|
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 December 20 2017 08:39 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 08:20 IyMoon wrote:On December 20 2017 08:14 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 07:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 20 2017 07:14 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 06:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 19 2017 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:52 Simberto wrote:On December 19 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't really care about whether Trump has domestic support for the action or why. My only concern is what is good for the US. Israel is an ally and should be treated as such. The Palestinians will never be allies. For that reason alone, the US should dispense with this fiction of trying to be "fair" on the Israel/Palestine issue. Nor do I care what other Western countries think. They aren't going to throw the US overboard on account of Palestine for the same reasons that the Saudis and other Arab powers won't. The bottom line is that no one really cares about the Palestinians. Might makes right is such a wonderful ethical framework. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. And it is so incredibly shortsighted. Do you really think that you are so isolated from anyone else in the world that pissing everyone off will never have negative consequences? Like I have infamously argued before, ethics and morality aren't the ends of rational foreign policy. The self-interest of the nation is. I don't get this tbh. Like I completely understand why someone would vote in their own self-interest with regard to national or local politics - for example, you could think that higher taxes would be a societal good but negative for yourself and then vote for lower taxes. I have 0 qualms with understanding voting in your own self-interest. But how is your life going to be impacted by what side the US picks in a regional conflict on the other side of the world? Like I get wanting good trade deals because they positively impact your economy. I could even get supporting Israel from a humanitarian perspective (although I'd disagree), but choosing foreign policy as a specific area that should not be influenced by ethics and morality? That seems completely backwards to me - foreign policy should be the area of politics where you to the greatest degree can allow yourself to be influenced by ethics and morality without it negatively impacting your own life in any way. What are you arguing against, the principle or the application of the principle in this instance? Here, it's the application. I understand acting out of rational self-interest and I don't object to that, I just don't see how you think your life is going to be directly impacted in any way whatsoever based on to what degree the US supports Israel or Palestine. Unlike political decisions where you yourself will be directly impacted, I think it should here be easy to choose the one where the humanitarian benefit is the greatest, because you won't actually be impacted either way, except emotionally. Maybe the long-term humanitarian benefit and the US's national interest are aligned in this regard. I don't think xDaunt ever revealed that he thinks this action stands obviously against humanitarian interests in the region, just that it shouldn't be a deciding issue in US foreign policy. If those things are not aligned... doesn't that make us the bad guys? I think we've had several pages recently on just that question, and why it's so obviously one way or the other  I would hope the several pages has revealed that it is not so obviously any way at all, and reductionist thinking along these lines is just that.
That was tongue-in-cheek. It pays tribute to how long the discussion went on, and is now resurrected, with comments like "I don't get this tbh," "Telling the world to fuck off when you live in a global world is not always the best idea," showing a genuine shock that anyone believes the position. I find the juxtaposition very humorous.
|
I see I've been strawmanned right up the arse here.
My point isn't that the cold war was about American imperialism. My point is that supporting the genocide in Indonesia had economic reasons. You don't think its a coincidence that the economy in Indonesia was designed by the World Bank at the behest of the UK and the USA?
I never once generalized to the cold war as a whole, but shit look where the argument ended up. Its almost like people don't want to discuss the actual issue.
People are jumping to America's defense as if I'm saying America is nothing but an evil corporation and the good communists should just have been left alone die of starvation in peace.
I never said anything of the sort.
I just said that Indonesia is a shameful episode in America's past. Anyone who genuinely thinks that American reasons for getting behind this genocide was for 'self defense' has their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears. Indonesia may have been spreading some anti-American propaganda, but it wasn't an existential threat.
|
The issues you're ignoring (can't tell if it's intentional or not) is that a) this "genocide" was more accurately a series of political purges following a coup, with specious evidence that American involvement was a leading or significant factor in the coup's occurrence and b) the very cables you referenced make it quite clear that the US aims were clearly strategic rather than economic, and c) the economic benefits that were reaped were the result of policies that Indonesia voluntarily engaged in, under the counsel of Indonesian economists, because they were mutually beneficial.
