|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs.
You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying.
On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance?
We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable.
|
|
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying.
Lack of resources is an administrative problem. I'm not sure how you're not following.
Somewhere in the government there has to be at least one guy whose job it is is to project how many asylum seekers there will be in the coming year, and if there isn't that's a huge fuckup of admin.
There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how many asylum judges are needed for those asylum seekers, and again if there isn't somebody fucked up.
There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how much it would cost, and again that's a fuckup if there isn't anyone with that job.
There should also be a guy who is paid to tell the number the third guy came up with to the government when requesting their budget. That's a pretty key role.
There should then be a guy who is paid to have all of the taxpayer money and his job is to listen to the people asking for money and then give them enough money to do their jobs.
Now I've simplified this a little bit and there's probably more than five people involved but they should be able to handle it because it is their literal jobs. That's how this works. The taxpayers' job is to pay taxes and the governments job is to take care of this shit for us.
Imagine we had an aviation "crisis" where a few planes hit each other because nobody had hired any air traffic controllers. It would not be unreasonable for me to think that this is the kind of thing that someone should have foreseen and then taken care of ahead of time. While I'm sure that making sure planes don't hit each other is a pretty complicated job, it is a job, and it is the kind of job that, as a taxpayer, I am paying to ensure is done. If the Trump administration don't feel that they are capable of dealing with the responsibility of administering the nation they are free to resign.
|
On April 14 2019 09:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 08:26 Tachion wrote:On April 14 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2019 02:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 23:56 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 15:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 13:53 Danglars wrote:On April 13 2019 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. No he isn’t, he’s just the only one who’s aggressively pushed ‘everyone is lying but me’ and had it stick. Which is patently, 100% obvious to actual moderates and independents. Name another Republican candidate who even got close. I do think moderates would be happier with another guy who sits and takes it. Republicans are useful when they back down at the first sign of a fight. On April 13 2019 10:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 13 2019 09:27 Danglars wrote:
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out. What's exhausting is this hypocritical morality play from the right. The literal majority of the facts Trump states are verifiable lies, yet you're here praising him for pushing back on "false" stories. Did I say he never misses? Did I make an absolute statement or a comparative? Still no takers on the point of the post. Moderates don’t especially like fighting, unless someone is just consistent in fighting for their principles or consistent. Which really isn’t a charge one can lay at Trump’s door. Also why the Dems continually attacking him in the way they do is stupid, there’s really no need to be so partisan there’s more than enough to work with. If Trump pushed back at the problems of the media, or politics in general in a way that didn’t solely benefit him and even vaguely went down swamp draining route he’d be pretty popular, at least way more so than he is now with moderates. Neither institutions poll particularly well at present in trust and whatnot. That’s your perspective and I think you need to step back and examine it from other ones. Politics is full of mixed bag politicians that do a lot for their constituents, while pursuing and expanding their power. From yours, a lot of “but he lies/no part of it is fairly considered pushing back against false narratives.” From the right, part of it is “he isn’t speaking to your experience.” You’ve never been called deplorable, clinging to guns and religion, or called racist when you wanted America to control America’s immigration policy. Furthermore, you can’t even advance to the real question because you have problems with the foundations. How else will you get the message out that right-of-center immigration policy and America-first foreign policy are things you support, but nobody fights for them? Nobody even looks at the record of the party WHEN ASKED to look at it. The easiest point to make is politicians for multiple decades promised in campaign platforms or speeches to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump did it. He pushed back on the narrative that it would incite imminent violence and won (more paper tigers). You may not accept the “good” in his actions because it’s surrounded by so much “bad,” but maybe in time you’ll see the point to it all. It sure as hell beats the racism and deception narrative for why he was elected and why he enjoys a base of support today. I actually largely agree with you though, although I've been called much worse than deplorable