|
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 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings.
Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it.
Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future.
|
On June 21 2018 18:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
I think by now it should be clear that GH is a bit zero sum on these matters. There's no degrees involved, either something is acceptable or not. As far as I can tell he hates Obama, and he hates Trump, and I'm pretty confident he's not fond of Dubya either. I don't recall him in the past giving Obama any passes for having congress against him (which I know a lot of Democrats do). GH hates the entire system and everything in it. I'm pointing this out because I see a lot of comments directed his way which seem to be trying to get a degree of compromise out of him, and he's not going to bite. To him, you're saying 'Is this other thing that wasn't ever acceptable more acceptable than this thing now which is even more unacceptable?' To him there's no degree there. There's acceptable and unacceptable. Returning from one state of unacceptability to another unacceptable state is no actual change at all. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've mischaracterised, but it's what I draw from his various comments on the topic to date.
I didn't think people considering themselves "left" would really be defending
+ Show Spoiler +-Punched a child’s head three times
-Kicked a child in the ribs
-Used a stun gun on a boy, causing him to fall to the ground, shaking, with his eyes rolling back in his head
-Ran over a 17-year-old with a patrol vehicle and then punched him several times
-Verbally abused detained children, calling them dogs and “other ugly things”
-Denied detained children permission to stand or move freely for days and threatened children who stood up with transfer to solitary confinement in a small, freezing room
-Denied a pregnant minor medical attention when she reported pain, which preceded a stillbirth
-Subjected a 16-year-old girl to a search in which they “forcefully spread her legs and touched her private parts so hard that she screamed”
-Left a 4-pound premature baby and her minor mother in an overcrowded and dirty cell full of sick people, against medical advice
-Threw out a child’s birth certificate and threatened him with sexual abuse by an adult male detainee.
-The report also shows evidence of CBP holding migrant children in excess of the 72-hour maximum period permitted by law, as well as officials’ efforts to deport children without due process and via coercion.
as acceptable, but I guess here we are.
I know acro shuddered but pretty sure he was seriously supposing this be left to police departments as if they are better in any way. The entirety of policing in this country is broken, so much so that the atrocious stuff listed there passes as 'fine' or 'not as bad as trump so it'll have to do'.
|
On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over.
Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change.
(and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made).
|
On June 21 2018 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over. Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change. (and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made).
Maybe you're not, but I'm very sick of the perpetual mantra of "save your calls for change for later". Like guns, it's never the right time. Wasn't when they had the super majority and won't be until we vote them back and then we can't criticize the Manchins for supporting Trump because we might lose the majorities and then they lose them anyway running away from progress, and we're back here where we can't criticize them until they have the majorities again.
I for one am not interested in that merry go round any longer.
|
On June 21 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:00 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
I think by now it should be clear that GH is a bit zero sum on these matters. There's no degrees involved, either something is acceptable or not. As far as I can tell he hates Obama, and he hates Trump, and I'm pretty confident he's not fond of Dubya either. I don't recall him in the past giving Obama any passes for having congress against him (which I know a lot of Democrats do). GH hates the entire system and everything in it. I'm pointing this out because I see a lot of comments directed his way which seem to be trying to get a degree of compromise out of him, and he's not going to bite. To him, you're saying 'Is this other thing that wasn't ever acceptable more acceptable than this thing now which is even more unacceptable?' To him there's no degree there. There's acceptable and unacceptable. Returning from one state of unacceptability to another unacceptable state is no actual change at all. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've mischaracterised, but it's what I draw from his various comments on the topic to date. I didn't think people considering themselves "left" would really be defending + Show Spoiler +-Punched a child’s head three times
-Kicked a child in the ribs
-Used a stun gun on a boy, causing him to fall to the ground, shaking, with his eyes rolling back in his head
-Ran over a 17-year-old with a patrol vehicle and then punched him several times
-Verbally abused detained children, calling them dogs and “other ugly things”
-Denied detained children permission to stand or move freely for days and threatened children who stood up with transfer to solitary confinement in a small, freezing room
-Denied a pregnant minor medical attention when she reported pain, which preceded a stillbirth
-Subjected a 16-year-old girl to a search in which they “forcefully spread her legs and touched her private parts so hard that she screamed”
-Left a 4-pound premature baby and her minor mother in an overcrowded and dirty cell full of sick people, against medical advice
-Threw out a child’s birth certificate and threatened him with sexual abuse by an adult male detainee.