It's really hard to argue that US involvement in Indonesia was primarily economic from what I can tell. Would you have preferred if America refused trade to with Indonesia, at a cost to the Indonesian economy, solely to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?
|
The point isn't that we planned it pan out exactly like that. The point is that American economically benefited from a genocide it caused due to its actions in the region. We were willing to fuck around with an unfriendly nation and see what we could get out of it. And the nasty part people don't really talk about in genocide or purges is that there are clear economic winners in that exchange. We focus on the murder and don't really talk about all the empty houses. The elimination of people from Indonesia freed up resources and allowed for economic policies that benefited the US. When people are repressed and abused, another member of the society benefits from that oppression.
|
The series of political purges following the coup led to over a million dead bodies, so genocide is a reasonable term to use in my opinion. There is absolutely reason to believe that America's involvement was 'significant' although I wouldn't say it was leading. The UK was heavily involved (witnesses in the documentary - that I genuinely didn't expect anyone to actually spend their time watching - described seeing the Indonesian army escorted by US and UK forces going into villages and murdering people), moreso than the US probably but the vultures were circling immediately following the coup that we supported.
"With its 100 million people, and its 300-mile arc of islands," declared Richard Nixon, "Indonesia contains the region's richest hoard of natural resources (and is) the biggest prize in South East Asia."
You could put all this down to a series of circumstances that were extremely lucky for the US (I include the UK in all of these discussions) or you could look at it with a more subtle viewpoint that we saw the coup coming, encouraged it, lent and promised our support in return for a big say in how the country was run post coup and reaped the rewards.
On your last point that its hard to say involvement was primarily economic, I'll refer you back to my earlier post where I said economic goals in Indonesia were secondary to stamping out an ideology our countries didn't like.
You very rarely find the US meddling in foreign sovereign affairs for only one reason. Of course there was a hierarchy of various goals, but the way Indonesia was handled post coup tells you the economics were absolutely a factor.
I don't want you to think that I'm on an anti-American rant here. I just think its absolutely necessary to examine where our own success comes from and not to deny the innocent victims of it. The history of our involvement in Indonesia is one of exploiting its economic strife, exploiting its natural resources, and exploiting its population for their cheap labour.
It wasn't necessarily designed to be that way (it might have been) but it is that way.
|
No offense, but the only evidence you provided for economic motivations in that post was a context-free quote from Nixon--who wasn't even president until 6 years after the coup was over--that states he thinks Indonesia has valuable natural resources.
I don't have reason to believe your claim other than the implied "it's obvious" argument you're making.
As for your edit/last paragraph, I'd certainly acknowledge that America took actions during the Cold War that I would consider highly immoral under different circumstances, and questionable in their own circumstances if you were making the argument that its actions in Indonesia weren't strategically justified by their cost given the information available to decision-makers at the time.
On the economic side though, I'm not seeing it.
|
On December 20 2017 09:57 mozoku wrote:
No offense, but the only evidence you provided for economic motivations in that post was a context-free quote from Nixon--who wasn't even president until 6 years after the coup was over--that states he thinks Indonesia has valuable natural resources.
I don't have reason to believe your claim other than the implied "it's obvious" argument you're making.
As for your edit/last paragraph, I'd certainly acknowledge that America took actions during the Cold War that I would consider highly immoral under different circumstances, and questionable in their own circumstances if you were making the argument that its actions in Indonesia weren't strategically justified by their cost given the information available to decision-makers at the time.
On the economic side though, I'm not seeing it.
From this dodgy looking website:
http://etan.org/news/2014/2timelife.htm
In November 1967, following the capture of the "greatest prize", the booty was handed out. The Time-Life Corporation sponsored an extraordinary conference in Geneva which, in the course of a week, designed the corporate takeover of Indonesia.
It was attended by the most important businessmen in the world, the likes of David Rockefeller, and all the giants of western capitalism were represented. They included the major oil companies and banks, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, British Leyland, British-American Tobacco, American Express, Siemens, Goodyear, the International Paper Corporation, US Steel.
