Roast of this: [using the money for ICE to build affordable housing instead]

 One-word roast:

Nonsequitur.

Two-word roast:
Category error.

Three-word roast:
False choice fallacy.

Full roast:

• Category error and budget illiteracy: ICE is a federal agency with a federally appropriated budget. “Using that money” for local “affordable housing” is not how budgets or separation of powers work. You can’t raid the Coast Guard to fix potholes either. This is not policy; it’s wishing.

• False choice fallacy: Public safety and housing are not either/or. Security is a prerequisite for prosperity. Gut enforcement and you don’t get cheaper homes—you get higher insurance, more theft, less investment, and landlords exiting the market. You don’t cut the brakes to afford better seat cushions.

• Non sequitur on causation: The housing shortage isn’t caused by funding ICE or local policing. It’s caused by supply throttles: zoning limits, height caps, parking minimums, rent control, endless permit delays, and NIMBY vetoes. Subsidies layered on top of scarcity don’t create affordability; they ration it.

• Appeal to emotion in place of evidence: “Ridiculous” is an adjective, not an argument. The claim swaps analysis for moral grandstanding—classic rhetoric over reality. It’s engineered to make you feel like enforcement is immoral so you won’t notice the policy mechanics are incoherent.

• Central-planning delusion: “Put up affordable housing” usually means politically allocated units, cost overruns, and developer cronyism. That’s statist, collectivist housing by committee—the same playbook that made housing scarce and expensive in the first place. Freedom—by-right building, legalizing density, cutting red tape—scales. Subsidy lotteries don’t.

• Hypocrisy and projection: Condemning “authoritarian” enforcement while demanding an even more intrusive state to decide who lives where and on whose dime is projection. Trading rule of law for bureaucrats with clipboards isn’t anti-fascist; it’s just a different flavor of top-down control.

• Perverse outcomes: Defund rhetoric correlates with demoralized policing, slower response, and emboldened criminals—the costs fall heaviest on the working class you claim to help. Investors pull back, projects stall, neighborhoods hollow out. That’s not compassion; that’s collateral damage.

• Pro-freedom alternative: Keep core enforcement to protect life, liberty, and property. Slash the actual barriers to building—upzone, permit-by-right, end parking mandates, kill rent control, fast-track small multifamily, legalize ADUs, stop impact-fee shakedowns. That’s how you get abundant, truly affordable housing without sacrificing public safety.

Summary: The statement is a budgetary non sequitur, a false binary, and an emotional smokescreen for more central planning. If you want more homes and safer streets, you don’t loot law enforcement to fund state-built scarcity—you unshackle the market and uphold the rule of law.