for the record. The thing is, it's Trump, whose platform I largely disagree with, although I thought there might be some unintentional side benefits if he did get in. Way I see it establishment political orthodoxy thrives on a lack of ambition, or that x thing isn't viable to do and people get worn down and thus that becomes the reality. If you do break through that glass ceiling, or capture lightning in a bottle as Trump did, you absolutely have to nail it, because your shtick of being anti-establishment, if you fail will be the rationale to return back to establishment norms. I don't have much skin in the game, not much I particularly support about his platform. Trump's brand is both his (or yours) Achilles heel if he done goofs. Want to discuss Wikileaks and what they do, indepdent of Julian Assange? Good luck with some people, because to many Julian Assange is Wikileaks (which is his fault), so hence his own foibles subsequently are a stick to beat the entire organisation with. Which IMO will come to bite people in the ass, and actually the people who care about these issues because of Trump's flaws, who IMO doesn't even particularly care about any of them. We shall have to say how it plays out, I think people who may have voted for him, but aren't part of his loyal base, by and large can see through his bullshit more and more and that'll play out down the line. This does work both ways though, many positions considered of the left poll better as single issues than a lot of Trump's basic platform does and hit the exact same kind of roadblocks. It's largely why I'm critical of Corbyn a lot over in the UK and annoy my leftie friends, because I don't think his platform matters at all if he doesn't get elected, so get elected. Re-nationalising elements of our public infrastructure like rail has been in the 'impossible to do' column for decades, I think that will be exposed as absolutely wrong to those who aren't already left wing if we actually do it and it works, but if we don't seize the appetite for it and actually do it while there's a bit of a surge of popularity for traditional left wing things, then it'll be shoved back into the 'impossible can't do it' box if we return to more of a business as normal climate. I don't particularly value loyalty all that much over pragmatism, my loyalty is to what I want done in a policy sense. I'm happy to say, not call people wanting to leave the European Union racist as I think it's often wrong anyway, also it entrenches people more and it drags out resentful 'screw you' turnout, most of my fellow travellers at the time said I was wrong and variants of 'you have to call out x when you see it' and I said we'd lose that vote, which we did. Clinton's deplorables comment was much in the same vein and completely idiotic to do. You can basically only lose votes doing what she did, people who agree, already agree anyway, and there will be floating voters feeling alienated by such an association. I think people should apply the same vague standard to Trump on his bullshit, his weird skillset will eventually become way more of a liability than an asset. This was roughly the central thesis behind The Flight 93 Election. I hope you've read it. It's very important for people that oppose Trump's political platform (to the extent he cleaves to one) to understand the perspective of people that steadfastly support a Republican Platform (to the extent it actually believes and implements it) against the Democratic one. Trump's opposition is a mix of the general revulsion of traditionally Republican principles of religious liberty, strong borders, support of Israel, America-first foreign policy, and revulsion at the man himself and his speech and his way of doing things. For the principles, they're opposed for being purely discriminatory, inhumane, anti-Palestinian, and isolationist. For the verbal and written expression of the opposition, the same class has been leveled at every candidate before Trump, who universally were called racist and sexist and anti-poor. You may understand that I'm less worried about what people scream about Trump when they've done the same thing for 20 years, and will do the same thing for another 20, if not until we're all dead and buried. Surprising that people still look to the Flight 93 election article as some sort of sensible justification for 2016. It's nothing more than a feel good piece for conservatives who want to shoehorn morality into their politics while still supporting immoral politicians. It doesn't matter if it was Bernie instead of Hillary in 2016, or even another 4 years of Obama. 2020 is going to be another flight 93 for conservatives So will be the election after that, and after that, because the justification used in that article isn't a defense of Trump, it's an attack on liberal opponents.The plane is always in danger of crashing, and the threat is never going to fade. You could still use this critique if you never read the article, but read the title and heard it that it tried to justify Trump. You fail to appreciate or consider the gap in policy preference. It's just a one-liner on the piece extended to several sentences. I would think someone that frequently talks about people voting against their own interests, and extends belief in Trump conspiracy theories, would pause before accusing others of using explanations that always justify whatever action they seek. I really should make a prediction about what comes next after Trump-Russia. Maybe it's Israel or secretive White Power groups.
