Katie Pavlich: Democrats solidify their open-border stance |
Featured Commentary

Katie Pavlich: Democrats solidify their open-border stance

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out of nowhere to beat establishment Democrat and Nancy Pelosi ally Joe Crowley for a congressional seat in Queens last month, many party leaders were quick to bolster her candidacy. Media declared her the new, fresh face of liberal politics.

In addition to a number of other social issues, Osario-
Cortez made abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement a key portion of her campaign platform.

“Alex believes that if we are to uphold civic justice, we must abolish ICE and see to it that our undocumented neighbors are treated with the dignity and respect owed to all people, regardless of citizenship status,” her campaign website states.

Instead of slowly digesting the jarring position in the wake of her win, especially as illegal immigration rises to the top of issues for voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand jumped right on board with the idea.

“I believe ICE has become a deportation force,” Gillibrand said during a recent interview on CNN. “That’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works.”

Gillibrand and other Democrats then turned their words into action on Capitol Hill. In June, the far left and radical Women’s March, whose leaders have direct ties to Louis Farrakhan, organized a sit-in at the Senate Hart Building to protest President Trump’s illegal-immigration policies. Hundreds descended with signs that said, “ABOLISH ICE!” and “No human is illegal.” By the end, hundreds were arrested and the floor was littered with garbage.

Again Gillibrand, in addition to others like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, didn’t simply watch the protest unfold outside of their offices. They joined in and took selfies with those demanding open borders for all.

“We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality and that works,” Warren said a day later at another rally.

Going even farther left, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison declared during a recent interview that American borders are an “injustice” and argued people should be able to move freely.

This week, dozens of House Democrats further solidified their open-border, lawless immigration philosophy by voting against a measure supporting thousands of men and women who work for ICE.

“Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” the resolution states in part. “Whereas calls to abolish ICE are an insult to these heroic law enforcement officers who make sacrifices every day to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and protect our safety and security; abolishing ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens, including violent and ruthless members of the MS-13 gang, to remain in American communities.”

According to polling and quite frankly, common sense, the majority of Americans oppose abolishing ICE. After all, the agency rids communities of illegal aliens with serious criminal histories — including sexual assault and murder — stops terrorists from entering the U.S. and halts dangerous drugs like fentanyl from hitting the streets.

Without ICE, there is no sovereignty. Without sovereignty, American will cease to be a country. It’s that simple.

Katie Pavlich is news editor of . Her exclusive column appears on the first and third Fridays of the month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.