|
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 January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange. It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six." But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing. Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it) It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about. Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR. If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too. Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused.
|
On January 19 2018 09:43 Mohdoo wrote: So wait, why not vote for this? What's still in it that's shitty?
It's DACA neutral, but the Democrats are scared of the activists in their party to whom they (stupidly) promised DACA enshrinement when the next funding bill came up.
On January 19 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange. It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six." But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing. On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it) It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about. Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR. If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too. Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused. Changing chain migration isn't very hard, especially if we are only talking about DACA recipients and their situations.
|
On January 19 2018 09:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:43 Mohdoo wrote: So wait, why not vote for this? What's still in it that's shitty? It's DACA neutral, but the Democrats are scared of the activists in their party to whom they (stupidly) promised DACA enshrinement when the next funding bill came up. Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange. It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six." But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing. On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it) It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about. Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR. If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too. Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused. Changing chain migration isn't very hard, especially if we are only talking about DACA recipients and their situations. It will never get 60 votes in the senate, so it is literally impossible. You can't poison pill a bill to the point where people will primary their senator for voting for it and then claim its their fault for the shut down.
|
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame! Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating. not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state. The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws. And the AG of CA just said this: Show nested quote +The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?
also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.
on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.
|
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." The justifications vary, and some get quite lengthy, but it always ends up the same. Only one side gets called obstructionists, and only one side must give up compromises. I’d say this is pretty foolish to be this transparent in partisanship, but essentially they’ve written off the voters soured by this kind of double-dealing.
|
That California bill is mind bogglingly stupid.
|
On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame! Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating. not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state. The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws. And the AG of CA just said this: The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws? also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional. on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.
That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS."
Edit:
Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday)
note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html
|
The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court
There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen.
Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.
Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."
On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.
They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable.
On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame! Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating. not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state. The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws. And the AG of CA just said this: The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws? also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional. on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources. That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS." Edit: here is cory booker: "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday) Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday) http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html
Sounds like they have given the majority a very clear path to get their vote. Considering the leadership won't let minority bills come to the floor for debate and have excluded the Democrats from the last two major pieces of legislation, they have no other option.
|
On January 19 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-courtThere is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen. Show nested quote +Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.
Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."
On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer. They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable.
Yes, I'm sure this is why the state will prosecute private employers who may wish to comply with federal law.
|
On January 19 2018 09:53 Mohdoo wrote: That California bill is mind bogglingly stupid. Whether or not it ends up being wise is another matter, but it's absolutely not mind boggling given what many employers of undocumented immigrants do to their employees.
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump claims his crackdown on undocumented workers will raise wages and improve jobs for all Americans. But there’s at least one way it’s already having the opposite effect.
By ramping up deportations, the Trump administration is making immigrant workers less likely to come forward when they’ve been cheated out of wages or put in harm’s way on the job. Worker advocates and attorneys fear that Trump’s policies will ultimately give leverage to abusive employers and drive down standards for all workers in industries that rely on immigrant labor.
“There’s a lot of fear out there, and it’s driving workers further underground,” said Christopher Williams, a Chicago attorney who handles wage theft cases involving immigrants. “I honestly think it’s creating an incentive to hire more undocumented workers, because now they’re even more vulnerable to being exploited.”
The muzzling of undocumented workers has been a problem for decades. Under President Barack Obama, who carried out a record-breaking number of deportations, many workers were afraid to file wage complaints or report workplace hazards for fear that doing so would backfire on them. It is not uncommon for unscrupulous bosses to threaten to report workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or simply fire them in retaliation.
That has provided one of the leading arguments for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to legal status: If workers are brought out of the shadows, they will be less fearful of asserting their workplace rights, helping to level the playing field between good employers and bad ones.
But undocumented workers now face what’s quickly shaping up to be the most unforgiving environment in years. As Republicans pursue a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Trump administration has broadened the criteria for who should be considered for deportation. Immigrant rights advocates and lawyers have described the uptick in enforcement in recent weeks as unprecedented.
