Movement to Abolish ICE Only Benefits Trump [OPINION]
Are these guys friggin' nuts?
If you are a beleaguered Trump supporter who has had the tar kicked out of you by the left and the media for the last two years, you've got to be thrilled with the Democrats' new campaign to abolish ICE.
What are they thinking?
Illegal immigration is a front-burner issue for most voters, and those who voted for Trump--and many who didn't--want a border wall erected to keep the illegals out. ICE, or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, are the good guys. These are the men and women who round up the bad hombres and send them home. It is ICE that is on the front line against the vicious street gang MS-13, for crying out loud.
Most rational people believe that illegal immigrants have no business here, let alone being provided with benefits and sanctuary by some dim-witted politicians and do-gooders.
The left thought it had a surefire way to sink Trump by exposing that his immigration policies were resulting in children being separated from their parents at the border. Turns out, Obama separated tens of thousands more families, and kept kids in cages. Trump ended the practice with the stroke of a pen.
So much for that narrative.
Besides, ICE has nothing to do with families at the border. That's the Border Patrol folks. But don't tell the liberals that.
The same people yelling for the abolition of ICE today were demanding that illegals be deported just a couple of years ago. Some, like Obama and the Clintons, even wanted a fence or a wall at the border. Before Trump, that is.
If the Democrats want to keep playing stupid politician games like calling for an end to ICE, knock yourselves out, for each utterance guarantees another vote for Trump at the midterms and in the 2020 election. Have at it.
Barry Richard is the host of The Barry Richard Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @BarryJRichard58. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.