I’m still disappointed.
edit …and it’s ‘byproduct.’
No one should ever do what an apologist for fascism asks of them.
That’s hilarious!
First you reminded me of ‘Malcolm In the Middle’ now it’s the classic 'Animal House https://youtu.be/r3LzJzQ3wj4
Great luck with your ‘double secret plan.’
I’ve watched the narrative completely shift. In 2023, our ratios would be reversed. People really thought they could bully voters into voting for Democrats, instead of demanding that Democrats be better and respond to voters, and that that could win the 2024 election.
I called those voices out then, and had those fights, and got those down votes. And people were watching, and people were listening. This continued into 2024. Same divide, same disagreement about how to approach electoralism, and I was very clear, the entire time, that if the approach outlined here, to apologize for Democrats; “Orange-Man-Bad” as campaign philosophy: that it would hand the election to the Republicans and the government to the fascists.
The apologists bullied us. They berated us. They called us schills. They said we were bots, trolls, russsians, everything.
And then the apologists, they handed the government to fascists. And the viewers, our audience, they saw it all. And the audiences’ minds, they began to shift. They began to recognize the hollowness of this argument of apologists, they began to understand you can’t abuse voters or threaten voters into voting for you; that voting isnt a binary, because non-cooperation is always an option, and that Democrats had led their voters directly to that third option with the way they governed, with the way they campaigned.
And so this performance were in, this dance. Its very important because it highlights the hollowness of what the apologists are doing and saying. If you listen to the apologists, we all know we’ll lose again. Its very clear now, and this discussion is an opportunity to highlight that.
And still, no plan.