And the critique still stands, because Anton's justifications for Trump in the article are mostly panic and fear towards the alternative. Mass immigration! America is screwed! Nothing would be worse than Hillary winning! "Charge the cockpit or you die." It's sick and bleak and has perverted Conservative discourse on anything relating to Trump. Anton's followup "After the Flight 93 Election" is just more of the same. The left is out to destroy America. "To stand up for truth, morality, the good, the West, America, constitutionalism and decency is to summon the furies". Just masturbatory grandstanding without any honest reflection on how the current administration is saving America from the predicted doom. But hey, left bad.
|
On April 14 2019 12:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. Lack of resources is an administrative problem. I'm not sure how you're not following. Somewhere in the government there has to be at least one guy whose job it is is to project how many asylum seekers there will be in the coming year, and if there isn't that's a huge fuckup of admin. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how many asylum judges are needed for those asylum seekers, and again if there isn't somebody fucked up. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how much it would cost, and again that's a fuckup if there isn't anyone with that job. There should also be a guy who is paid to tell the number the third guy came up with to the government when requesting their budget. That's a pretty key role. There should then be a guy who is paid to have all of the taxpayer money and his job is to listen to the people asking for money and then give them enough money to do their jobs. Now I've simplified this a little bit and there's probably more than five people involved but they should be able to handle it because it is their literal jobs. That's how this works. The taxpayers' job is to pay taxes and the governments job is to take care of this shit for us.
So things are hugely messed up, but it's not a crisis. Good work. At least we are making progress.
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 12:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:25 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. Lack of resources is an administrative problem. I'm not sure how you're not following. Somewhere in the government there has to be at least one guy whose job it is is to project how many asylum seekers there will be in the coming year, and if there isn't that's a huge fuckup of admin. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how many asylum judges are needed for those asylum seekers, and again if there isn't somebody fucked up. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how much it would cost, and again that's a fuckup if there isn't anyone with that job. There should also be a guy who is paid to tell the number the third guy came up with to the government when requesting their budget. That's a pretty key role. There should then be a guy who is paid to have all of the taxpayer money and his job is to listen to the people asking for money and then give them enough money to do their jobs. Now I've simplified this a little bit and there's probably more than five people involved but they should be able to handle it because it is their literal jobs. That's how this works. The taxpayers' job is to pay taxes and the governments job is to take care of this shit for us. So things are hugely messed up, but it's not a crisis. Good work. At least we are making progress.
As long as we're agreed that it's less serious than the KFC chicken crisis, and caused by the exact same kind of failure of management.
|
On April 14 2019 12:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:37 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:25 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. Lack of resources is an administrative problem. I'm not sure how you're not following. Somewhere in the government there has to be at least one guy whose job it is is to project how many asylum seekers there will be in the coming year, and if there isn't that's a huge fuckup of admin. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how many asylum judges are needed for those asylum seekers, and again if there isn't somebody fucked up. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how much it would cost, and again that's a fuckup if there isn't anyone with that job. There should also be a guy who is paid to tell the number the third guy came up with to the government when requesting their budget. That's a pretty key role. There should then be a guy who is paid to have all of the taxpayer money and his job is to listen to the people asking for money and then give them enough money to do their jobs. Now I've simplified this a little bit and there's probably more than five people involved but they should be able to handle it because it is their literal jobs. That's how this works. The taxpayers' job is to pay taxes and the governments job is to take care of this shit for us. So things are hugely messed up, but it's not a crisis. Good work. At least we are making progress. As long as we're agreed that it's less serious than the KFC chicken crisis, and caused by the exact same kind of failure of management.
Actual I consent to neither. Not your artificially large definition of "crisis" nor the nature of the failure. I suppose that is a very Kwarkian explanation, though. Of all the Democrat excuses on this matter, administrative failure is pretty much never their explanation.
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 12:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:38 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:37 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:25 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way.
Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration.
