By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Bernie Sanders has demanded the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and proposed significant reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before any new funding is approved. Sanders views ICE as a “domestic military force” that terrorizes communities and has proposed repealing a $75 billion ICE funding boost while demanding an end to warrantless arrests and greater transparency. The senator’s demands come as the Senate debates a DHS funding package that includes $10 billion for ICE, with Democrats pushing for reforms to the agency as a condition for passage. Despite a growing number of Democrats calling for her ouster, Trump has yet to remove Noem from her position.
Read the original article here
Alright, let’s break down this whole “Sanders Says ‘Not Another Penny’ for ICE Until Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller Are Gone” situation. It’s a pretty charged topic, and the sentiment seems to be running deep. The core idea here is a hard stance: no more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and that this is tied directly to the removal of certain key figures – particularly Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller – from their positions of influence.
Now, the strongest take is crystal clear: “Not another penny for ICE ever.” This isn’t just a financial decision; it’s a moral one. The feeling seems to be that ICE, as it currently operates, is beyond repair. It’s seen as a problematic entity, and that’s reflected in the simple, yet potent, “ever.” But the focus extends further. People are explicitly calling for the abolition of ICE. They’re not just looking for reform; they want the whole thing gone. This seems to be the preferred outcome.
The specific targeting of Stephen Miller is particularly interesting. The general consensus is that Miller is a key architect of the policies that have led to the current problems. People express an intensity of feeling towards Miller, to get him removed from the picture, and there’s a real sense of urgency. The idea that his influence, especially, needs to be stamped out seems pretty consistent across the board. This seems to be a common thread: Miller is seen as a major problem.
This also seems to extend to the people in charge. The people being the biggest obstacles to reforms. “Not another penny until Trump is gone” echoes the sentiment of focusing on the key players, the people at the top. The idea here is that they are the architects of the problem. Some think Trump himself needs to be held accountable, which shows the depth of the issue. The focus on accountability speaks to a desire for justice and recognition of the impact of these policies.
One major point here is that there is a concern that even if these key individuals are removed, the problems will persist. There’s the worry that the replacements would be just as bad, or that Miller will continue to exert influence. This is reflected in the idea of “stomp[ing] the poison back in the bottle.” There’s a clear recognition that removing the bad actors isn’t the end; there has to be a systemic change. This goes beyond the personalities involved and to the very structure and purpose of ICE.
The discussion then often takes aim at the very concept of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), raising questions about their necessity and effectiveness. Some point out that ICE, and to a larger extent, DHS, were created in the wake of 9/11, and suggest that the United States could, and perhaps should, return to the system that existed before those agencies were created. It’s almost as if the suggestion is to go back to what worked, and to challenge the very foundations of the current system.
The core argument boils down to this: even if you can’t get rid of it entirely, there is a fundamental belief that the current administration is making it problematic, and that the only thing that will fix it is the removal of the key individuals in charge.