|
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 June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages.
How are you still trying to point fingers at Obama when this is 100% trumps doing?
|
On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages.
I mean, the obvious answer is "not imprison non-violent asylum seekers with kids"? You keep using terminology like "letting lawbreakers free" or "catch and release," but these aren't convicted violent criminals being set loose on the streets, they're immigrants exercising their legal right to apply for asylum. The administration wants to deport people and doesn't want to have to wait for a court to say they can, so they're hoping to scare people out of excercising their right to apply for asylum by putting them in prison and telling them they won't see their kids for a while (maybe ever) unless they don't apply for asylum and agree to be deported. That was and continues to be fucked up, thus the public outcry, thus the administration feeling the need to issue an EO "addressing" the issue.
The only justification I've heard for imprisoning them is "otherwise they'll just run off and clip their ankle bracelet." First of all, please provide evidence that this is the normal occurence, because the data I've seen says the vast majority of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up to their court date. But second of all, keeping track of people with ankle bracelets is law enforcement's job. If they're fucking that up, they should figure out how to do their job right, not take these people away from their kids because they couldn't figure it out. Trump is free to mobilize more resources to keep closer tabs on asylum seekers. Check up on them weekly if you want, and set off an alarm if they try to cross state lines. Treat it like parole, and imprison the ones that you catch trying to disappear.
But the so-called "zero-tolerance policy" as applied by the administration was morally bankrupt, and it looks like the new EO does nothing to change that.
|
On June 21 2018 08:59 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages. How are you still trying to point fingers at Obama when this is 100% trumps doing?
Because we only cared once Trump did it to 2000 children in 5 weeks rather than the small number during the obamas 8 year term.
|
|
|
Why will catch and release not work out?
Edit: Wow, that federalist article is something else. Really creative in legal fan fiction. You know an article is really out there when their legal theory says “it is not far fetched.”
|
So you want them to put real effort into a bill that will never even be allowed on the floor by the republican majority leader, when the republicans don't even put effort into their own bills? And using it as a football? You say that after trump and his cronies literally went "if you pay for the wall maybe we'll stop putting these kids in cages away from their parents!" And you have the gall to speak of using this as a political football?
|
Two questions. First, every definition I can come up with for "political football" involves making a political issue of a normally non-controversial issue, and/or making a fuss over an issue without any actual policy goal you're trying to achieve.
So in what sense is "Democrats making this a political football" a remotely cogent description? Seems like Trump took the previously non-controversial not-imprisoning-asylum-seekers-and-separating-them-from-their-children policy and made a political issue of it, not Democrats. And Democrats policy goal is pretty clearly to return to the aforementioned not-imprisoning-asylum-seekers-and-separating-them-from-their-children policy.
Second question: are those in absentia rates for the population we're talking about? Because it seems like the rates might be pretty different for asylum seekers than for all released aliens.
|
Interesting that all the Trump minions keep saying 80-90%. Just another lie. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
|
NPRs reporters were getting very different information from ICE, I linked it earlier today.
Edit: that seems to be all aliens with immigration hearings, not asylum seekers.
|
On June 21 2018 09:05 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages. I mean, the obvious answer is "not imprison non-violent asylum seekers with kids"? You keep using terminology like "letting lawbreakers free" or "catch and release," but these aren't convicted violent criminals being set loose on the streets, they're immigrants exercising their legal right to apply for asylum. The administration wants to deport people and doesn't want to have to wait for a court to say they can, so they're hoping to scare people out of excercising their right to apply for asylum by putting them in prison and telling them they won't see their kids for a while (maybe ever) unless they don't apply for asylum and agree to be deported. That was and continues to be fucked up, thus the public outcry, thus the administration feeling the need to issue an EO "addressing" the issue. The only justification I've heard for imprisoning them is "otherwise they'll just run off and clip their ankle bracelet." First of all, please provide evidence that this is the normal occurence, because the data I've seen says the vast majority of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up to their court date. But second of all, keeping track of people with ankle bracelets is law enforcement's job. If they're fucking that up, they should figure out how to do their job right, not take these people away from their kids because they couldn't figure it out. Trump is free to mobilize more resources to keep closer tabs on asylum seekers. Check up on them weekly if you want, and set off an alarm if they try to cross state lines. Treat it like parole, and imprison the ones that you catch trying to disappear. But the so-called "zero-tolerance policy" as applied by the administration was morally bankrupt, and it looks like the new EO does nothing to change that.
