|
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 |
The battle as I understand it is about how the GOP uses every trick in the book to rig elections in their favour. This includes:
-Manipulating the counting of people so big DEM domitated cities get fewer inhabitants.
-Gerrymandering.
-Closing voting offices in select locations likely to have DEM majorities.
-Blocking selected groups from voting, using lists and selected criteria which will be to their advantage.
-Generally advocating a turout as low as possible, the Senate speaker has even advocated for it.
You would have to inform me how they are "against voter ID." I think it is fair to say the Republicans will never pass any voting legislation which are not advantegous to them. The same might be true for the Democrats, but they simply have more people behind them and the US is effectively ruled by a minority.
It is not even a given that the Democrats would wipe the elections with a more fair system, but the GOP would need to aim for a wider demograph which would be fantastic.
|
Voter ID is controversial because unlike Brazil, India or most other countries, there is no legal obligation to be able to identify yourself, in general. Therefore, people who don't travel and don't drive, generally just don't have a legal ID document.
In general, in western Europe as well, the obligation to identify yourself is relatively new. And in particular people resisted it because of government abusing all such registries and requirements during the Nazi occupation. The fear of government abuse of identity databases is real, and justified.
So given that in general ID documents aren't mandatory in the US (in most of Europe it is now), it becomes problematic to require them for voting.
Meanwhile in Brazil and India, every citizen is required to have a national ID document, regardless of how poor they are. So requiring this document at elections is no extra onus on the citizens.
|
In Germany we have an id card which makes this pretty easy to do. In the US you don't necessarily have one, right? So if you don't have a driver's license or a passport you simply don't have id.
|
It's not about being against voter ID; it's about being against additional arbitrary rules that disenfranchise and marginalize specific groups of people through a blatantly false narrative that these people are inherently suspicious or likely to commit voter fraud.
|
On July 26 2019 13:13 Falling wrote:
I personally like Lindsey Graham's solution, although it looks like Democrats are blocking the ability to vote on it for now.
The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business.
So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough.
As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out.
Seems like a good idea to me.
If the US does not have the facilities, what the hell is Mexico supposed to do with them? Sounds like a NIMBY solution. And applying from "back home" is completely unreasonable: these people are fleeing their homes. You are only eligible for asylum if your home is too dangerous to return to. But I'm sure it isn't too dangerous to stay in while your paperwork is processed for months/years. Right?
Now if you're arguing that the people being detained are mostly not eligible for asylum in the first place and will be sent back, then the problem is clearly processing speed. But you cannot apply that a priori. If only 10% are eligible for asylum, it is still monstrous to require them to apply from home. It also won't stop the hordes from coming anyway.
The immediate solution would be to drastically improve the conditions people are being held in, or release them into the country with an obligation to report to authorities every week/month/whatever.
|
Because Dems are not against Voter ID.
They are against Voter ID while making it hard for certain groups to get Voter ID's.
Attempts to implement Voter ID in Republican states coincides with the closing or limiting of facilities to get an ID in non-white neighbourhoods.
That is the problem.
Get every legal citizen, white and non-white, in the state an ID, preferably for free because poor people, and THEN you introduce Voter ID.
Republican efforts are not about election security, they are about voter suppression.
|
Is there any reason other than "GOBERMENT BAD" why people in the US oppose personal IDs for citizens? Not having one seems to me like it would make a lot of things more difficult than they should be.
|
On July 26 2019 14:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 13:13 Falling wrote:
I personally like Lindsey Graham's solution, although it looks like Democrats are blocking the ability to vote on it for now.
The main thing I like is that you need to apply from Mexico or a home country, not the US. The big problem it seems is that the facilities are simply not adequate to the volume of people trying to get through. This breaks the system because they simply cannot process in time, which forces officials to release families after 20 days. In a perverse way, this creates the unintended consequences of simply getting to the border with a child, any child and try to force the system to release you, plus it creates a giant market for bad actors in the human smuggling business.
So requiring to apply from outside the US, you immediately get rid of the ticking time bomb of the terrible holding conditions and you don't need to waste money expanding holding facilities. And then you cut out the market for human smugglers that might just abandon their 'cargo' to suffocate or die of dehydration because they can't pay enough.
As a result, Graham wants to add 500 new immigration judges which would expedite the waiting lines and then he's willing to negotiate on sending aid to South American countries as a bone for Democrats/ maybe helping with some of the economics push factors that generates the desire to emigrate out.
Seems like a good idea to me. It shouldn't just be our local continents helping. If we have a humanitarian refugee crisis, we should be asking other big countries to help. Maybe I'm missing something, but once you transport an immigrant somewhere, isn't it the same as being in the US? If we sent like 5k people to each of like 30 countries, it would help a lot. Totally worth the price of transportation. My preference is the US handles it because we have available wealth. But if we're not, it's not like it's required to be physically connected. And pray tell what 30 countries would that be?