-The report also shows evidence of CBP holding migrant children in excess of the 72-hour maximum period permitted by law, as well as officials’ efforts to deport children without due process and via coercion. as acceptable, but I guess here we are. I know acro shuddered but pretty sure he was seriously supposing this be left to police departments as if they are better in any way. The entirety of policing in this country is broken, so much so that the atrocious stuff listed there passes as 'fine' or 'not as bad as trump so it'll have to do'.
Yeah. I'm generally staying out of the deeps on this one because I don't know enough about the US's long and sordid history on this topic to really get involved. Specifically I don't know about the ways different approaches have and haven't worked.
Most of what's being discussed here is news to me.
Unlike you I do believe in degrees of unacceptable, but only within the assumed framework that it's to move towards a better end goal. If the earlier state is supposed to be the standard... that's not so good.
To move the discussion forward slightly, what system do you think the Democrats should be pushing for as a replacement to the Obama-era approach? I'm sure you agree that illegal immigration is a problem of some severity or other and does need some form of address.
And general disclaimer: The UK immigration policy is ass as well, so I'm certainly not holding up our own as a shining light on the hill. I don't think it's as moustache-twirlingly evil as the US's appears to be right now, but it's definitely not good and a lot of people get hurt.
|
On June 21 2018 18:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 18:00 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
I think by now it should be clear that GH is a bit zero sum on these matters. There's no degrees involved, either something is acceptable or not. As far as I can tell he hates Obama, and he hates Trump, and I'm pretty confident he's not fond of Dubya either. I don't recall him in the past giving Obama any passes for having congress against him (which I know a lot of Democrats do). GH hates the entire system and everything in it. I'm pointing this out because I see a lot of comments directed his way which seem to be trying to get a degree of compromise out of him, and he's not going to bite. To him, you're saying 'Is this other thing that wasn't ever acceptable more acceptable than this thing now which is even more unacceptable?' To him there's no degree there. There's acceptable and unacceptable. Returning from one state of unacceptability to another unacceptable state is no actual change at all. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've mischaracterised, but it's what I draw from his various comments on the topic to date. I didn't think people considering themselves "left" would really be defending + Show Spoiler +-Punched a child’s head three times
-Kicked a child in the ribs
-Used a stun gun on a boy, causing him to fall to the ground, shaking, with his eyes rolling back in his head
-Ran over a 17-year-old with a patrol vehicle and then punched him several times
-Verbally abused detained children, calling them dogs and “other ugly things”
-Denied detained children permission to stand or move freely for days and threatened children who stood up with transfer to solitary confinement in a small, freezing room
-Denied a pregnant minor medical attention when she reported pain, which preceded a stillbirth
-Subjected a 16-year-old girl to a search in which they “forcefully spread her legs and touched her private parts so hard that she screamed”
-Left a 4-pound premature baby and her minor mother in an overcrowded and dirty cell full of sick people, against medical advice
-Threw out a child’s birth certificate and threatened him with sexual abuse by an adult male detainee.
-The report also shows evidence of CBP holding migrant children in excess of the 72-hour maximum period permitted by law, as well as officials’ efforts to deport children without due process and via coercion. as acceptable, but I guess here we are. I know acro shuddered but pretty sure he was seriously supposing this be left to police departments as if they are better in any way. The entirety of policing in this country is broken, so much so that the atrocious stuff listed there passes as 'fine' or 'not as bad as trump so it'll have to do'. Yeah. I'm generally staying out of the deeps on this one because I don't know enough about the US's long and sordid history on this topic to really get involved. Specifically I don't know about the ways different approaches have and haven't worked. Most of what's being discussed here is news to me. Unlike you I do believe in degrees of unacceptable, but only within the assumed framework that it's to move towards a better end goal. If the earlier state is supposed to be the standard... that's not so good. To move the discussion forward slightly, what system do you think the Democrats should be pushing for as a replacement to the Obama-era approach? I'm sure you agree that illegal immigration is a problem of some severity or other and does need some form of address. And general disclaimer: The UK immigration policy is ass as well, so I'm certainly not holding up our own as a shining light on the hill. I don't think it's as moustache-twirlingly evil as the US's appears to be right now, but it's definitely not good and a lot of people get hurt.
They all start with replacing a minimum of ~2/3rds of congress so I'd imagine you consider them unrealistic. But .Ending the drug war and not supporting coups in other countries to replace leaders with ones more favorable to the US (which usually don't end up staying that way) would be a start. Abolish ICE, and establish a legal status for all the people living here.