Even in times of more relaxed enforcement, many immigrants are reluctant to put their names on formal complaints against their employers, said Antonio Vanegas, a Guatemala native. Vanegas successfully recouped back pay from his employer, a pita shop in Washington, D.C., after filing wage theft allegations in 2013 with the help of a union-backed worker group, Good Jobs Nation. As The Huffington Post reported at the time, immigration agents detained Vanegas, but he later secured a work visa as the victim of a crime.
“At first I was terrified,” Vanegas said of filing his complaint. “But once I started to know my rights … I felt empowered.” He said there’s a simple reason many exploited workers never step forward: “They have mouths to feed.”
The White House says it is focusing detainment efforts on dangerous criminals, though immigrant advocates said many people without criminal records have been picked up, too. “We’re getting them out, and that’s what I said I would do,” Trump said recently. The reports of a surge in detentions have made many undocumented immigrants too skittish to be out in public.
And that fear is already spilling onto work sites, said Sam Robles, a spokeswoman for the Workers Defense Project, a nonprofit that represents immigrant construction workers in Texas. Robles’ group has been teaching workers how to respond if immigration agents show up at work and seek to detain them.
“These are difficult conversations to have,” Robles said. “These folks already have dangerous, hard jobs. When you have an increase in raids or deportations, they are even more afraid. I’ve seen the families. They are really tired and concerned.”
A study that Robles’ group did with the University of Texas at Austin found that roughly half of construction workers in the state are undocumented, making them less likely than other workers to report abusive practices. According to the study, a construction worker dies every three days in Texas, and nearly 1 in 4 has been a victim of wage theft. Many construction workers speak little or no English and aren’t aware of their legal rights.
Many workers are even more afraid of their employers than they are of the government, and would rather swallow their lost wages than risk their jobs. Debbie Berkowitz, a former policy adviser at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said she believes injury rates are much higher in the poultry processing industry than employers report to the government. That’s because the industry’s largely immigrant workforce is understandably afraid to speak up about injuries, she said.
“This job, even though it doesn’t always put food on the table, is what prevents all these workers from really falling into complete poverty,” said Berkowitz, now a safety expert at the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers. “And these industries know that.”
If workers are even more afraid to come forward during the Trump era, she added, “It just means more workers will get hurt and companies will get away with cutting corners.”
Worker advocates are concerned that cutting corners will become easier under Trump. Career civil servants in the federal government investigate companies for violations, but political appointees atop agencies like the Labor Department set the priorities. Notably, since Trump took office, the Labor Department has stopped issuing press releases detailing wage and safety investigations.
Trump and Republican lawmakers have made clear they intend to usher in a laissez-faire business environment. The GOP-led Congress has already used an arcane maneuver to undo more than a dozen regulations issued by the Obama administration. One of those rules would have made it harder for companies to secure federal contracts after breaking labor law, and another would have made employers keep an ongoing record of workplace injuries to better identify dangers.
Combined with a crackdown on immigrants, scaling back enforcement in dangerous industries like poultry processing and construction would give employers even less to worry about, according to Berkowitz.
“Why would employers not gamble that they won’t be inspected?” she said. “Or maybe they’ll just forget that OSHA exists.”
Donald Trump’s Crackdown On Undocumented Immigrants Is Silencing Exploited Workers
|
On January 19 2018 10:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-courtThere is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen. Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.
Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."
On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer. They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable. Yes, I'm sure this is why the state will prosecute private employers who may wish to comply with federal law. That is a bridge to far, but I have no problem with states not complying with ICE.