Their “legal right to apply for asylum” is an interesting dodge. We have points of entry for legal right to apply for asylum. Zero separations. They haven’t committed a crime, after all!
It’s clear that the previous administration and this administration intended it as a deterrent. That part is true. However, you’re wrong to contrast “The administration wants to deport.” They want to detain until an judge rules on the asylum claim. They want to deport people with no legal claim to be in the country. I see nothing but your ill will presumption to support your claim.
|
On June 21 2018 09:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:05 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages. I mean, the obvious answer is "not imprison non-violent asylum seekers with kids"? You keep using terminology like "letting lawbreakers free" or "catch and release," but these aren't convicted violent criminals being set loose on the streets, they're immigrants exercising their legal right to apply for asylum. The administration wants to deport people and doesn't want to have to wait for a court to say they can, so they're hoping to scare people out of excercising their right to apply for asylum by putting them in prison and telling them they won't see their kids for a while (maybe ever) unless they don't apply for asylum and agree to be deported. That was and continues to be fucked up, thus the public outcry, thus the administration feeling the need to issue an EO "addressing" the issue. The only justification I've heard for imprisoning them is "otherwise they'll just run off and clip their ankle bracelet." First of all, please provide evidence that this is the normal occurence, because the data I've seen says the vast majority of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up to their court date. But second of all, keeping track of people with ankle bracelets is law enforcement's job. If they're fucking that up, they should figure out how to do their job right, not take these people away from their kids because they couldn't figure it out. Trump is free to mobilize more resources to keep closer tabs on asylum seekers. Check up on them weekly if you want, and set off an alarm if they try to cross state lines. Treat it like parole, and imprison the ones that you catch trying to disappear. But the so-called "zero-tolerance policy" as applied by the administration was morally bankrupt, and it looks like the new EO does nothing to change that. Their “legal right to apply for asylum” is an interesting dodge. We have points of entry for legal right to apply for asylum. Zero separations. They haven’t committed a crime, after all! It’s clear that the previous administration and this administration intended it as a deterrent. That part is true. However, you’re wrong to contrast “The administration wants to deport.” They want to detain until an judge rules on the asylum claim. They want to deport people with no legal claim to be in the country. I see nothing but your ill will presumption to support your claim.
When the administration is artificially increasing wait times at ports of entry for up to almost two weeks and closing ports of entry.
"Joined by four immigration activists who helped create the sign, Pineda and his son straddled the boundary dividing Mexico and the United States. But their path was blocked by two officers who told them that the port of entry was at capacity and couldn’t handle asylum applicants. It was the immigration equivalent of a “no vacancy” light over the Rio Grande.
Trump administration officials have, in recent weeks, adopted a carrot-and-stick approach to asylum applicants. They have told those who cross the border illegally and make asylum requests that they will face criminal prosecution, but that if they go through the official border crossings, their applications will be processed. Yet in several cities along the border, asylum seekers who follow those instructions are turned away and told to return later. At some crossings, applicants camp out for days."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cac4abb359ff
“On paper it’s totally true,” says Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights organization. “It’s perfectly legal to show up at a port of entry and ask the first officer you see. The problem is that at many border crossings, at places like El Paso, at Roma, we’re hearing that [Customs and Border Protection] is sending officers out to the very line and telling people on the bridge, ‘Nope, come back later.’ Or sometimes they even lie to them and tell them they can’t take them, until they give up and cross the illegal way.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/trump-officials-say-immigrants-can-avoid-arrest-at-ports-of-entry-its-not-that-simple/
They want to deport everyone. Period. You're buying into some grade-A Trumpian bullshit.