You think the rest of the world doesn't have immigrants themselves?
Did nothing of the 'European immigration crisis' reach US news?
Heck, who am I kidding. Ofcourse it didnt, there is barely a world outside the US as far as the US is concerned and most of it is Mexico.
|
can we appreciate for a second that Nettles admits his example is a country with worse discrimination and that’s the selling point?
why can’t we be more like them indeed...
On July 26 2019 19:01 PoulsenB wrote:
Is there any reason other than "GOBERMENT BAD" why people in the US oppose personal IDs for citizens? Not having one seems to me like it would make a lot of things more difficult than they should be.
in america’s past similar ‘common sense’ restrictions to voting have been used with precision to disenfranchise minorities. which i guess still falls under ‘government bad.’ but feels like a more than worthy reason to not do it.
|
On July 26 2019 19:34 brian wrote:can we appreciate for a second that Nettles admits his example is a country with much worse discrimination and that’s the selling point? why can’t we be more like them indeed... Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 19:01 PoulsenB wrote:
Is there any reason other than "GOBERMENT BAD" why people in the US oppose personal IDs for citizens? Not having one seems to me like it would make a lot of things more difficult than they should be. in america’s past similar ‘common sense’ restrictions to voting have been used with precision to disenfranchise minorities. which i guess still falls under ‘government bad.’ but feels like a more than worthy reason to not do it.
I meant like an all-purpose ID that you can carry all the time and not just a voters ID, sorry if this wasn't clear.
|
On July 26 2019 19:01 PoulsenB wrote:
Is there any reason other than "GOBERMENT BAD" why people in the US oppose personal IDs for citizens? Not having one seems to me like it would make a lot of things more difficult than they should be. Mostly goberment Bad and part actually the government being bad by using it to oppress minorities.
|
On July 26 2019 19:42 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 19:34 brian wrote:can we appreciate for a second that Nettles admits his example is a country with much worse discrimination and that’s the selling point? why can’t we be more like them indeed... On July 26 2019 19:01 PoulsenB wrote:
Is there any reason other than "GOBERMENT BAD" why people in the US oppose personal IDs for citizens? Not having one seems to me like it would make a lot of things more difficult than they should be. in america’s past similar ‘common sense’ restrictions to voting have been used with precision to disenfranchise minorities. which i guess still falls under ‘government bad.’ but feels like a more than worthy reason to not do it. I meant like an all-purpose ID that you can carry all the time and not just a voters ID, sorry if this wasn't clear.
we do, though not mandatory to my knowledge. and then of course it is not needed for voting purposes. and it was as clear as it could’ve been i just assumed given the context.
|
On July 26 2019 13:59 Falling wrote:
I don't see how it is an inhumane and unethical position. Are we gods? We cannot end human suffering, the best we can do is alleviate some without generating much of our own.
There is a MASSIVE gap between how immigrants are being handled now and being Gods...
|
On July 26 2019 19:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 13:59 Falling wrote:
I don't see how it is an inhumane and unethical position. Are we gods? We cannot end human suffering, the best we can do is alleviate some without generating much of our own. There is a MASSIVE gap between how immigrants are being handled now and being Gods...
Out of context. Falling has never stated that he doesn't think something should be done about how immigrants are being treated, quite the opposite. He spent the entire last page explaining what he thinks should be done about it. The context for the quoted part is about how the US treats the rest of the world.
|
I read the context and none of that supports labeling a position at play akin to one occupied by divine beings. What’s the point of invoking deistic status when literally no one has advocated for policies that require Herculean strength or the wisdom of Thoth? That the US cannot be the savior of the world is a refrain uttered in many contexts, but in this one of immigration, it’s frequently used as a justification for ignoring basic human decency at the border, which is precisely what is being done by my country now.
|
Since corporate media is blasting us with another wave of "Russia runs our elections" it dawned on me the trolliest thing they could do is blatantly campaign for Democrats to win
They could still campaign for Trump too and make it a wash issue that neither side can discuss. Knowing our politicians they'd probably just argue about who they are helping more though.
|
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay?
|
On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay?
1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though.
2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't.
A further question I would ask is:
If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country?
|
And as Jock’s follow up implies, the fundamentals here are not actually as important as the practical realities facing a country as continually attractive to immigrants as the US. The issue isn’t one of open borders or the essential character of a national identity, rather it is one of “can we process immigrants in a way that is both humane and a component of a legitimate legal procedure?” The answer to that is yes, and no, it doesn’t require godly fortitude or divine organizational skills.
|
On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country?
I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance.
I guess the most simplified version is...
Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