Across the table were Suharto's men, whom Rockefeller called "Indonesia's top economic team". Several were economists trained at the University of California in Berkeley. All sang for their supper, offering the principal selling points of their country and their people: "Abundance of cheap labour . . . a treasure house of resources . . . a captive market." Recently, I asked one of them, Dr Emile Salim, if anyone at the conference had even mentioned that a million people had died in bringing this new business-friendly government to power. "No, that was not on the agenda," he replied. "I didn't know about it till later. Remember, we didn't have television and the telephones were not working well."
The Indonesian economy was carved up, sector by sector, at the conference. In one room, forests in another, minerals. The Freeport Company got a mountain of copper in West Papua (Henry Kissinger is currently on the board). A US/European consortium got West Papua's nickel. The giant Alcoa company got the biggest slice of Indonesia's bauxite. A group of US, Japanese and French got thetropical forests of Sumatra, West Papua and Kalimantan.
On sourcing, its hard to know where to go when the major players involved in preserving and disseminating historical economic data on developing economies were exactly the people who were carving up the Indonesian economy for US businesses.
I mean, Pilger (a journalist who I trust despite his communist bent in everything he does) seems absolutely confident that this meeting happened as described but there's not loads of evidence online of it.
|
That's still not in conflict what I said though. The only difference between that meeting and what I've said is the (perhaps deservedly) spooky sounding dysphemisms.
On sourcing, its hard to know where to go when the major players involved in preserving and disseminating historical economic data on developing economies were exactly the people who were carving up the Indonesian economy for US businesses.
It would be a pretty gigantic story if the US, UK, World Bank, etc. were found to be doctoring/fudging economic data to hide imperial escapades. That's quite a claim to be making without evidence.
To be fair, I'm not sure what data you're referring to though.
|
Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me.
Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia.
Rest of the story is here
|
On December 20 2017 11:00 Introvert wrote:Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me. Show nested quote +Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Rest of the story is here Any democrat who agrees to extend the budget this year without getting a dreamer agreement is 100% getting primaried.
|
On December 20 2017 11:00 Introvert wrote:Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me. Show nested quote +Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Rest of the story is here
Good question. I think Trump hems and haws for a bit, but caves for just window dressing offered in return for legislative DACA. He doesn’t have enough hardliners on immigration in the Senate to give up anything of value. He also has made statements in the past that suggested he’s already willing to sign a clean DACA bill. I sure hope I’m wrong in this.
|
All this fiscal irresponsibility; gah! and excess use of continuing resolutions. booooo!
We need stronger requirements for congress to do thier job; I mean, the budget is their most important task, they should be getting that done before anything else.
|
On December 20 2017 11:06 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 11:00 Introvert wrote:Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me. Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Rest of the story is here Any democrat who agrees to extend the budget this year without getting a dreamer agreement is 100% getting primaried.
If it is only until early January, they might be fine. Cutting of for pay checks for government worker and leaving for the holiday could back fire hard.
Edit: the right before Christmas deal is a grand tradition as old as the Republic.
|
On December 20 2017 11:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 11:06 Nevuk wrote:On December 20 2017 11:00 Introvert wrote:Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me. Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Rest of the story is here Any democrat who agrees to extend the budget this year without getting a dreamer agreement is 100% getting primaried. If it is only until early January, they might be fine. Cutting of for pay checks for government worker and leaving for the holiday could back fire hard. Edit: the right before Christmas deal is a grand tradition as old as the Republic.
All analysis is that the the longer the democrats delay the harder and harder it becomes for them politically. Plus, unless it's done in the senate it really isn't their fault : gop has the votes in the house to do it with no issues, but the tea party wing is batshit crazy.
|
On December 20 2017 11:26 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 11:15 Plansix wrote:On December 20 2017 11:06 Nevuk wrote:On December 20 2017 11:00 Introvert wrote:Hope Trump and Kelly are prepared for a fight. Most of the Senators on that list concern me. Top senators and White House officials are laying the groundwork for a major immigration deal in January to resolve the fate of young undocumented immigrants whose legal protections were put in limbo by President Donald Trump.
