By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following protests sparked by an ICE officer’s fatal shooting in Minnesota, New Jersey lawmakers advanced a set of bills restricting the state’s collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. The proposed legislation, approved by the state Senate Judiciary Committee, aims to limit New Jersey law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE on civil matters, restrict the sharing of individuals’ immigration status with ICE, and establish safe zones for immigrants. While Democrats supported the measures, Republicans raised concerns about potential legal challenges and the lack of clarity regarding cooperation in criminal cases. Despite the governor’s silence on whether he would support the bills, supporters urged lawmakers to pass them before the end of the legislative session.
Read the original article here
‘They’re killing Americans.’ This is a stark claim, a chilling indictment, and it’s the core of the debate surrounding New Jersey lawmakers’ fight to limit cooperation with ICE.
The sentiment driving this legislative push, at its heart, suggests that collaboration with ICE is no longer just a matter of immigration enforcement, but a threat to the safety and well-being of citizens. It goes far beyond simply limiting cooperation, the argument is that any cooperation is too much. The implication is clear: the current level of collaboration is actively causing harm.
If the focus is on the human cost, a complete halt to cooperation seems like the most logical step. The discussion touches upon the potential for illegal actions, and even violence.
Of course, the counter-arguments are present. Some propose that voting for Democrats is the solution, or the problem. The idea of simply voting, particularly for Democrats, as the sole solution is met with skepticism. There’s a cynicism that suggests the Democratic party, as it currently exists, isn’t going to stop the things that are happening. It’s perceived as a party that supports and even funds ICE.
This leads to the question of what to do if electoral politics is insufficient. Some mention general strikes and consumer boycotts as alternative options to influence. But this also involves coordination, and that’s the hard part.
The article explores the idea of a “two-tier justice system,” where some lives are valued less than others, and how that creates a dangerous environment where abuses can occur. Some perceive an active effort to divide Americans, and the fear is of the kind of escalation that could lead to something much worse, such as martial law. The sentiment is that they are not just killing non-Americans, but killing Americans, and the only recourse is to be more proactive in stopping the abuses.
There is a sense of disillusionment and lack of trust in the political system, and also a clear skepticism towards the establishment Democrats. There’s a belief that the current political landscape is a result of design, a way to manufacture problems, and an attempt to sow discord to prevent Americans from unifying. This creates a difficult environment for change.
The debate also delves into how elections can be manipulated, and the consequences of not fighting against these actions.
The discussion also questions whether any real differences exist between the major political parties. The claim is that both parties are beholden to the wealthy, and thus not really looking out for the interests of the working class. It also suggests that certain Democrats are as bad as Republicans.
The conversation is ultimately centered around the core problem: How can the system be changed if the people entrusted with making change are complicit in the problem? It highlights a sense of urgency.
The focus is that “doing better” means finding different and better leadership. It means understanding the consequences of voting for the wrong leaders, and the blame that should be placed on those who allowed ICE to grow into what it is today.