|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true  As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor.
I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.
|
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!
If there's one group we shouldnt listen to anymore its the police departments etc.. "Whomever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's continued survival," as a wise german once said. The same applies to institutions. Fuck the border patrol, fuck the LAPD, fuck bill bratton, etc.
By the way, your precious operation wetback managed to deport less than 1,5 million people in 2 years and did not, in fact, stem the tide of not-so-legal immigration.
|
I am pretty sure the democrats want to address the illegal immigration issue by reforming immigration and making to just immigrate legally. And once that is done, enforcement will be easier to deal with.
|
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.
You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality...
![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2014/02/blogs/graphic-detail/20140208_gdc296.png)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5
|
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement.
To the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that "enforcement" is not an on and off switch, it's a complex feedback loop by which particular policy directives are realized via agency action. Naturally, the groundwork employees of a particular agency have a vested interest in the vigorous and expansive enforcement of the legal scheme underpinning their livelihood, but that dynamic alone does not figure into the sufficiency of a particular implementation agenda. Like, let's be real, liberals could have screamed just as loudly during the 80s when Reagan's EPA decided to cut itself repeatedly like a teenage girl (which they did, don't get me wrong), but those familiar with the process are fully aware of the degree to which our system relies on executive agenda-based agency powers. To the victor go the executive spoils.
Besides, its disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a lot of hard economic data that suggests that a robust enforcement of deportation policy would lead to harsh economic consequences and potentially kill a lot of industry here in the States. For whatever reason, Trump and his supporters seem to think that the message underpinning "Goobacks" was that they weren't screaming "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS" loud enough, but I'm afraid that's just not the case. Pretending that illegal immigration is some magical policy area in which there is no ambiguity vis a vie government enforcement is just that, an act of desire divorced from reality.
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.
If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.
|
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.
Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.
|
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall. Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.
How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall?
|
On June 04 2016 04:15 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality... http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5
Off the top of my head, my memory says that in 2007 or 2008 the definition of "removal" changed to include people caught crossing. I believe your chances of being deported once you make it inside of the US is much lower now than it's ever been.
And for all the talk of compromise, once again, it only leans in one direction. Increasing legalization/amnesty. What are they giving back to people who want border security? Nothing? Then don't expect to get any help.
|
Israel is the size of New Jersey and should never be used as a model for how to resolved disputes with your neighbors.
Edit: I would be perfectly fine with increased border security if it came with immigration reform.
|
On June 04 2016 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall. Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall. How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall?
Beats me, but I'd expect it to be huge.
|
On June 04 2016 04:15 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality... http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5
Obama, actually a little deceptive
According to President Obama, the allegedly record-breaking deportation numbers released this week by ICE Director John Morton are "a little deceptive." I agree. They give the impression that this administration is enforcing the law more than, say, the previous administration. But other ICE numbers suggest that immigration enforcement is declining, not increasing.
Speaking about the year-end deportation figures to a group of Hispanic reporters in late September, the President said:
The statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we've been doing is, with the stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back – that's counted as a deportation.
This book-cooking was reported last year too. As the president said, one way that DHS pumps its numbers is to count those caught at the border and returned quickly. I don't have a problem with that, if these aliens are actually processed as a removal, and as long as the agency provides a breakdown of the numbers so that anyone can see the various types of enforcement that are being counted. But DHS and ICE public affairs personnel do not make that available; nor do they provide any breakdown of how the aliens were identified (e.g. Secure Communities vs. worksite – oh wait, I forgot, there are no more worksite operations), or which type of removal tool was used, i.e. expedited removal, voluntary departure or return, stipulated removal, etc. (See my colleague W.D. Reasoner's "Deportation Basics: How Immigration Enforcement Works (or Doesn’t) in Real Life".)
What I do have a problem with is the implication from Morton that this very modest increase in removals is somehow the result of tough enforcement in the interior of the country, or that ICE is making "progress".
Statistics on ICE arrests tell a different story. According to the annual report from the Office of Immigration Statistics, ICE is arresting far fewer people in the interior than ever before. The latest statistics shows that in 2010, ICE located fewer than half the number of deportable aliens in 2010 than they did in 2006 (517,000, down from 1.2 million).
Arrest numbers also have been dropping for quite some time. In 2006, the combined efforts of the Investigations and the Detention and Removal divisions resulted in 117,000 alien arrests, which dropped to 68,000 in 2008 and down to 54,000 in 2010. This is "progress" only if you are not in favor of immigration law enforcement. Not only has ICE shifted its focus nearly exclusively to removing illegal aliens who commit other crimes, it has reduced the overall level of enforcement within the country, where the 11 million illegal aliens are living and working and affecting the well-being of American communities.
For more on how ICE is doing less with more, watch members of the House Immigration Policy and Enforcement Sub-committee grill John Morton at an oversight hearing on October 13, 2010.
Just imagine your new tourist attraction, the great wall of "Fuck you Mexico!" America!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 04 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall. Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall. How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall? Beats me, but I'd expect it to be huge.
