|
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 29 2018 21:43 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 21:32 farvacola wrote:
Having watched through Rosenstein's questioning that happened yesterday, I gotta say I'm impressed with his poise. He made multiple congresspeople look like total fools, particularly Jim Jordan. I only saw the question about subpoenaing phone calls and... oh boy. You know you done fucked up when the person you're questioning answers your question in a politely dismissive way and the crowd laughs.
I liked the bit where Jordan accused Rosenstein of lying (the media said so!), and Rosenstein was like "dude I'm under oath here".
|
my claim to work for an aussie firm doesn't really seem to have any relevance, more of an example.
no litre of cola for you.
oh nice you edited to add something, but you were willing to claim something based on no real substantiation? just something that fit the narrative you supported and sounded good?
|
Twenty officers willing to go on the record, in writing, that their agency needs to be abolished is noteworthy. That isn’t a casual call for reform or change of policy. It is the officers saying the agency is beyond reform and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Lets not forget the senior attorney for ICE was stealing the identities of immigrants.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/28/ice-lawyer-raphael-sanchez-immigrant-identity-theft-sentence
This is the same lawyer that oversaw the investigation to identity thief within ICE that last time it came up. So it is a safe bet that he was not the only one doing it.
|
To compare people actually going to the press with their concerns about the organisation for which they work (particularly in such a hostile climate) at a time when this is becoming a serious political and humanitarian issue, one which has drawn the attention of protesters and members of congress, to "being able to find some people at my company who think it is rubbish" is completely disingenuous.
|
officers at what level saying the agency is beyond reform? arguments could be made about any organisation, arm of government, NGO, system or company where this occurs?? how many people do you think stay silent? not just in organisations like ICE, but anywhere. the saying 'gotta make a living' haunts me because its the mentality people just accept.
but political bias blinds people, instead of accepting that it exists EVERYWHERE, people cherry pick for the things they feel should be removed.
|
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything?
|
On June 29 2018 22:26 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
To compare people actually going to the press with their concerns about the organisation for which they work (particularly in such a hostile climate) at a time when this is becoming a serious political and humanitarian issue, one which has drawn the attention of protesters and members of congress, to "being able to find some people at my company who think it is rubbish" is completely disingenuous.
well luckily we're on the internet and can mince words freely.
|
But don't you see, Ciaus_Dronu, "being able to find some people at [his] company who think it is rubbish" was "just something that fit[s] the narrative [he] support[s that] sounded good [to him]."
We're all storytellers here 
|
On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything?
who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things.
I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way).
|
On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything?
Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway.
Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps).
|
On June 29 2018 22:31 farvacola wrote:But don't you see, Ciaus_Dronu, "being able to find some people at [his] company who think it is rubbish" was "just something that fit[s] the narrative [he] support[s that] sounded good [to him]." We're all storytellers here
what narrative do I support exactly?
i dont think you even read what I said, but were more than willing to twist my words to fit your delusion.
|
On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way).
My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise.
|
On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise.
but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do?
|
On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps).
Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border.
|
On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything?
An agency rebuilt and refocused to a more transparent form of deportation, providing information to local law enforcement who they are taking and where they are taking them. A new system should be made to replace the ICE detainer that is legally sounds and doesn’t have states unlawfully enforcing the civil code through detaining people with deportation flags. Thought needs to be put into where ICE is willing to detain illegal immigrants and prohibitions need to be placed on detaining immigrants going to court, schools or other areas that even the police would be reluctant to arrest at.
And there needs to be accountability to both local law enforcement and government officials. Right now ICE operates like the FBI did under Hoover, answering to no one and doing whatever they want. And acting like that is not sustainable. Local law enforcement and communities can’t have this agency snatching people at any given time, taking them away and providing no information on how to find the people ICE detained.
|
On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Drugs don't 'magically' appear in the US. They come from somewhere.
a lot of central american countries are just stuffed up - yet the solution from 'humanitarians' are to allow the people fleeing into the US without fixing the underlying problems.
|
On June 29 2018 22:36 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:33 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? who knows, in the grand scheme of things the ICE budget for the US is tiny compared to what they spend on other things. I rarely see any actual solutions from people who oppose ICE, other than everyone should be able to do what they want to? without taking into account the toll that is being taken on the people who actually have to cross the border (i.e. if you are female there is an 80% chance you will be abused in some way). My operating presumption is that people who want to abolish ICE simply want open borders, but I’m willing to give them a chance to show otherwise. but ICE exists to extract those who have crossed the borders, not some militaristic force AT the border. what good would that do?
I want ICE to be a backstop to the border assets. It’s part of locking down the border.
|
On June 29 2018 22:40 SenorChang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. I'm not disagreeing with you. Drugs don't 'magically' appear in the US. They come from somewhere. a lot of central american countries are just stuffed up - yet the solution from 'humanitarians' are to allow the people fleeing into the US without fixing the underlying problems.
The US don’t have any power over other nations beyond military force. And we are not going to fight a war with drug cartels because we would be funding both ends of the war.
And people crossing the border is lower than it has been in a very long time. This isn’t the issue people are making it out to be.
|
On June 29 2018 22:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? An agency rebuilt and refocused to a more transparent form of deportation, providing information to local law enforcement who they are taking and where they are taking them. A new system should be made to replace the ICE detainer that is legally sounds and doesn’t have states unlawfully enforcing the civil code through detaining people with deportation flags. Thought needs to be put into where ICE is willing to detain illegal immigrants and prohibitions need to be placed on detaining immigrants going to court, schools or other areas that even the police would be reluctant to arrest at. And there needs to be accountability to both local law enforcement and government officials. Right now ICE operates like the FBI did under Hoover, answering to no one and doing whatever they want. And acting like that is not sustainable. Local law enforcement and communities can’t have this agency snatching people at any given time, taking them away and providing no information on how to find the people ICE detained.
deportation transparency... as if people are being disappeared?
|
On June 29 2018 22:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 22:40 SenorChang wrote:On June 29 2018 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything? Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway. Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps). Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border. I'm not disagreeing with you. Drugs don't 'magically' appear in the US. They come from somewhere. a lot of central american countries are just stuffed up - yet the solution from 'humanitarians' are to allow the people fleeing into the US without fixing the underlying problems. The US don’t have any power over other nations beyond military force. And we are not going to fight a war with drug cartels because we would be funding both ends of the war. And people crossing the border is lower than it has been in a very long time. This isn’t the issue people are making it out to be.
i'm not saying people crossing the border are the issue, I'm saying 'what' crosses the border is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