|
On June 21 2018 09:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:05 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages. I mean, the obvious answer is "not imprison non-violent asylum seekers with kids"? You keep using terminology like "letting lawbreakers free" or "catch and release," but these aren't convicted violent criminals being set loose on the streets, they're immigrants exercising their legal right to apply for asylum. The administration wants to deport people and doesn't want to have to wait for a court to say they can, so they're hoping to scare people out of excercising their right to apply for asylum by putting them in prison and telling them they won't see their kids for a while (maybe ever) unless they don't apply for asylum and agree to be deported. That was and continues to be fucked up, thus the public outcry, thus the administration feeling the need to issue an EO "addressing" the issue. The only justification I've heard for imprisoning them is "otherwise they'll just run off and clip their ankle bracelet." First of all, please provide evidence that this is the normal occurence, because the data I've seen says the vast majority of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up to their court date. But second of all, keeping track of people with ankle bracelets is law enforcement's job. If they're fucking that up, they should figure out how to do their job right, not take these people away from their kids because they couldn't figure it out. Trump is free to mobilize more resources to keep closer tabs on asylum seekers. Check up on them weekly if you want, and set off an alarm if they try to cross state lines. Treat it like parole, and imprison the ones that you catch trying to disappear. But the so-called "zero-tolerance policy" as applied by the administration was morally bankrupt, and it looks like the new EO does nothing to change that. Their “legal right to apply for asylum” is an interesting dodge. We have points of entry for legal right to apply for asylum. Zero separations. They haven’t committed a crime, after all! It’s clear that the previous administration and this administration intended it as a deterrent. That part is true. However, you’re wrong to contrast “The administration wants to deport.” They want to detain until an judge rules on the asylum claim. They want to deport people with no legal claim to be in the country. I see nothing but your ill will presumption to support your claim.
The legal points of entry are full and people are being turned away. Crossing the border illegally is a minor crime. What part of this is confusing for you?
And why detain them? Almost all asylum seekers attend their hearings and are either allowed to stay or deported. There was no problem with the past system.
|
On June 21 2018 09:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:05 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2018 08:42 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2018 08:28 ChristianS wrote:
So if I understand correctly, Trump's executive order requires that children be detained with their parents, but does nothing to address the court decision forbidding the government from imprisoning children for more than 20 days, meaning that after 20 days, we're back to separating all these kids from their parents. Presumably it's just an attempt to buy some time/be able to blame the courts when kids start getting separated again.
Is this gonna work? Are people really gonna just shrug and say "oh, I guess Trump fixed it"? How exactly is Trump supposed to address the court decision, again? If the court says to separate families or let lawbreakers go free, and Trump's not willing to do the second, he has very little ability to change the first until a superior court renders a different decision. Obama wanted to jail the families with their children until somebody won a lawsuit, after all. Then he had to content himself with catch and release and caging unaccompanied children. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1000791238864404480Example of photo from 2014 showing children in cages. I mean, the obvious answer is "not imprison non-violent asylum seekers with kids"? You keep using terminology like "letting lawbreakers free" or "catch and release," but these aren't convicted violent criminals being set loose on the streets, they're immigrants exercising their legal right to apply for asylum. The administration wants to deport people and doesn't want to have to wait for a court to say they can, so they're hoping to scare people out of excercising their right to apply for asylum by putting them in prison and telling them they won't see their kids for a while (maybe ever) unless they don't apply for asylum and agree to be deported. That was and continues to be fucked up, thus the public outcry, thus the administration feeling the need to issue an EO "addressing" the issue. The only justification I've heard for imprisoning them is "otherwise they'll just run off and clip their ankle bracelet." First of all, please provide evidence that this is the normal occurence, because the data I've seen says the vast majority of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up to their court date. But second of all, keeping track of people with ankle bracelets is law enforcement's job. If they're fucking that up, they should figure out how to do their job right, not take these people away from their kids because they couldn't figure it out. Trump is free to mobilize more resources to keep closer tabs on asylum seekers. Check up on them weekly if you want, and set off an alarm if they try to cross state lines. Treat it like parole, and imprison the ones that you catch trying to disappear. But the so-called "zero-tolerance policy" as applied by the administration was morally bankrupt, and it looks like the new EO does nothing to change that. Their “legal right to apply for asylum” is an interesting dodge. We have points of entry for legal right to apply for asylum. Zero separations. They haven’t committed a crime, after all! It’s clear that the previous administration and this administration intended it as a deterrent. That part is true. However, you’re wrong to contrast “The administration wants to deport.” They want to detain until an judge rules on the asylum claim. They want to deport people with no legal claim to be in the country. I see nothing but your ill will presumption to support your claim.
Yawn, we've been through this before. Nobody is being accepted at those legal points of entry.
|
It is sort of unnerving that the argument has shifted to “I guess it’s back to catch and release, because the judges won’t let us jail innocent children. Aw shucks.”