I don't see the threat from immigration that others do so if it's between policing them once they are here and in the communities or the horrible stuff we're doing at the border I pick letting them live here until they'd rather leave than contribute positively to our society.
Additionally undocumented immigrants are basically steady as part of the population, slightly down over the last 10 years or so. So the 'problems' of illegal immigration is how we treat people, not the people imo.
|
On June 21 2018 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over. Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change. (and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made). Maybe you're not, but I'm very sick of the perpetual mantra of "save your calls for change for later". Like guns, it's never the right time. Wasn't when they had the super majority and won't be until we vote them back and then we can't criticize the Manchins for supporting Trump because we might lose the majorities and then they lose them anyway running away from progress, and we're back here where we can't criticize them until they have the majorities again. I for one am not interested in that merry go round any longer. Governing is about making choices. Time, money and political capital are limited, you can't do everything you want to do every time. Even more so in a divisive country like the US is right now where political co-operation is impossible.
Last time it was healthcare, next time the opportunity comes along it will be something different (if the Republicans don't succeed in destroying the ACA).
This isn't unique to the US, tho again the division makes it more obvious, but something that happens in every democracy around the world.
Constantly complaining about how a side is not fixing X despite not even being in charge of any branch of government just drives those who would be your allies to become your enemy, as has been explained to you many times before.
|
On June 21 2018 18:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over. Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change. (and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made). Maybe you're not, but I'm very sick of the perpetual mantra of "save your calls for change for later". Like guns, it's never the right time. Wasn't when they had the super majority and won't be until we vote them back and then we can't criticize the Manchins for supporting Trump because we might lose the majorities and then they lose them anyway running away from progress, and we're back here where we can't criticize them until they have the majorities again. I for one am not interested in that merry go round any longer. Governing is about making choices. Time, money and political capital are limited, you can't do everything you want to do every time. Even more so in a divisive country like the US is right now where political co-operation is impossible. Last time it was healthcare, next time the opportunity comes along it will be something different (if the Republicans don't succeed in destroying the ACA). This isn't unique to the US, tho again the division makes it more obvious, but something that happens in every democracy around the world. Constantly complaining about how a side is not fixing X despite not even being in charge of any branch of government just drives those who would be your allies to become your enemy, as has been explained to you many times before.
Not everyone is interested in governing, some are more the revolutionary types.
|
On June 21 2018 18:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over. Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change. (and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made). Maybe you're not, but I'm very sick of the perpetual mantra of "save your calls for change for later". Like guns, it's never the right time. Wasn't when they had the super majority and won't be until we vote them back and then we can't criticize the Manchins for supporting Trump because we might lose the majorities and then they lose them anyway running away from progress, and we're back here where we can't criticize them until they have the majorities again. I for one am not interested in that merry go round any longer. Constantly complaining about how a side is not fixing X despite not even being in charge of any branch of government just drives those who would be your allies to become your enemy, as has been explained to you many times before.
Constantly following the policy of one side of your alliance and never following the policy of the other side, no matter the circumstance, is also something that drives those who would be your allies to become your enemies; yet for some reason you never seem bothered by this type of division.
|
On June 21 2018 19:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:49 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2018 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 18:14 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
Yeah he could/should have done more, yes congress could/should have done more, no a Democratic super majority is neither realistic or going to get us immigration reform. Wait for that and you'll sooner sprout wings. Democrats (the politicians) don't want the immigration issues resolved any more than Republicans. They just want to be in a better position on it without ever having to actually act on it. Plus we have a "well it wasn't half as bad as Trump" to justify every bad thing Democrats do coming for the foreseeable future. Right, so call me when the Democrats are in charge and not doing anything about it and i'll nod my head. Until they your just bashing people for not changing something they have no control over. Hardly a productive way to spend your time trying to achieve political change. (and yes they could have done it at the start of Obama's first term, they decided to focus on Healthcare instead. You can't run every major piece of reform at the same time, choices have to be made). Maybe you're not, but I'm very sick of the perpetual mantra of "save your calls for change for later". Like guns, it's never the right time. Wasn't when they had the super majority and won't be until we vote them back and then we can't criticize the Manchins for supporting Trump because we might lose the majorities and then they lose them anyway running away from progress, and we're back here where we can't criticize them until they have the majorities again. I for one am not interested in that merry go round any longer. Constantly complaining about how a side is not fixing X despite not even being in charge of any branch of government just drives those who would be your allies to become your enemy, as has been explained to you many times before. Constantly following the policy of one side of your alliance and never following the policy of the other side, no matter the circumstance, is also something that drives those who would be your allies to become your enemies; yet for some reason you never seem bothered by this type of division.