The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. Lack of resources is an administrative problem. I'm not sure how you're not following. Somewhere in the government there has to be at least one guy whose job it is is to project how many asylum seekers there will be in the coming year, and if there isn't that's a huge fuckup of admin. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how many asylum judges are needed for those asylum seekers, and again if there isn't somebody fucked up. There should also be at least one guy whose job it is to project how much it would cost, and again that's a fuckup if there isn't anyone with that job. There should also be a guy who is paid to tell the number the third guy came up with to the government when requesting their budget. That's a pretty key role. There should then be a guy who is paid to have all of the taxpayer money and his job is to listen to the people asking for money and then give them enough money to do their jobs. Now I've simplified this a little bit and there's probably more than five people involved but they should be able to handle it because it is their literal jobs. That's how this works. The taxpayers' job is to pay taxes and the governments job is to take care of this shit for us. So things are hugely messed up, but it's not a crisis. Good work. At least we are making progress. As long as we're agreed that it's less serious than the KFC chicken crisis, and caused by the exact same kind of failure of management. Actual I consent to neither. Not your artificially large definition of "crisis" nor the nature of the failure. I suppose that is a very Kwarkian objection, though. Of all the Democrat excuses on this matter, administrative failure is pretty much never their explanation.
The description of the problem appears to be that there are too many asylum seekers seeking asylum for the infrastructure that they have in place and therefore rather than deal with asylum seekers seeking asylum they would like to build a wall around the country.
It's not like a meteor has come out of nowhere and is about to hit the earth, or solar flares wiped out the electricity grid, or Yellowstone went off. It's asylum seekers seeking asylum. It's foreseeable. Hell, it's in the name. If it were a flood of street mimes seeking asylum they could at least justifiably claimed that it caught them unawares. But asylum seekers seeking asylum isn't surprising, this shit is what the government are paid to handle.
My proposed solution is that the people whose job it is to process asylum seekers process the asylum seekers in the normal manner. If there are not enough of them I propose that we hire more. If there is not enough funding to hire more I propose that we increase funding. I haven't got all the minutiae of the solution worked out, but I also haven't taken $3,600,000,000,000 from the American taxpayer in exchange for solving this problem. The government has taken $3,600,000,000,000, I'd expect a little more from them than "have we tried building a wall between us and doing our jobs".
It's not a crisis, it's a failure of routine administration that has absolutely no impact on the lives of the vast majority of Americans.
|
|
|
The wall accomplishes what Kwark said it does, helps prevent people who process asylum seekers from having to do their job by not letting them into the country. Because what's better than funding enough people to do a job properly? Creating a situation where you no longer need any one to do that job! Smart, like running a business that switches to automation, except instead of installing robots they just lock the front doors.
|
|
|
On April 14 2019 13:11 JimmiC wrote:
But the wall is going to have openings at crossings where the asylum seekers will go and request asylum
Nothing an overaggressive border patrol agent with a rifle can't dissuade!
After all, once you've saved the money on not having people handle asylum seekers you have plenty of money to budget towards border patrol agents!
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 14 2019 13:14 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 13:11 JimmiC wrote:
But the wall is going to have openings at crossings where the asylum seekers will go and request asylum
Nothing an overaggressive border patrol agent with a rifle can't dissuade! After all, once you've saved the money on not having people handle asylum seekers you have plenty of money to budget towards border patrol agents!
Yeah but the judges that Introvert is so upset about will probably complain. They’re the real enemy.
|
On April 14 2019 13:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 13:14 Zambrah wrote:On April 14 2019 13:11 JimmiC wrote:
But the wall is going to have openings at crossings where the asylum seekers will go and request asylum
Nothing an overaggressive border patrol agent with a rifle can't dissuade! After all, once you've saved the money on not having people handle asylum seekers you have plenty of money to budget towards border patrol agents! Yeah but the judges that Introvert is so upset about will probably complain. They’re the real enemy.
Judges complaining? That's never stopped giving it the ol Wharton college try!
Okay that's my outburst of sarcasm done, sorry to go down that rabbit hole.
