EPT
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 321
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3295 Posts
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. 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? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
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 It sort of sucks here right now. Powerless to stop what is happening and knowing that no one will be held accountable. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
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? *slowclap* User was temp banned for post history. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
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.” Source User was warned for this post. | ||
KwarK
United States43593 Posts
On June 21 2018 08:59 hunts wrote: How are you still trying to point fingers at Obama when this is 100% trumps doing? More to the point, Trump is in power and able to do something about this, Obama isn’t. Even if this was 100% not Trump’s fault I’d still expect him, as the individual letting it happen on his watch, to take responsibility and fix it. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3295 Posts
I mean, thanks, I guess, but that wasn't meant to be an epic takedown. I expect Danglars will say neither of those paraphrases accurately represent his position so my responses to them don't apply; then hopefully he'll clarify his position. I'd much rather have the kind of discussion where I learn more about what the other side thinks than the kind of discussion that makes people of my side slow clap. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
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 Aw, when I read the headline I thought it was more of a funny "literally threw candy at her" and less of a disrepectful "shoved candy her direction". | ||
|
KwarK
United States43593 Posts
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 Nothing bad can come of throwing candy at the most powerful leader of the most powerful bloc on earth, I’m sure. Fortunately the Germans have a notoriously good sense of humour, female politicians aren’t worried about being treated with respect, and nothing bad ever happens when you annoy Germany. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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? Here again you claim privilege to have the only means of classification. You want it to be seen as only "how to handle undocumented immigrants who claim asylum." Well, these are lawbreaking immigrants, or illegal immigrants. We also have points of entry where undocumented persons may submit their claims for asylum. That's the law. If these people are being turned away at the points of entry, that's the administration breaking the law. But you're basically eliding the core issue with your choice of terms. You're also flawed in your thinking, and maybe we'll have to leave your own presumptions at just what they are. I made my case and you're unswayed, so whatever. I'm not in it to break some assumptions people make of the Trump administration's motivation. Your political motivations are such that the previous administration cannot do no wrong. If you don't like "makeshift cages in warehouses" you're essentially saying "I disapprove of the Obama administration's detention centers for minor children." And the second people can recognize that Trump didn't make these, and Trump wasn't the first person to put hundreds/thousands of children in them, then we might move onto what parts of this issue are meaningful now. I sense a great deal of political gamesmanship that suits the speaker to ignore past history and focus on Trump as the beginning of every possible evil present. I'm not playing those games with anybody. Court decisions and these facilities are years past now, not an invention of the last two weeks. I will not be funneled into these stupid rhetorical games where heads you win, tails I lose. Either you respect the context and see how a 100% enforcement reflects or departs from the context, or you're just another political partisan here rooting on your side and not talking children. Like Introvert, I'm running out of patience on this score. The solution is legislative fixes and more spending on judges and detention centers. It isn't the false dichotomy of court-mandated separation after detention or prosecutorial catch-and-release. Schumer's perfidy in this matter is quite expressive: He could support a legislative fix that unites families awaiting the processing of their asylum claim. Instead, it's political maneuvering against the Trump administration. Trump's probably right to check an appeal of the court decision in the meantime, but this absolutely needs a legislative fix now. So put some heat on your elected representatives for the love of God. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: also the criminal judges hearing the cases against the border crossers are asking why the ICE did provide the parents with paperwork regarding their children. Criminals get a receipt for personal possessions. Asylum seekers get nothing for their children. Why was any of this necessary again? | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
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. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856 Here is a long piece describing how the Obama admin kept mothers and children together, but the system failed and they gave up keeping them in custody after congressional Democrats objected to the system. DJT/Sessions brought this crap back, but started separating the kids. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/failed-experiment-immigrant-family-detention-n403126 EDIT: for your but but but OBBBBBammma claims to stick, you need to pony up some kind of evidence of a child separation policy. Having specific facilities to deal with very young unaccompanied minors doesn't get you to Trump's separation barbarism. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23655 Posts
Is this an actual push for immigration reform or is this a "If Trump does the same thing as Obama did we'll move on to something else"? | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
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. "could" "probably" might help to give some examples then. Another country doing it and somehow getting away with it does not mean that the US should get a free pass. 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. ya, I realize that. My statement was mostly written out of frustration with the different standards that sometimes get applied. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
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 Not lost on me is the cowardice displayed. Trump was too scared to say no when confronted by the leaders, so he used a tame speech from the Canadian PM saying normal things to justify backing out of it from his plane. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Immigration reform is a pipe dream with this administration. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23655 Posts
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. I mean you know there were plenty of horrific stories from how it was before right? I don't understand how someone could think what we had before was any version of the word "fine". Was this really just about increased separations and detaining asylum seekers (specifically among immigrants from our south) for you guys? I was under the mistaken impression this was about the humanity of the people being abused, not the specific abuse we'll approve. | ||
| ||
