By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson has criticized Senator Susan Collins following the fatal shooting of a 26-year-old Colombian man by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Biddeford, Maine. Jackson, who advocates for abolishing ICE, stated that Collins’ vote to send billions to the agency without reforms makes her accountable for what he described as “terror.” Critics, including other Democratic candidates, have joined Jackson in calling for Collins to be held responsible for funding ICE, especially after this incident and a similar death in Texas. While Senator Collins has called for a thorough investigation, critics argue that a single phone call to cease non-urgent vehicle stops is insufficient given her past funding votes.
Read the original article here
The question of accountability for the recent killing by ICE has squarely landed on Senator Susan Collins, with vocal criticism asserting she must be held responsible for funding the agency. The argument is that by supporting substantial funding for ICE, especially without robust safeguards in place, Collins has, in effect, provided the resources that enabled such a tragic event. It’s a perspective that views her legislative actions not as mere political decisions, but as direct contributions to potentially harmful outcomes, placing a significant moral and political burden on her shoulders.
This intense scrutiny arises from a specific instance where the actions of ICE led to a death, prompting a powerful reaction from those who believe the agency’s operations, bolstered by congressional appropriations, have gone unchecked. The sentiment is that when these agencies act in ways that result in fatal consequences, the lawmakers who enabled their funding, particularly those who have historically supported increased budgets for agencies like ICE, cannot remain insulated from blame. The call for Collins to be held accountable stems from this direct link between her votes and the operational capacity of ICE.
The criticism often highlights a perceived pattern of Collins expressing concern without taking substantive action to curb the problematic aspects of agencies she helps fund. The idea is that “being concerned” has become a familiar refrain, a way to acknowledge public outcry without committing to significant policy changes that could alienate certain constituencies or deviate from established party lines. This approach, critics argue, allows politicians like Collins to appear responsive while maintaining the status quo, thereby avoiding true accountability.
Furthermore, there’s a sentiment that politicians who operate in this manner, by continuously receiving support despite criticism of their voting records, are surviving because public outrage is fleeting. The argument suggests that while immediate reactions to a tragedy might be strong, the memory fades by the next election cycle, allowing those in office to be re-elected, perpetuating the cycle of perceived inaction and enabling further controversial actions by the agencies they fund.
The call for action extends to questioning the very possibility of Maine re-electing Collins, framing it as a testament to a disillusioned or complacent electorate. The critique implies that voters might not be fully grasping the implications of their choices, or perhaps they prioritize other aspects of a politician’s record over these specific concerns. The possibility of her re-election, in this view, is seen as a failure on the part of the voters to adequately scrutinize and hold their representatives accountable for their full range of actions.
There’s a strong sentiment that anyone working with ICE, in light of such events, should be viewed with suspicion, even akin to aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. This extreme framing underscores the depth of anger and disillusionment felt by those who believe the agency’s actions are inherently harmful and that its funding is a direct endorsement of these harmful practices. It positions those who vote to fund ICE as complicit in the agency’s most egregious outcomes.
The specific instance of Tim Kaine voting to fund Homeland Security and ICE shortly before a death occurred is brought up as a parallel to Collins’ actions, suggesting that such votes, even if later regretted, carry significant culpability. The argument is that the responsibility doesn’t end with the individual politician directly involved in the incident but extends to all who have provided the legislative and financial backing for these agencies. This broadens the scope of accountability, indicating that a collective effort is needed to address systemic issues.
The idea that politicians like Collins might offer a “very concerned letter” or a phone call is presented as insufficient, highlighting a desire for more tangible and impactful responses. The critique suggests that these gestures are performative, designed to placate without truly addressing the root causes of the problem. The hope, expressed by some, is that Collins might eventually shift her voting patterns to support measures that would implement more robust oversight and accountability for ICE.
However, there’s a prevailing skepticism about such a shift, with the belief that Collins, like many politicians, is entrenched in a system that prioritizes political survival over fundamental change. The argument is that her voting record is consistent with a broader political alignment that supports increased funding for agencies like ICE, and that expecting a dramatic change is unrealistic without significant external pressure or a fundamental shift in the political landscape.
The effectiveness of merely complaining about politicians is questioned, with a strong emphasis placed on voting as the ultimate tool for change. The argument is that while expressing outrage might feel cathartic, it’s the act of voting that can actually remove underperforming or problematic representatives from office. This perspective suggests that focusing on electoral strategies, rather than just vocal criticism, is a more productive path towards accountability.
Ultimately, the call for Susan Collins to be held accountable for funding ICE after a tragic killing is a complex one, interwoven with broader critiques of political inaction, the perceived ineffectiveness of certain agencies, and the role of voters in shaping their government. It reflects a deep frustration with a system that, for some, seems to prioritize political expediency over the safety and well-being of individuals.