I thought the whole reason they're not funded was that Democrats refused to pass the bill unless it contained ICE reforms? Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms it's a bit disingenuous to characterize it as "Republicans are working hard to abuse people"

▲

delecti 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The Senate unanimously passed a DHS (excluding ICE/CBP) funding bill this week, which Mike Johnson blocked in the House. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/senate-agreement-dhs...

	▲	cogman10 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And it's important to note that ICE and CBP don't need additional funding. They were overfunded with the last spending bill by about 10x their actual needs. That's the reason why ICE and CBP agents are still collecting paychecks while the rest of DHS is not. It's actually a bit silly that Republicans, the party of limited government, have been holding up funding the TSA and FEMA because an agency they already overspent on won't get additional dollars. Not very DOGE.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why won’t Republicans agree to the reforms? Seems like a pretty reasonable ask from the Democrats to restore law enforcement norms that reflect a civil society.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Why won’t Republicans agree to the reforms?

Doesn't that mean statements like "Republicans are working hard to abuse people" are just a long winded way of saying "grr I hate Republicans"? It doesn't matter who's doing the blocking, because your side is always right and Fighting For The People™, and the other side are just obstructionists blocking reasonable reforms?

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

Would you mind answering the question, please, instead of embarking on a side quest?

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Would you mind answering the question, please, instead of embarking on a side quest?

Funny you're accusing me of derailing the topic when in my initial comment I specifically mentioned I wasn't interested in arguing over the merits of those reforms

>[...] Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms [...]

And for the record, in case you wanted to interpret my refusal of discussing that topic as some sort of sign I'm against them: I'm not. I just believe the topic has been discussed to death and there's no point relitigating it.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

Then why are you even participating in the discussion? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

So if you want to derail the discussion it's "Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch", but when I do it, it's "... instead of embarking on a side quest"?

	▲	otterley 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Do you ever answer questions directly? Feels like you’re not engaging in good faith, but would rather argue for arguments’ sake and try to “win” through any means other than substantive contribution. To ask why Republicans won’t participate in passing these reforms is not “derailing” the conversation. It speaks to the very heart of the problem, because if they would, we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. The public has made it pretty clear that they don’t like the status quo about how ICE has been operating lately.