Seriously though, even if this is a crisis it's hardly a crisis for the American citizenry. Maybe it is for the asylum seekers, but a certain portion of the country doesn't give two shits about them.
|
United States42260 Posts
Fun fact, since you mentioned Wharton. Trump never attended the renowned Wharton MBA program, the one people assume when you say you went to Wharton. Trump transferred to UPenn to finish his undergraduate degree. That's what he means when he says he went to Wharton. He's saying it in the geographic sense. He likes to imply that he's an alumnus of the program but what he means is that he was briefly physically on the campus that the program is taught on.
|
On April 14 2019 13:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 13:14 Zambrah wrote:On April 14 2019 13:11 JimmiC wrote:
But the wall is going to have openings at crossings where the asylum seekers will go and request asylum
Nothing an overaggressive border patrol agent with a rifle can't dissuade! After all, once you've saved the money on not having people handle asylum seekers you have plenty of money to budget towards border patrol agents! Yeah but the judges that Introvert is so upset about will probably complain. They’re the real enemy.
You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. Trump's going to look at that and plenty of other things. We should be fine.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm borrowing Trump's rhetorical strategy to make a point about how this happens for those wondering
|
On April 14 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:
Fun fact, since you mentioned Wharton. Trump never attended the renowned Wharton MBA program, the one people assume when you say you went to Wharton. Trump transferred to UPenn to finish his undergraduate degree. That's what he means when he says he went to Wharton. He's saying it in the geographic sense. He likes to imply that he's an alumnus of the program but what he means is that he was briefly physically on the campus that the program is taught on.
It seems charitable to assume that Trump hasn't deluded himself into actually believing he attended, graduated from, and was top of his class at Wharton.
I didn't know he never went though, I thought he is and was just a shit student with crap grades lol.
|
On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance? We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable.
Sooooo the net migration rate in the US is below 3 migrants per thousand people per year, down from around 6 in the early 2000. It’s been going down regularly since.
source
Doesn’t quite sound like an effing invasion if you ask me. The only thing to fix is to give means to the administration to do a faster job when it comes to asylum seekers.
It’s funny, in France, Marine Le Pen also keep parotting that we are getting submerged by evil migrants (probably brown and muslim too) and that the borders are « open » (whatever the fuck that means) while our migration rate is historically low and that it hasn’t been as hard to settle in France since at least 70 years.
But then again, the advantages to have a base that ain’t interested in facts to start with.
|
On April 14 2019 15:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance? We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable. Sooooo the net migration rate in the US is below 3 migrants per thousand people per year, down from around 6 in the early 2000. It’s been going down regularly since. sourceDoesn’t quite sound like an effing invasion if you ask me. The only thing to fix is to give means to the administration to do a faster job when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s funny, in France, Marine Le Pen also keep parotting that we are getting submerged by evil migrants (probably brown and muslim too) and that the borders are « open » (whatever the fuck that means) while our migration rate is historically low and that it hasn’t been as hard to settle in France since at least 70 years. But then again, the advantages to have a base that ain’t interested in facts to start with.
The nature of the people crossing is entirely different. In the early 2000s it was mostly young single men. The numbers of those caught include many of these people who tried crossing multiple times and were caught. They were captured easily in small groups or alone, and could be deported quickly and easily as well. Today it's mostly family units making asylum claims at some point. They are also often sick and in need of medical attention. For the aforementioned reasons, they also have to be housed for longer. They also rarely get deported, so the percentage of people caught at the border being released internally is much higher. Neither the laws nor the facilities anticipated 100k such individuals arriving in a month. There is no precedent for this.
