Talk:Abolish ICE

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 20 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afonseca320.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

2017 photograph

@JayBeeEll: I appreciate your edit summary clarifying the issue, but I'm still of the view that the image doesn't belong in the article. I don't agree that it's "an illustration of protests aimed at ICE"; I think, rather, that it's an expression of an idea – "no borders" – that has a long history and only became associated with the specific subject of this article some months after the photograph was taken. This is fairly clear from the photographer's description of the event as a protest "in solidarity with immigrants and refugees ... against Donald Trump's immigration ban and the increasing militarization at the US-Mexico border." It might be more productive, however, to consider other images which could be used in place of this one which are less ambiguous in their relevance. These include: lots of photos in commons:Category:Abolish ICE in New York City (27 July 2020), lots more in commons:Category:Abolish ICE in San Francisco (2 July 2018), and a handful in commons:Category:Families Belong Together in Minneapolis. How would you feel about replacing File:Anarchist anti deporation protest.jpg with two or three from those categories? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Thanks for your response. I agree, many better photos to be found in those categories, thanks! Here are a few that caught my eye:

The New York photos are not terribly photogenic; maybe these two are the best?

I thought these three from SF had potential:

And there were a bunch of good ones from Minneapolis:

I also like this one from a photographic point of view, but unfortunately the only "Abolish ICE" sign is obscured:

Probably the article could have 3 photos without being overloaded. Any that you particularly like? --JBL (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I'd go with File:30 Abolish ICE (50161594288).jpg and File:Abolish ICE. March and Day of Action (41308130880).jpg, in addition to the San Francisco photo that's currently in the article. File:Abolish ICE Protest (41723407500).jpg is nice but a bit lacking in context, and I'd also be a bit worried the Commons people might deem it a copyrightable work of art and delete it. But there's lots to choose from and I have no particularly strong opinions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, your instincts are pretty similar to mine -- I'll plop them in in a moment. I haven't been able to figure out how to use cropping tools like Template:Annotated image, but it seems to me like the current lead image (from SF) would be improved by vertical cropping. If you have any idea how to make that work, please be my guest. --JBL (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea how that template works I'm afraid. I suppose you could always just save the image, crop it and upload a cropped version to Commons? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've done a thing :). --JBL (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Deyning Asylum to Refugees"

The article claims that the Trump administration began denying asylum to refugees without elaborating further or providing any citations. "Migrant" and "refugee" should not be conflated; the U.S. has obligations to protect the latter, but not the former. The whole point of asylum processing is to determine whether a migrant is a refugee. Therefore, asylum could not have been denied to bona fide refugees. Further, asylum processing never halted. In short, this is a false, partisan, ignorant, propagandous statement which warrants removal. --Chupster811 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Coining #abolishice"

The Hill incorrectly attributed the coining of #abolishice to Sean McElwee in February of 2017, despite a simple advanced search showing its use by others as far back as early 2016. Any reference to McElwee has been removed by another user. It should be monitored moving forward.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrudis (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but he seems to be credited widely with popularizing the tag (if not inventing it), and there's no reason not to include that. --JBL (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox

@JayBeeEll: I saw your reversion of the infobox I created, and I was wondering what your complaints were? Practically: I could change the start date to "2010s" instead of 2018 to reflect uncertainty about its origins, the location solely to the Untied States to reflect its domestic nature, and remove the bullet about "criticisms." Substantively: I'm unsure of why you have an issue with using a historical event infobox template? That's the one the Black Lives Matter page uses, and I can see very few alternatives. Garcia1865 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Abolish ICE" is a political movement and/or slogan, not a historical event, and so the infobox slots seem poorly suited to the subject. The ambiguity of the start date (and the ongoing nature) both point in this direction. The content you chose to put in the box is debatable at best, but more importantly any attempt to summarize this in three bullet points (or whatever) is going to look ridiculous. The same is true at Black Lives Matter, a page I do not believe I have ever edited -- if I were in a more combative mood, I would go pick a fight there about it, now that you've pointed it out to me. (It's not as if it's a long-standing part of that page; it seems to have been added in this edit a few months ago with no discussion.) --JBL (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why isn’t this protected?

This should be protected. ~2026-31004-6 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

If this is a request for preemptive protection, please refer to WP:NO-PREEMPT. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2026

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am suggesting that this text be added under the "timeline" section:

In January 2026, Representative Shri Thanedar introduced H.R. 7123 in the 119th United States Congress, titled the “Abolish ICE Act,” which proposes to formally abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The bill was referred to the House Committees on the Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Homeland Security for consideration but had no further actions recorded at the time of referral. The proposal reflects renewed legislative interest in dismantling ICE amid ongoing national debate over the agency’s role and conduct.

Citation: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7123?utm_source=chatgpt.com Mutant magic (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)