All sides of alliances are pretty good at remember when they didn’t get what they wanted. Not so great at remember when they got what they wanted. Both sides need the alliance to get what they want.
|
On June 21 2018 18:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 18:27 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2018 18:00 iamthedave wrote:On June 21 2018 17:54 Gorsameth wrote:
@GH
Could Obama have done more through executive orders or would it have required legislation from Congress?
If its the latter then there you have your answer. Regardless of if they wanted to or not the Democrats were in no position to pass any form of Immigration reform with a completely hostile Republican party in control of Congress that would, and still won't, ever accept to any policy you would consider adequate.
Yes the current system might not be good. Is it better then what Trump is doing? Hell yes. Is there any possibility of making it better then it is now? Not without a Democratic super majority in the House, Senate and control of the Presidency.
I think by now it should be clear that GH is a bit zero sum on these matters. There's no degrees involved, either something is acceptable or not. As far as I can tell he hates Obama, and he hates Trump, and I'm pretty confident he's not fond of Dubya either. I don't recall him in the past giving Obama any passes for having congress against him (which I know a lot of Democrats do). GH hates the entire system and everything in it. I'm pointing this out because I see a lot of comments directed his way which seem to be trying to get a degree of compromise out of him, and he's not going to bite. To him, you're saying 'Is this other thing that wasn't ever acceptable more acceptable than this thing now which is even more unacceptable?' To him there's no degree there. There's acceptable and unacceptable. Returning from one state of unacceptability to another unacceptable state is no actual change at all. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've mischaracterised, but it's what I draw from his various comments on the topic to date. I didn't think people considering themselves "left" would really be defending + Show Spoiler +-Punched a child’s head three times
-Kicked a child in the ribs
-Used a stun gun on a boy, causing him to fall to the ground, shaking, with his eyes rolling back in his head
-Ran over a 17-year-old with a patrol vehicle and then punched him several times
-Verbally abused detained children, calling them dogs and “other ugly things”
-Denied detained children permission to stand or move freely for days and threatened children who stood up with transfer to solitary confinement in a small, freezing room
-Denied a pregnant minor medical attention when she reported pain, which preceded a stillbirth
-Subjected a 16-year-old girl to a search in which they “forcefully spread her legs and touched her private parts so hard that she screamed”
-Left a 4-pound premature baby and her minor mother in an overcrowded and dirty cell full of sick people, against medical advice
-Threw out a child’s birth certificate and threatened him with sexual abuse by an adult male detainee.
-The report also shows evidence of CBP holding migrant children in excess of the 72-hour maximum period permitted by law, as well as officials’ efforts to deport children without due process and via coercion. as acceptable, but I guess here we are. I know acro shuddered but pretty sure he was seriously supposing this be left to police departments as if they are better in any way. The entirety of policing in this country is broken, so much so that the atrocious stuff listed there passes as 'fine' or 'not as bad as trump so it'll have to do'. Yeah. I'm generally staying out of the deeps on this one because I don't know enough about the US's long and sordid history on this topic to really get involved. Specifically I don't know about the ways different approaches have and haven't worked. Most of what's being discussed here is news to me. Unlike you I do believe in degrees of unacceptable, but only within the assumed framework that it's to move towards a better end goal. If the earlier state is supposed to be the standard... that's not so good. To move the discussion forward slightly, what system do you think the Democrats should be pushing for as a replacement to the Obama-era approach? I'm sure you agree that illegal immigration is a problem of some severity or other and does need some form of address. And general disclaimer: The UK immigration policy is ass as well, so I'm certainly not holding up our own as a shining light on the hill. I don't think it's as moustache-twirlingly evil as the US's appears to be right now, but it's definitely not good and a lot of people get hurt. They all start with replacing a minimum of ~2/3rds of congress so I'd imagine you consider them unrealistic. But .Ending the drug war and not supporting coups in other countries to replace leaders with ones more favorable to the US (which usually don't end up staying that way) would be a start. Abolish ICE, and establish a legal status for all the people living here. I don't see the threat from immigration that others do so if it's between policing them once they are here and in the communities or the horrible stuff we're doing at the border I pick letting them live here until they'd rather leave than contribute positively to our society. Additionally undocumented immigrants are basically steady as part of the population, slightly down over the last 10 years or so. So the 'problems' of illegal immigration is how we treat people, not the people imo.