|
On April 14 2019 15:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 15:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2019 12:16 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 12:05 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. He's not meant to declare that there be more. That's not how government works. He's meant to have a competent guy working below him who has a competent guy working below him who in turn has a team of competent people in strategic planning who liaise with the budget people and the relevant department heads. Government is complicated, but it's also their job. They're bad at their jobs. They need to be less bad at their jobs. You have got to spare me this garbage. With the resources they have they can't do the job that's required. Have not all the articles I've posted over the months displayed this? We have a DHS head from the last administration saying it, the NYT is acknowledging it, a few reporters at the WP have been describing it, and you are blaming administrative malfeasance. That's alternative facts, not what I'm saying. On April 14 2019 12:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 12:00 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 14 2019 11:52 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2019 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2019 11:31 Introvert wrote:
We can argue about that later (like how that would just incentivize more of this). The first step, as they say, is recognizing that you have a problem (a "crisis" we might call it). Slow and steady. I don't acknowledge a crisis. Too few immigration judges and facilities is not an existential threat to the US. How has this crisis impacted your life? Because to me this feels like rather less of a crisis that the great KFC crisis the UK had last year. That certainly impacted the lives of far more people, and in a far more negative way. Lots of people wanting to seek asylum in the United States isn't a crisis, it's a big country bordering a country with a cartel violence problem, you'd expect a lot of asylum seekers. This is the kind of routine day to day administration shit that we have a government to deal with. If they're fucking up the handling of it that still doesn't mean it's a crisis, it's just piss poor administration. The opioid crisis is a crisis because it's one of the leading causes of death. People can name their classmates who died as a result of it. It's out of control. It's directly impacting the lives of Americans everywhere. The fact that the government didn't hire enough people to process asylum seekers is right there with KFC not buying enough chickens. They had a system in place and they fucked up the admin. Only the asylum thing isn't as bad. Expanding the definition of crisis to "[immediate] existential threat" is completely arbitrary. It's a crisis to those whose job it is to deal with it. How about their lives? They aren't " fucking up the handling of it," they are operationally incapable of handling it. You think that's solvable by more judges. If you won't take it from literally everyone involved (including the former head of DHS) then I guess you are hopeless. Just define it away! Meanwhile blame Trump while he's stopped at every turn by judges and the issue is ignored by the political party that controls a chamber of Congress. Well because a bunch of what he tries to do is, actually not doable legallly? Or overall popular with the whole country? Meh, these judges are creating new law out of thin air, but that's not even the point. To avoid calling the crisis what it is and then blaming Trump is ludicrous. As if Trump can declare "there shall be more immigration judges." Lots if Democrat are doing what Kwark, Plansix, et al do. Just deny the problem exists, and then blame Trump for the non-existent problem. Are we talking about the same crisis? The one that was an issue but Trump made a crisis and now it’s everyone Else’s fault for being critical of his stance? We're talking about the fact that almost 100k people are arriving at the border a month and the vast majority are families making asylum claims. This is not a situation the laws or these agencies were equipped to handle. The Democrat response, in so far as there is one, is to say that's not a crisis, or at least not a "real" crisis. I'm here posting from, not Breitbart, but the NYT, WP, and other places and we are still getting denialism. At the same time I'm told the Democrat party is very serious about immigration. Believable. Sooooo the net migration rate in the US is below 3 migrants per thousand people per year, down from around 6 in the early 2000. It’s been going down regularly since. sourceDoesn’t quite sound like an effing invasion if you ask me. The only thing to fix is to give means to the administration to do a faster job when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s funny, in France, Marine Le Pen also keep parotting that we are getting submerged by evil migrants (probably brown and muslim too) and that the borders are « open » (whatever the fuck that means) while our migration rate is historically low and that it hasn’t been as hard to settle in France since at least 70 years. But then again, the advantages to have a base that ain’t interested in facts to start with. The nature of the people crossing is entirely different. In the early 2000s it was mostly young single men. Those numbers include many of these people who tried crossing multiple times and were caught. They were captured easily in small groups or alone, and could be deported quickly and easily as well. Today it's mostly family units making asylum claims at some point. They are also often sick and in need of medical attention. For the aforementioned reasons, they also have to be housed for longer. They also rarely get deported, so the percentage of people caught at the border being released internally is much higher. Neither the laws nor the facilities anticipated 100k such individuals arriving in a month.
How much of the emigration from south of the border do you attribute to US foreign policy contributing to the destabilization of the countries they are coming from?
That's to say would you think it fair to say there's more the US could do to prevent their desire to flee their home countries in the first place rather than simply detaining them and sending them back (as I presume you would prefer)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
