I would argue that instead of ICE, we should have a vastly expanded IRS to enforce regulations upon businesses. For example, every business is assigned state and federal accountants, who check that the books are legit. These accountants are regularly rotated by the nation, so that companies can’t establish “working” relationships with any given accountant, which reduces corruption.
This would increase the amount of money that government receives from the 1%, along with helping prevent wage theft or other criminal activities. Businesses, not migrants, are innately prone to corruption.
The money spent on ICE, can be used to enforce regulations. The wealthy don’t like that, and would prefer us to focus on bullying the little people. It wastes our time and attention, so that genuine criminals can get away with casual crimes. In the US, the largest form of theft is wage theft, and I would argue that paying migrants below minimum wage is also theft.
While there will always be a need for some sort of physical authority, we can probably cut 90% of physical agencies, and use that budget for more useful things. For example, mental health outtreach programs that provide free therapy, genuine shelter and food without strings for the homeless, and so forth.
That is why if there are any physical enforcement, agencies need to have very specific missions, tight rules, and to be built from the ground up for the purpose. The majority of police in America were originally slave catchers, but became what we call police over the centuries. That brutal character inherently poisoned our physical enforcement institutions. Outright deleting ICE and other existing agencies, and then building new ones without legacy personnel, would promote peace.
I would argue that instead of ICE, we should have a vastly expanded IRS to enforce regulations upon businesses. For example, every business is assigned state and federal accountants, who check that the books are legit. These accountants are regularly rotated by the nation, so that companies can’t establish “working” relationships with any given accountant, which reduces corruption.
This would increase the amount of money that government receives from the 1%, along with helping prevent wage theft or other criminal activities. Businesses, not migrants, are innately prone to corruption.
Why instead of ICE? These are not mutually exclusive things and they don’t even address the same problems.
The money spent on ICE, can be used to enforce regulations. The wealthy don’t like that, and would prefer us to focus on bullying the little people. It wastes our time and attention, so that genuine criminals can get away with casual crimes. In the US, the largest form of theft is wage theft, and I would argue that paying migrants below minimum wage is also theft.
While there will always be a need for some sort of physical authority, we can probably cut 90% of physical agencies, and use that budget for more useful things. For example, mental health outtreach programs that provide free therapy, genuine shelter and food without strings for the homeless, and so forth.
That is why if there are any physical enforcement, agencies need to have very specific missions, tight rules, and to be built from the ground up for the purpose. The majority of police in America were originally slave catchers, but became what we call police over the centuries. That brutal character inherently poisoned our physical enforcement institutions. Outright deleting ICE and other existing agencies, and then building new ones without legacy personnel, would promote peace.