At a Tuesday afternoon meeting with nearly a dozen senators deeply involved in immigration policy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly pledged that the administration will soon present a list of border security and other policy changes it wants as part of a broader deal on so-called Dreamers, according to people who attended the meeting. The plan could come in a matter of days, senators said.
About a half-dozen senators have been negotiating a bipartisan package prompted by Trump’s decision to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era executive action that granted work permits to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as minors. Yet the senators could not fully flesh out a deal before they knew what Trump was willing to sign.
“We couldn’t finish this product, this bill, until we knew where the administration was,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has been negotiating a DACA compromise for weeks, said in an interview after the meeting with Kelly. “And that’s why this meeting was so important.”
Congressional Republicans and the White House have long said any DACA deal would need to be paired with security and other enforcement measures. Democrats say that's fine as long as the provisions weren’t too onerous. But the border security question has been a sticking point for weeks, as senators swapped proposals without cutting a deal, so far.
And while liberal Democrats and grassroots activists are pressuring Congress to enact permanent legal protections for Dreamers this year, both Democrats and Republicans at the meeting with Kelly said there was a consensus that legislation wouldn’t pass before lawmakers leave Washington. It was one of the clearest sign yet that a Dreamers agreement won't, to the chagrin of liberals, come before 2018.
Flake said he believes he has a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a cloture vote on the floor on an immigration deal by mid-January, before the next likely deadline to fund the government, Jan. 19.
A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately return a request for comment. But the majority leader said during a Fox News interview that he has talked about the immigration issue with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“No, we’ll not be doing DACA … this week,” McConnell said. “That’s a matter to be discussed next year. The president has given us until March to address that issue. We have plenty of time to do it.”
At the Tuesday meeting, Kelly and other administration officials went into detail about how much of the southern border is currently fenced and how much more the White House would want in exchange for a DACA deal, according to people who attended.
Senators also pressed the White House on other immigration demands, such as an overhaul of the nation’s asylum system or a change in policy toward unaccompanied minors who are apprehended at the southern border, and whether that needed to be included in the current DACA talks.
“Which of those policy items, or immigration law changes, do we need to make as part of this and what can wait for something else?” Flake said, summing up the questions from senators. “There’s a lot of nice things we need to do as part of broader comprehensive reform, but we need to have a bill in January and we need to know what has to be in it and what the administration will support.”
The bipartisan group of senators — Flake and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) — has discussed a legalization plan that would marry the Dream Act, drafted by Durbin and Graham, with a more conservative proposal for Dreamers written by Tillis and Lankford, Flake said.
Those seven senators attended Tuesday’s meeting with Kelly, as did Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Rest of the story is here Any democrat who agrees to extend the budget this year without getting a dreamer agreement is 100% getting primaried. If it is only until early January, they might be fine. Cutting of for pay checks for government worker and leaving for the holiday could back fire hard. Edit: the right before Christmas deal is a grand tradition as old as the Republic. All analysis is that the the longer the democrats delay the harder and harder it becomes for them politically. Plus, unless it's done in the senate it really isn't their fault : gop has the votes in the house to do it with no issues, but the tea party wing is batshit crazy.
No pay checks on Christmas Eve and then jetting of for fun times with the family is a bad look. Congress isn't in session until January. People could legit default on their mortgage if they pull this stunt and jet.
It's a bad plan. Have the show down in January and avoid being the party that canceled Christmas. Shut down show down January 4th.
|
|
|
Guys I know we are on a deregulation kick, but can we cool it for a hot minute.
|
Let's just presume that Trump did something wrong. Why would he agree to be interviewed by Mueller? What good could ever come from it particularly when Trump could get prosecuted for any inaccurate answer that he gives?
|
On December 20 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:Let's just presume that Trump did something wrong. Why would he agree to be interviewed by Mueller? What good could ever come from it particularly when Trump could get prosecuted for any inaccurate answer that he gives?
Trump has avoided perjuring himself for a bunch of decades. He maybe able to avoid lying during the interview.
As for the second part, I don't think it's political viable to dodge the interview. He might as well just admit guilt to the public, because avoiding the interview will do that for him.
Clinton got interviewed during the Ken Star investigation for that very reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