Is it realistic? As far as I can tell your congressional leaders tend to stay in office for a loooooooong period of time. From what I know of your system, technically you could remove them all in their next election cycle. But in practice it seems they hold their offices for decades in many cases. I know gerrymandering plays an important role there, but it also seems that states like to keep their guy/gal once they have them. See: Republican efforts to get rid of Murkowski in Alaska, was it?
The Drug War I'm better informed about, and I agree that seems like it would help. I had been thinking just the other day that Mexico's ongoing madness is surely contributing a lot to the immigration 'problem', so isn't it in the US's interests to try and help there? I'm sure the Mexican government would be willing to accept some help given how bad things are going.
ICE sure sounds like an organisation with some enormous problems, even worse than the police, so some sort of major reform there seems very wise, and must be practical.
I've also struggled with this issue a la the US because it seems the free market has pretty heavily integrated Mexican illegals into the system (an issue that isn't replicated in the UK; it's more that the immigrants tend to hoover up lower paid menial work and complain a lot less than UK citizens, so often get preferential treatment by employers in those industries). Aren't undocumented workers really important to some state economies? I think I heard if the government truly stopped illegal immigration california would be in trouble because of strawberry picking? Or something like that. Some state-critical industry that pretty much functions based on illegal mexican immigrants.
|
On June 21 2018 14:59 Introvert wrote:On the politics of this, which to be fair has been my main focus, I found this interesting. While the policy remains unpopular (other people were posting polls here earlier): + Show Spoiler +That second option, which, like clockwork, all the Capitol Hill Democrats said today was also inhumane, is at 49% among Democrats. It looks like most people know what catch and release would be like. 64% want at least whole family units detained. Link to poll in tweet. Edit: caveat that I've never supported government by poll and am strongly concerned by the difference between the way things poll vs. the reality of implementation (see: left-wing ideas with majority/plurality support that go no where, like "national background checks").
Looking over the discussion here and other places, it appears to be very uncommon knowledge that as a crime this falls under a misdemeanor and not a felony. A lack of information in this light, along with the high return rate for their cases, is very important.
|
On June 21 2018 11:42 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 10:12 zlefin wrote: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. "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. Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote: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. ya, I realize that. My statement was mostly written out of frustration with the different standards that sometimes get applied.
I never said the US should get a free pass; that's irrelevant to the point. I was merely disputes the highly questionable claim that nobody else could do it and get away with it (this'd depend of course on what constitutes "getting away with it", many punishments for the action would go far short of enough to actually stop it, or would only come long after the fact); given how much stuff happens around the world on a daily basis. Many nations could sufficiently get away with it because it's not easy to stop. Mostly these things aren't stopped by other nations, but by people within their own nation, so if sufficient people with the nation itself support the politicians to allow it, they'd manage to do it.
As to examples, that'd require establishing some parameters on what points in time are allowed, and what constitutes an equally bad or worse action. and ofc the clarifications on what level of "getting away with it" would be involved.
|
On June 21 2018 21:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 11:42 BigFan wrote:On June 21 2018 10:12 zlefin wrote: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. "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: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. ya, I realize that. My statement was mostly written out of frustration with the different standards that sometimes get applied. I never said the US should get a free pass; that's irrelevant to the point. I was merely disputes the highly questionable claim that nobody else could do it and get away with it (this'd depend of course on what constitutes "getting away with it", many punishments for the action would go far short of enough to actually stop it, or would only come long after the fact); given how much stuff happens around the world on a daily basis. Many nations could sufficiently get away with it because it's not easy to stop. Mostly these things aren't stopped by other nations, but by people within their own nation, so if sufficient people with the nation itself support the politicians to allow it, they'd manage to do it. As to examples, that'd require establishing some parameters on what points in time are allowed, and what constitutes an equally bad or worse action. and ofc the clarifications on what level of "getting away with it" would be involved.
Search for Yarl's Wood in the UK you will see some horrible shit. Not quite as bad as drugging kids but it shows that there's a general attitude to immigrants and that most countries can get away with alot just by playing up people's fears and stoking hatred.
|
I guess we'll have to wait to hear if this is fake news or not. The Justice Department official is on the record denying the news, saying WaPo never confirmed. Hmm.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1009834055045648386
If you were wondering about what constitutes caving, this is the cave. An official announces the suspension of prosecutions "until ICE can accelerate resource capacity to maintain custody."
|
That isn't caving. That is being responsible. Detaining and holding these people until they can be prosecuted was not planned or budgeted in any way. It costs between $100 and $200 per day, per person to detain these asylum seekers. The rough estimates of the increase since April is that they have detained an additional 20k people at the boarder. They don't have facilities for them just sitting around. They had no process to keep track of the separated kids. They didn't give people paperwork. This entire thing was poorly planned from the start and very expensive.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/cost-us-immigrant-detention-trump-zero-tolerance-tents-cages.html
All this for nothing. A political stunt to please anti-immigration advocates in the Republican base. And my bet is the Republican leadership was going to make a go at defunding the project if Trump didn't back down.
|
As far as I can tell, the problems with ICE are that the increases in immigration since 2000ish forced the organization to at least triple in size since then. And by all accounts its still underfunded and understaffed.
