“Abolish ICE” as a Communication Strategy

“Abolish ICE” is a useful case study in communication strategy and framing. Will the slogan get the results people want?

Regardless of students’ personal views on immigration officers’ actions in Minneapolis, including the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the slogan may be “emotionally satisfying [but] politically lethal.” The language is reminiscent of abolishing slavery, but the situation is quite different.

In business communication, we teach the value of framing for persuasion, but here are a few issues students might discuss:

• Abolishment/elimination may not be what people want; they may want reform instead. A similar approach, the “defund the police” slogan after the murder of George Floyd, may have divided constituencies.

• The extreme language prevents more moderate communication approaches and goals, for example, restructuring, supplementing, or limiting.

• The result may not be practical. Students might research “zero tolerance” language in the workplace.

• The frame doesn’t offer a positive solution; it’s loss-based proposal.

• The slogan begs the question, and then what? Students might research the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, also criticized for having no clear policy-related goal.

George Lakoff’s work could provide theoretical grounding for this discussion.

Students might identify and research other slogans—for products, social causes, or sports—that gained attention but backfired or showed little result. They’re too young to remember Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” campaign, but it’s another good example.

In this case, what could work better? Maybe students will have ideas for something that conveys an inspiring, moral imperative, but is more policy focused and doesn’t alienate people who don’t share the extreme position.

Image source.