I did some analysis a long time ago; I don't have citations for it; it came to around a 10-15% reduction, depending on how much money you put into it.
|
The wall represents a much needed giant middle finger to mexico, for taking advantage of our weakness for so many years.
|
United States43968 Posts
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.
Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different. Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well. EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness. Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one. Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them! Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive? Objection, bias, your honor. I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position. If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall. Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.
You're advocating a hugely expensive public construction project on the grounds that walls are better than not walls?
|
You just linked to a conservative think tank that focuses on advocate for immigration reduction and are not really an unbiased source. There has also been some pretty reasonable criticism levied against them due to their connection to John Tanton, including some from the Wall Street Journal.
|
So according to the LAtimes, Bernies biggest donors are students and the unemployed. So basically Bernie is redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich with his advertising blitzes.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E2TGTkJ.png)
|
Interesting article on Hillary and her dealings:
Donald Trump is not a man who needs any kind of assistance when it comes to coining insulting epithets or finding effective lines of attack on his political opponents. He has a vulgar, shameless, and sophomoric style that seems better suited for professional wrestling than presidential politics, and resembles a troll who gets off on provoking people, all to satisfy his desperate craving for attention. This unorthodox and brazen approach is unpredictable, and it could prove to be very potent against a conventional politician like Hillary Clinton, who has plenty of political and personal baggage for Trump to work with (which — it should be noted — her current opponent has refused to exploit).
Trump’s nickname for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” gets to the heart of what so many Americans find disconcerting about the former Secretary of State and her husband. The opportunism, the sleazy connections (e.g. Frank Giustra, Sant Chatwal, Marc Rich, etc.), the millions in paid speeches from Wall Street firms and foreign companies, the endless catalog of scandals (the majority — but not all — of which are baseless), the big campaign contributions from bankers and billionaires and media moguls, and so on. Clinton has a serious image problem: people view her as the ultimate politician who will lie and cheat her way into power (there’s a reason why people believe Frank and Claire Underwood were inspired by the Clintons).
Of course, a great deal of this is obviously a result of right-wing smears and conspiracy theories that have been propagated since the first day the Clinton’s entered the political spotlight. Anyone who denies that a right-wing noise machine has been making shit up about the Clinton’s and manufacturing scandals since the 1990s is simply deluding themselves. But the same goes for anyone who argues that the Clinton’s are merely victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” who have never done anything questionable or ethically dubious in their entire careers — like the folks at Blue Nation Review, a website that was purchased by a Hillary Super PAC run by David Brock in December and has since become a propaganda wing for the Clinton campaign.
Source
|
One of the problems of the Trumpian wall, by the way, is that there is also a truly staggering amount of legal bordercrossing every single day along the US-Mexican border, upon which the economy is utterly dependent. The problem with all walls is to make it semi-permeable, letting only through what you want to be let through. a wall of the effectiveness that trump imagines would slow down the flows of the economy between the two states slow down to a crawl.
On June 04 2016 04:36 biology]major wrote:
The wall represents a much needed giant middle finger to mexico, for taking advantage of our weakness for so many years. this thread makes me want to do heroin. if only it wasnt illegal! Although you are, of course, correct: that IS the actual reasons for why walls are built. the fact that many people right now wish for walls to return is because they want to make a show of the sovereignty of the nation state. of course, that sovereignty is being undermined by forces much larger and more dangerous than illegal immigration..
|
On June 04 2016 04:36 Plansix wrote:
You just linked to a conservative think tank that focuses on advocate for immigration reduction and are not really an unbiased source. There has also been some pretty reasonable criticism levied against them due to their connection to John Tanton, including some from the Wall Street Journal.
Again you attack the source. Always the left will attack the source. When I could attack the source as well.
CNN is biased.
NYT is biased. Has been completely discredited multiple times. Their comments section is insufferable.
Huffpo is biased. A complete joke by now hopefully everyone has realized.
Buzzfeed / Vox / All those click-bait sites? Complete jokes that intentionally obfuscate and are just time wasters.
MSNBC completely biased.
Foxnews completely biased.
Every outlet has an agenda and a bias. We can always attack the source. Every single one of us on every side can attack the source. "This one is our preferred source of bullshit though so it is better."
What, CNN hasn't run a false narrative before? They're the most popular news site in the world.
I'd agree that CNN is in fact better than Breitbart. Hell, The Economist was rated as one of the most trusted sources by the left, and every time they post an article the top two comments are almost always criticizing it for being biased, untruthful, half baked and not telling the full story, or an outright lie. Once in a while with an actual correction that can be looked up easily.
So every time you say, "a ha, that's a conservative source. Complete bullshit." And I really agree, I felt dirty linking Breitbart because I most definitely don't identify with their reader base. But even they can have very poignant pieces that skewer complete hypocrisies, lies, or just full omissions from the left.
Often times these sources, even less credible ones have sources of their own that are very reliable.
Yet another reason to vote for Trump. The only candidate calling out the media for being completely full of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://socialnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/greatwalloftrump.jpg)