And attempting to shut ICE down is basically going to force that burden onto another group who is going to face the same issues. They'll be understaffed, have to rapidly hire thousands of people, and ultimately you'll be in the same situation where 1) immigration can't be processed fast enough, and 2) a lot of unscrupulous people are going to slip through during the desperate need to hire.
|
On June 22 2018 02:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
As far as I can tell, the problems with ICE are that the increases in immigration since 2000ish forced the organization to at least triple in size since then. And by all accounts its still underfunded and understaffed.
And attempting to shut ICE down is basically going to force that burden onto another group who is going to face the same issues. They'll be understaffed, have to rapidly hire thousands of people, and ultimately you'll be in the same situation where 1) immigration can't be processed fast enough, and 2) a lot of unscrupulous people are going to slip through during the desperate need to hire.
A country as popular as the US should have an absolutely enormous immigration staff. Not being able to keep up with demand doesn't mean people stay out. And just like with our prison systems, it costs more to respond to an event than to prevent an event. Not giving our immigration system enough resources ends up costing more than if we budgeted correctly to begin with. Just another example of trying to cut costs actually being the most expensive.
|
ICE didn’t exist before 2003, so I’m not convinced they are entirely necessary to begin with. In many ways, they are a result of an immigration law from the 1990s that allowed for deportations for committing even a misdemeanor. Before that, it was for being convicted of a crime that carried +5 years in jail. It is easy to deport people in jail, because they are already in jail and pretty easy to find.
The change from deporting people that were being already held in prison to deporting people that committed crimes that did not carry jail time changed the nature of deportations in the US. And like most Republican/conservative Democratic plans, the change didn’t’ really come with a change to how government dealt with the issue, or money to deal with the new problem they created.
Specifically, the problem that ICE enforces the civil code, not criminal law. State law enforcement is prohibited from enforcing the civil code, only the federal government can do it. So by making so deportations can happen to people who are not currently jailed, it created a logistical problem for federal law enforcement and state law enforcement. Because the state cannot hold anyone based on a violation of the civil code.
Our immigration system and laws are really stupid and need to be updated.
On June 22 2018 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 02:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
As far as I can tell, the problems with ICE are that the increases in immigration since 2000ish forced the organization to at least triple in size since then. And by all accounts its still underfunded and understaffed.
And attempting to shut ICE down is basically going to force that burden onto another group who is going to face the same issues. They'll be understaffed, have to rapidly hire thousands of people, and ultimately you'll be in the same situation where 1) immigration can't be processed fast enough, and 2) a lot of unscrupulous people are going to slip through during the desperate need to hire. A country as popular as the US should have an absolutely enormous immigration staff. Not being able to keep up with demand doesn't mean people stay out. And just like with our prison systems, it costs more to respond to an event than to prevent an event. Not giving our immigration system enough resources ends up costing more than if we budgeted correctly to begin with. Just another example of trying to cut costs actually being the most expensive.
Keeping the number of visas low and making legal immigration expensive, logistical nightmare is intentional. People who want to limit legal immigration like it that way. They want to keep it underfunded and understaffed, because it lowers the number of legal immigrants.
|
On June 22 2018 02:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
As far as I can tell, the problems with ICE are that the increases in immigration since 2000ish forced the organization to at least triple in size since then. And by all accounts its still underfunded and understaffed.
And attempting to shut ICE down is basically going to force that burden onto another group who is going to face the same issues. They'll be understaffed, have to rapidly hire thousands of people, and ultimately you'll be in the same situation where 1) immigration can't be processed fast enough, and 2) a lot of unscrupulous people are going to slip through during the desperate need to hire.
sources?
from what I can see, while immigration is up somewhat; it's not up to suhc a degree that it would require a tripling of staff; but I may be looking at the wrong number set.
if an organization is sufficiently bad; it can be worthwhile to do a purge/restart with a new org. and ICE is looking sufficiently bad that it may merit such treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
