OPINION:
Calls to abolish ICE underscore the danger liberal extremists pose to Democrats. They present a negative political “two-fer:” Splitting the base and uniting opposition. Yet dangerous as this is, it is equally unavoidable because Democrats cannot hope to win without their liberal core.
An increasingly ungovernable liberal extreme is embracing policies that are likewise ungovernable. The latest example is their knee-jerk call for abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Implementing this is impossible to imagine.
ICE is essentially America’s police force responsible for people and goods entering the country. Like any police, while their job is safeguarding all, their attention is focused on those not following the law. Formed in 2006, they have 20,000 employees deployed internally and abroad. And as with any police, abolishing them would de facto mean abolishing the laws.
The left’s current stance punctuates the rapid change in liberals’ immigration position.
In 2006, then-Sen. Obama stated: “[T]hose who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.”
In 2014, President Obama announced his intention to waive immigration law with his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which directed ICE, among other federal agencies, to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” regarding the return of designated individuals.
From Mr. Obama’s policy of omission, the left has gone to one of commission: Abolish enforcement entirely. Such a stance leaves unanswered what immigration policy the left actually wants: No borders at all and anyone arriving by any means, with any background, entitled to stay with the rights — if not actually being pronounced — an American citizen?
This immigration policy vacuum is mirrored by a political one: Americans strongly oppose it. Rasmussen released a poll (1,000 respondents, margin of error +/- 3 percent) on July 5 showing 55 percent of likely voters opposed abolishing ICE, while just 25 percent supported it (20 percent were undecided). Even 44 percent of Democrats opposed abolition, with just 33 percent favoring.
Generally in politics, bad issues are those which break 50-50 — leaving politicians in the no-man’s land of antagonizing as many as are pleased. An issue that alienates two, for every one it pleases, is not politics but suicide. It would be hard to devise a less astute political position. And it is one that could easily get worse — a single shocking incident could quickly move that 20 percent of undecided voters.
Why would Democrats then feel they had to tread on cat’s paws around it? They have no choice. Democrats need liberals desperately.
In 2016, exit polling showed liberals were 45 percent of those voting for Hillary Clinton. And their voted 81 percent Democratic support was a higher rate than moderates or conservatives had for either party. Two years later, they appear to be the most motivated sector in the electorate. Democrats must ensure they stay that way — for them — come November.
The left’s ICE abolition demand epitomizes Democrats’ liberal dilemma: They cannot campaign on such a position — let alone govern on it. The Democratic Party is stuck between needing to have the left support them, but avoid having the left “brand” them. This is getting progressively harder.
The left’s demands are only increasing — and getting increasingly extreme. Abolishing ICE embodies Democrats’ problems with the left, but it does not encompass them.
At the same time, Democrats’ dependency on liberals is also increasing. As the left’s demands get more numerous and extreme, Democrats are increasingly split. While they split, their opposition unites. At the same time moderates, the nonaligned middle, become more alienated.
Liberals are demanding Democrats walk a tightrope across Hell for them. As with all stunts, regardless how precarious, the audience gets more and more jaded. To hold them, the stunt must become more difficult and dangerous. As the rope gets narrower and higher, Democrats have learned one thing: In contrast to general perception, there is indeed ICE in Hell.
• J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.