US Politics Mega-thread - Page 321

On June 21 2018 09:32 Danglars wrote:

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 10:07 BigFan wrote:
Gotta say that it's pretty disgusting to hear that the kids are being drugged as well. It was already terrible enough with the separation, but that revelation is even worse. Only the US is able to get away with such policies it seems because I have a feeling that if any other country did something similar to this, there'll be a ton of people calling it a human rights violation and wanted the heads of the perpetrators etc... I feel sad for your country guys lol

On June 21 2018 10:07 BigFan wrote:
Gotta say that it's pretty disgusting to hear that the kids are being drugged as well. It was already terrible enough with the separation, but that revelation is even worse. Only the US is able to get away with such policies it seems because I have a feeling that if any other country did something similar to this, there'll be a ton of people calling it a human rights violation and wanted the heads of the perpetrators etc... I feel sad for your country guys lol

On June 21 2018 10:10 ChristianS wrote:


"There's a law on the books that says this is illegal, so Rule of law says we have to prosecute them."

The problem with the first, as I see it, is that you're committing a large, guaranteed evil (splitting up families, traumatizing kids, putting them in conditions that would be considered child abuse if a parent did them) to prevent a percent chance of another evil which I would argue is much smaller than the guaranteed one. The problem with the second is that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in lots of areas where the alternative isn't large-scale child abuse and the administration hasn't made any fuss about those other cases.

So what am I missing here? Do those paraphrases miss some key nuance of your argument? And while we're here, can you clarify whether you actually support this new policy or not?

President Donald Trump reportedly tossed candy at German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the recent G7 summit.

According to CBS News correspondent Ian Bremmer, Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pressed Trump to sign a communique to commit to a rules-based international order.

“Trump was sitting there with his arms crossed, clearly not liking the fact that he felt like they were ganging up on him,” Bremmer reported. “Eventually he agreed. He said, okay I’ll sign it.”

“At that point, he stood up, he put his hand in his suit jacket pocket and he took two Starburst candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, ‘Here, Angela, don’t say I never gave you anything,'” Bremmer explained.

The correspondent said that the exchanged showed Trump’s “emotional state.”

Trump eventually removed his name from the communique.

“His personal relationship with Merkel is deeply broken,” Bremmer added. “The leaders obviously do not respect each other.”

On June 21 2018 08:59 hunts wrote:


How are you still trying to point fingers at Obama when this is 100% trumps doing?

On June 21 2018 10:47 mierin wrote:


*slowclap*

On June 21 2018 10:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
We have a child in control of the nuclear arsenal... whose temper tantrums now involves throwing things.



Source

On June 21 2018 10:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
We have a child in control of the nuclear arsenal... whose temper tantrums now involves throwing things.



Source

On June 21 2018 10:10 ChristianS wrote:

Talking about "points of entry" is the dodge - the question is how to handle undocumented immigrants who claim asylum, and their right to apply for asylum is central to the issue. That legal right is why the administration can't just deport them immediately. If they apply for asylum an immigration court has to rule on the case before they can be deported.

I'm gonna skip asking wtf you're getting at with "the previous administration" business because it's not relevant, but what is relevant is that immigrant families have been told unless they agree to deportation (and, by extension, waive their right to stay in the country and apply for asylum), they'll be imprisoned and taken away from their kids. If you honestly believe the administration implemented the policy that forced parents into that choice and didn't explicitly intend for that threat to discourage them from trying for asylum, I have a bridge to sell you. The only other justification I've seen put forward by the administration besides "it's a deterrent" is "it's just applying the law equally to everyone." And don't get me wrong, there's a rule of law argument that selective enforcement is a bad thing and prone to tyrannical abuses. Problem is, just last week we established this administration doesn't give a shit about rule of law and you were all for it. And as selective enforcement goes, prosecutorial discretion is WAAAAAY less questionable than refusing to defend a democratically enacted law in court from spurious lawsuits to try to repeal it without the votes.

Look, separating thousands of children from their parents and keeping them indefinitely in detention centers, makeshift cages in warehouses, etc. is a really big evil. Your political loyalties are such that you've been put in the unenviable situation of having to try to justify that policy. So far you've come up with (and I'm paraphrasing, of course, so feel free to correct my paraphrases where you think my wording doesn't accurately represent you):

"Well if you don't imprison the parents, sometimes they run away and clip their ankle bracelets and don't make their court dates. So we have to imprison them all."

and

"There's a law on the books that says this is illegal, so Rule of law says we have to prosecute them."

The problem with the first, as I see it, is that you're committing a large, guaranteed evil (splitting up families, traumatizing kids, putting them in conditions that would be considered child abuse if a parent did them) to prevent a percent chance of another evil which I would argue is much smaller than the guaranteed one. The problem with the second is that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in lots of areas where the alternative isn't large-scale child abuse and the administration hasn't made any fuss about those other cases.

So what am I missing here? Do those paraphrases miss some key nuance of your argument? And while we're here, can you clarify whether you actually support this new policy or not?

Obama’s top domestic policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, said the Obama administration did consider a similar policy, but determined it heartless.

"The agencies were surfacing every possible idea,” Muñoz told The New York Times in an interview recently. "I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea. The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are."
...
The Obama administration did detain families together — some indefinitely — in hopes of deterring future migrants back in 2014, earning protests and public outrage at the time.[//see link below]
...
The executive order Trump signed on Wednesday directs the Department of Defense to help in the housing of families, signaling that Trump now intends to detain families together much like the Obama administration did.

On June 21 2018 10:12 zlefin wrote:

plenty of countries could do just as bad and get away with it (and probably have). People would call it a human rights violation ofc, while they're reluctant to call out the US; but that doesn't mean that muhc would be really done about it if it were another country, becuase it's very hard to address such things without the use of very expensive military force.

On June 21 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:

It sort of sucks here right now. Powerless to stop what is happening and knowing that no one will be held accountable.

On June 21 2018 10:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
We have a child in control of the nuclear arsenal... whose temper tantrums now involves throwing things.



Source

On June 21 2018 11:45 Plansix wrote:
Catch and release was fine. Let people apply, pay the fine and send them on their way with the ankle tracker. It works from all reports.

Immigration reform is a pipe dream with this administration.