By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the death of Renee Good at the hands of a federal immigration officer, progressive lawmakers are urging Democrats to leverage the upcoming government funding deadline to reduce funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including ICE. Despite the public outrage and calls for action, Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have shown little interest in using the appropriations process to rein in these agencies. While they have criticized the killing and the agency’s actions, they have not committed to slashing the homeland security budget. This inaction has drawn criticism from within the party, with some calling for a more aggressive stance to oppose what they see as illegal and immoral actions by the opposition.
Read the original article here
Schumer and Jeffries Refuse to Back Growing Democratic Calls to Defund ICE – This is the crux of the issue, and the sentiment is pretty clear: many Democrats are furious. The core complaint seems to be that these two prominent figures are actively resisting a push within their own party to defund or significantly curtail the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This resistance is seen as a betrayal of progressive values and a failure to stand up to what is perceived as a cruel and unjust agency. The frustration is palpable, and the language used is far from subtle.
The anger is also directed towards a broader issue, the perception that these leaders are “centrists” or “corporate” Democrats who are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and appealing to moderate voters than with enacting meaningful change. This, according to the sentiments expressed, is a losing strategy, as the opposition party seems to continuously shift the political center further to the right. The general feeling is that Schumer and Jeffries are out of touch with their constituents, particularly those in more liberal areas, who overwhelmingly support defunding ICE.
A common theme throughout the comments is the perception that Schumer and Jeffries are either incompetent or actively working against the interests of the Democratic Party. Some go so far as to accuse them of being “Republican plants” or “complicit cowards,” suggesting they are intentionally sabotaging the party’s efforts. The lack of open support for defunding ICE is seen as a prime example of this alleged obstruction. This is often framed within the broader context of a perceived lack of fighting spirit and willingness to compromise with the opposing party.
The concerns extend beyond the immediate issue of ICE. The larger context suggests that some Democrats believe the leadership is out of touch with the electorate’s values and needs. The failure to support defunding ICE is seen as a sign that they’re prioritizing their own interests or those of their donors over the needs of the country. This lack of action, according to many, is akin to corruption. The sentiment is that these leaders are choosing to make deals with the “bad guys.”
Many of the comments express deep disappointment, with the feeling that Democrats consistently “piss away” opportunities for progress. There’s a widespread call for primary challenges, demanding that these leaders be replaced with candidates who are more willing to fight for progressive causes, like defunding ICE. The repeated use of expletives and derogatory terms underscores the depth of the dissatisfaction. The tone is often accusatory and dismissive of any potential arguments for why Schumer and Jeffries might be hesitant to support defunding ICE.
However, some comments raise a counterpoint, suggesting that there might be strategic reasons behind the silence. One commenter proposes that delay is not necessarily denial and that Schumer and Jeffries might be playing a long game, waiting for the right moment to act without tipping their hand to the opposition. This viewpoint suggests that the leadership may be more concerned with achieving a desired outcome than making a public show of support that could be easily defeated.
Another element in the discourse revolves around the concept of political strategy and the lessons learned from previous campaigns. The “Defund the Police” slogan is cited as an example of a failed strategy, one that unified the opposition. The concern is that “Defund ICE” might have similar consequences. Some people suggest that defunding ICE could become another rallying cry for those on the right wing. This strategic consideration, however, does not diminish the anger toward the leadership for their lack of support, but it does suggest that the issue is more nuanced than a simple case of cowardice or corruption.
The political climate also factors into the discussion, with the implication that Democratic leadership is overly cautious and fearful of alienating moderate voters or right-wing constituencies. The sense is that the party has a tendency to cower in the face of conservative pressure, a behavior that many find unacceptable. The idea is that the “reaching across the aisle” strategy has backfired.
Ultimately, the comments overwhelmingly reflect a deep-seated frustration with the perceived lack of leadership and commitment to progressive values. The refusal of Schumer and Jeffries to back the growing calls to defund ICE is seen as a critical failure and a betrayal of the democratic base. The calls for change are not only urgent but indicate the beginning of the end for the old guard.