Edit: farvacola raises the valid point that ICE also doesn't give a shit about bad employers abusing people, which is illegal no matter what.
|
On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame! Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating. not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state. The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws. And the AG of CA just said this: The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws? also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional. on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources. That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS." Edit: Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday) Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday) note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html it's not tired, it's entirely justified. you have a history of bad faith arguing (though not nearly as much as some others), hence there's good reason to disbelieve you and ask for citations/info. I follow things a fair deal, but haven't heard of everything. you have now provided them and I am satisfied; the dems should be voting for the cr (assuming it's clean), even though the only reason it's here is because of the gross irresponsibility and willful malice of the republicans.
|
On January 19 2018 10:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame! Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating. not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state. The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws. And the AG of CA just said this: The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.
“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws? also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional. on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources. That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS." Edit: Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday) Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday) note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html it's not tired, it's entirely justified. you have a history of bad faith arguing ( though not nearly as much as some others), hence there's good reason to disbelieve you and ask for citations. you have now provided them and I am satisfied; the dems should be voting for the cr (assuming it's clean), even though the only reason it's here is because of the gross irresponsibility and willful malice of the republicans.
I'll take that I guess lol.
|
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to fund the government Thursday night in an attempt to avoid a government shutdown Saturday.
By a vote of 230-197, the House passed a bill to fund the government through 16 February. The legislation also extends the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip) for six years as an incentive for Democrats to support it but does not address the so-called “Dreamers”, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and are poised to lose protections from deportation in March.
Making protections permanent for Dreamers has been a top Democratic priority for funding the government. Without these provisions only six Democrats voted for the legislation.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Democrats have sufficient votes there to block the legislation. If no agreement is reached by Saturday, the federal government is poised to shut down which leave many federal workers on furlough and only “essential” functions of the government operating. The last time the government shutdown was 2013, and it lasted 16 days.
The House only reached a deal after making key concessions to conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus which included the promise of a seperate vote on increasing military funding in the coming days.
Source
|
I'm still confused why it's obstructionist when the GOP forces a shutdown to reduce spending but when the Democrats threaten to force a shutdown to push through DACA it's a perfectly legitimate tactic and "just part of negotiation." Someone please clarify this for me.
The WSJ says the Senate requires 60 votes for a spending bill and says nothing about a filibuster. I'm not an expert here, but if they need less than 60 without a filibuster then it's at least unclear/misleading writing.
In the Senate, spending bills need at least 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles, giving Democrats the power to derail the bill. Without an immigration deal, most Senate Democrats said they were prepared to oppose the spending measure. This would seem to imply that Democratic votes are needed.
EDIT: The post above contradicts mine, so I'll take that one's word for it.
That said, the Democrats are going filibuster a spending bill to force a shutdown? Holy shit, even I thought that they had more decency than Ted Cruz.
|
whether or not the democrats will filibuster remains to be seen; and will likely depend on the exact contents of the bill. and they do have more decency than ted cruz; there's no question about that. the only question is how muhc more decency they have.
|
The GOP doesn’t let them take part in government. I don’t understand why people think the GOP can go an entire year straight up baring the democrats from crafting legislation in any way, but demand votes now to pass a spending measure without giving the democrats something. If the GOP didn’t like this game, they shouldn’t have played it for 6 years.
|
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." The way I see it there's two possible explanations for this.
(1) The Democrats get what they want, but keep wanting more and more (2) The Republicans aren't compromising in the first place
I imagine you're trying to imply the first is dominant. Do you have any argument or evidence to convince me or anyody else of that, or is this just an argument in absentia?
|
On January 19 2018 11:32 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote: Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.
Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes. You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad. I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more." The way I see it there's two possible explanations for this. (1) The Democrats get what they want, but keep wanting more and more (2) The Republicans aren't compromising in the first place I imagine you're trying to imply the first is dominant. Do you have any argument or evidence to convince me or anyody else of that, or is this just an argument in absentia?
Are you talking about the last sentence in that post?
|
I mean, the Republican caucus is in such disarray that guarantees from McConnell to Collins about shoring up the ACA were completely negated (alternatively she was just straight up lied to, in which case I don't know why any Dem would believe McConnell and co. if they'd lie to their own party). "We'll work on DACA within 3 weeks" is even less of a promise than Collins got.
|
|
|
|