Progressive Politics

4135 readers

1085 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

460

ICE agents could be banned from getting public jobs in N.J. for life under new plan (www.nj.com)

submitted 14 hours ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New Jersey lawmakers introduced a bill this week that could bar some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel from ever holding public jobs in the state.

The legislative package includes:

A bill, A4302, that would disqualify ICE agents and officers who served between Sept. 1, 2025, and Jan. 20, 2029, from getting a public job in New Jersey in the future. They would be banned from becoming state or local government employees, including law enforcement officers and public school teachers.

A bill, A4300, that would impose a 50% tax on the gross receipts of private detention facilities operating under government contracts. The money would be directed to a new Immigrant Protection Fund.

A bill, A4301, that would make it a criminal offense for anyone — including federal ICE officers — to block state, county or municipal law enforcement from accessing crime scenes or evidence.___

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HessiaNerd@lemmy.world 24 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

California next please.

Personally, I would have it start 30 days after the law passes and be effective forever in order to maximize people quitting, but I see the argument that they are already participating in this shitshow so....

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 13 points 8 hours ago

Good news, someone's already trying to get a bill like that passed in California!

It's the "GTFO ICE" bill. I'm not joking, that is the actual name.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/09/this-bill-would-ban-ice-agents-from-future-hiring-as-a-public-employee-in-california/?noamp=mobile

A Southern California lawmaker is behind new legislation that would disqualify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or other law enforcement personnel who engage in immigration enforcement activities from being hired as a local, county or state public agency employee in California.

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 hours ago

Already under way. Assembly Bill 1627 will ban ICE agents from being teachers, cops, fire fighters, etc.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Speaking for myself, I say that there should be no grace window. Anyone good who was with ICE, would have bailed by the half-year mark of 2025. And it was dubious at best whether there was anyone decent in the first place.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The main point of a grace window is to give ICE agents a choice where quitting is the best option, as opposed to incentivizing doubling down.

If it works immediately, they'll just go "welp, nothing I can do about it now, might as well stay with ICE and keep collecting a paycheck since even if I quit it won't matter!" vs. "damn, maybe I shouldn't take the risk and I should get a different job now instead before that 30 day window closes in on me"

Personally, I'd like to see a mix to have some immediate punishment and some optional (if they quit) punishment too. (e.g. an extra tax on all your income for the next x number of years if you were an ICE agent at any time during the stated period, whether you quit later or not, plus being banned only if you continue your employment there)

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

That's fair. Now for my own viewpoint...

For me, I don't want members of ICE nor the Trump Regime to have any road of reintegration into American society. They are terrorists, rapists, and thieves: why would I ever want them to be my neighbors?

Sure, fighting them to the death would suck, because they will fight harder, and harming people is evil. But I also don't want them corrupting society with their malice and greed.

IMO, the only place they belong is in a noose. Many of the Confederates and Nazis got away, and raised families of a like mind. The fascists of today, are the fruit of an unwarranted mercy.

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

They are terrorists, rapists, and thieves: why would I ever want them to be my neighbors?

For the same reason rehabilitation is the only sensible reason to even maintain a prison system in the first place: People can change.

This response is just for the “ever” part though. And that framing. I think there are things other than the mentioned thieving, raping and terrorism, perfectly valid as a reason to reject a neighbor, that has no real path toward rehabilitation. I like to think anyone deserves a second chance, no matter the crime, but that only really works with crime as defined today. If someone’s a deplorable asshole, and as such, never actually goes through rehabilitation because it’s not a crime, I think that’s a valid reason to never want them as a neighbor.

So there’s a distinction. Those going through rehabilitation are redeemable in my eyes, always, until proven otherwise by wasting the chances they get.

Those never rehabilitating, i.e doing shit that’s not illegal by today’s standards (or at least never put into the rehabilitation pipeline for it), aren’t.

And I think that is the reason you don’t want them as neighbors. Not that they’ve done crimes, that is redeemable, if you believe in the system. If not, why waste resources with prisons? What’s the point if the thinking is they’ll always just be bad and do hurtful things?

No, you don’t want them because they are fucking shitty people and never suffer the consequences for it, i.e never rehabilitate.