THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do).

• Rep. Delia Ramirez introduced legislation to dismantle DHS, abolish ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and establish a Department of Community Safety.
• The proposal preserves FEMA, TSA, cybersecurity and customs functions while redirecting resources toward community programs and a separate civil immigration system.
• X users questioned how the plan would handle deportations, border enforcement and drug trafficking, with one comparing the replacement to “Walmart greeters.”

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time).

Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois has a new idea for protecting America: Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, abolish ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and replace DHS with something called the Department of Community Safety.

Yes, that’s an actual legislative proposal.

On Tuesday, Ramirez formally introduced the Reimagining Safety Act, legislation she had previewed in September that would fundamentally restructure the federal government’s homeland security and immigration enforcement operations.

The proposal would eliminate ICE and CBP, preserve certain existing DHS responsibilities under other federal agencies, and create a new cabinet-level department focused on community safety, violence prevention and social programs.

Ramirez explained her reasoning in an official statement, declaring that DHS “must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”

“There are more than a million reasons to take action today,” she said.

She accused DHS of operating under the pretense of public safety while violating Americans’ rights, pointing to detention deaths, deportations, family separations and alleged abuses by federal agents.

Her bill would retain the functions of FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and customs operations. It also proposes developing a separate civil immigration system.

But abolishing ICE and CBP would still represent a sweeping change to the agencies currently responsible for immigration enforcement, border patrol operations and numerous investigations involving smuggling and transnational crime.

That’s precisely where the internet’s questions began.

Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin drew attention to the proposal on X, warning that eliminating CBP would dismantle the agency responsible for screening people and goods at land borders, airports and seaports.

He argued that the result would be “completely open borders with no federal agency left to screen or detain people coming into the country both legally and illegally.”

Ramirez’s legislation does preserve customs functions and envisions a different immigration system, though the operational consequences of eliminating CBP would be substantial.

The disagreement quickly produced the sort of X commentary that rarely appears in congressional committee hearings. Mehek Cooke raised two questions: “So who would execute deportation orders and investigate smugglers?” Her conclusion was equally pointed: “Renaming government isn’t a security plan.”

Another user, Tony Shannon, offered an analogy that quickly captured the mood of the discussion. “Replacing Border Patrol with a Department of Community Safety is like replacing a defensive line with Walmart greeters. Very friendly, very welcoming, and nobody gets tackled.”

Now there’s a government reorganization slogan unlikely to make it into the official congressional press release. Others questioned whether eliminating an enforcement agency would address the underlying activities it was created to police. “Renaming border security does not make the cartels disappear,” wrote an account identified as ThePatriot.

Another commenter, Jake West, summarized his objection as “Reimagining safety by eliminating safety.”

The reactions were not limited to jokes. Commenters raised questions about drug interdiction, human trafficking, deportation orders and how federal immigration law would be enforced under a completely restructured system.

Those concerns also illustrate why the bill’s details matter. The proposal does not simply change the name on a federal building. It eliminates two major enforcement agencies while retaining and redistributing selected responsibilities.

Ramirez and the legislation’s supporters maintain that the current DHS structure has produced abuses and that a new model could better protect communities while reducing what they describe as militarized immigration enforcement.

Original cosponsors include Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Adelita Grijalva and Jim McGovern. Ramirez’s office says the proposal has support from more than 40 organizations.

The legislation follows several incidents involving DHS personnel, including the recent federal search of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home and an ICE shooting in New York City.

Ramirez has previously described ICE as a terrorist organization, an accusation she has used to argue for abolishing the agency rather than reforming it.

Whether Congress would approve such a restructuring remains another matter. Republicans control both chambers, and the proposal has not become law.

For now, the debate is about two very different approaches to federal public safety: maintaining immigration and border enforcement agencies with potential reforms, or eliminating those agencies and replacing their structures with an alternative system.

And judging by the responses on X, the proposed Department of Community Safety is already generating one familiar Washington question.

What happens when the new department encounters a problem that doesn’t respond to a community outreach program?

DBS WIRE SOURCES (I’ve got all day).

• Twitchy — Rep. Delia Ramirez introduces legislation to replace DHS with the Department of Community Safety
• Rep. Delia Ramirez — Official October 13 announcement of the Reimagining Safety Act
• Rep. Delia Ramirez — September 23 announcement detailing the proposal
• New York Post — House Democrat pushes bill to abolish DHS following federal enforcement controversies
• X — Bill Melugin’s reaction and ensuing debate over the proposed legislation