Like that is a problem? Not he +2000 children scattered across the country by an agency that couldn’t give a shit about them and was pumping them full of drugs. The child abuse was bad, but it’s terrible that we are back to “catch and release”.
|
On June 21 2018 09:15 Plansix wrote:
Why will catch and release not work out?
Edit: Wow, that federalist article is something else. Really creative in legal fan fiction. You know an article is really out there when their legal theory says “it is not far fetched.”
I think he lays out the case well, problem is, it's written so badly that the specifics aren't even hammered out. Even the terrorist part Feinstein basically admitted, but said she'd be open to "taking it out." But don't worry, Schumer has already ruled this all out. That's the glorious part. My argument doesn't even hinge on the specifics of any bill!
On June 21 2018 09:19 ChristianS wrote:Two questions. First, every definition I can come up with for "political football" involves making a political issue of a normally non-controversial issue, and/or making a fuss over an issue without any actual policy goal you're trying to achieve. So in what sense is "Democrats making this a political football" a remotely cogent description? Seems like Trump took the previously non-controversial not-imprisoning-asylum-seekers-and-separating-them-from-their-children policy and made a political issue of it, not Democrats. And Democrats policy goal is pretty clearly to return to the aforementioned not-imprisoning-asylum-seekers-and-separating-them-from-their-children policy. Second question: are those in absentia rates for the population we're talking about? Because it seems like the rates might be pretty different for asylum seekers than for all released aliens.
You can go ahead and quibble about words. I mean I don't always point out "but Obama!" but... Obama. And it wasn't a big deal then. Now it is! So even by your definition this is political football.
***
But we are already seeing the pivot to catch-and-release. This is what the Democrats actually cared about. Getting illegal immigrants into the interior of the country, however that may happen. Child separation vs open borders. But thankfully we found out yesterday that this isn't actually like Nazi Germany.
|
It’s the first draft of a law, who cares? It is a desperate argument by someone trying avoid talking about the massive case of state sponsored child abuse we just witnessed.
EDIT: You need to stop with that catch and release argument you keep peddling. We are not stupid here, don’t treat us like we are. I have seen zero evidence that releasing asylum seekers is a problem or that the asylum seekers flee. They are tracked by law enforcement.
|
On June 21 2018 09:51 Plansix wrote:
It’s the first draft of a law, who cares? It is a desperate argument by someone trying avoid talking about the massive case of state sponsored child abuse we just witnessed.
Just a final thought, but no. They dropped it. I didn't even know it existed until recently. No one did. But some people in this thread are using its existence as a fig leaf. I've been consistent the whole way through.
|
On June 21 2018 09:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:51 Plansix wrote:
It’s the first draft of a law, who cares? It is a desperate argument by someone trying avoid talking about the massive case of state sponsored child abuse we just witnessed. Just a final thought, but no. They dropped it. I didn't even know it existed until recently. No one did. But some people in this thread are using its existence as a fig leaf. I've been consistent the whole way through.
I was talking about the author. But catch and release argument sucks and you should stop making it.
|
On June 21 2018 09:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:53 Introvert wrote:On June 21 2018 09:51 Plansix wrote:
It’s the first draft of a law, who cares? It is a desperate argument by someone trying avoid talking about the massive case of state sponsored child abuse we just witnessed. Just a final thought, but no. They dropped it. I didn't even know it existed until recently. No one did. But some people in this thread are using its existence as a fig leaf. I've been consistent the whole way through. I was talking about the author. But catch and release argument sucks and you should stop making it.
edit: Nvm, the future will show it.
|
On June 21 2018 09:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 09:55 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2018 09:53 Introvert wrote:On June 21 2018 09:51 Plansix wrote:
It’s the first draft of a law, who cares? It is a desperate argument by someone trying avoid talking about the massive case of state sponsored child abuse we just witnessed. Just a final thought, but no. They dropped it. I didn't even know it existed until recently. No one did. But some people in this thread are using its existence as a fig leaf. I've been consistent the whole way through. I was talking about the author. But catch and release argument sucks and you should stop making it. edit: Nvm, the future will show it.
I’m pretty confident it won’t and this has been an anti-immigration fiction for some time, just like all the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
