|
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 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
|
On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up. So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward... 1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible. 2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent. 3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored. Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking. Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Unfortunately all this seems like a waste of time. Despite your points 1 and 2 being objectively correct (3rd is somewhat subjective). You will see this come up every now and again because "border bill" .
|
United States24648 Posts
I love the absolute hypocrisy of demonizing telework for federal employees, ruining lives with these return to office mandates, and then recommending they telework this week to ease setup for the parade, using words like [OPM] is reminding agencies of their authority to approve situational/unscheduled telework and other workforce flexibilities for impacted employees at their sole discretion
Eat shit—I'm commuting in without any attempt to help alleviate traffic congestion, prevent disruptions to preparation activities, or minimize any distractions to law enforcement and security officials.
edit: the memo https://www.chcoc.gov/content/us-army-250th-birthday-celebration
|
On June 10 2025 10:48 micronesia wrote:I love the absolute hypocrisy of demonizing telework for federal employees, ruining lives with these return to office mandates, and then recommending they telework this week to ease setup for the parade, using words like Show nested quote +[OPM] is reminding agencies of their authority to approve situational/unscheduled telework and other workforce flexibilities for impacted employees at their sole discretion Eat shit—I'm commuting in without any attempt to help alleviate traffic congestion, prevent disruptions to preparation activities, or minimize any distractions to law enforcement and security officials. edit: the memo https://www.chcoc.gov/content/us-army-250th-birthday-celebration
Imagine being an elderly man but needing to have the biggest birfday party because youre the biggest bestest boy, lmao.
God I hope traffic into Arlington isnt gonna be extra-miserable this week.
|
Northern Ireland24853 Posts
On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up. So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward... 1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible. 2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent. 3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored. Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking. Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
|
Northern Ireland24853 Posts
On June 10 2025 10:48 micronesia wrote:I love the absolute hypocrisy of demonizing telework for federal employees, ruining lives with these return to office mandates, and then recommending they telework this week to ease setup for the parade, using words like Show nested quote +[OPM] is reminding agencies of their authority to approve situational/unscheduled telework and other workforce flexibilities for impacted employees at their sole discretion Eat shit—I'm commuting in without any attempt to help alleviate traffic congestion, prevent disruptions to preparation activities, or minimize any distractions to law enforcement and security officials. edit: the memo https://www.chcoc.gov/content/us-army-250th-birthday-celebration
Rofl.
You have to be a special kind of cunt to be against working from home, you really do.
My current job necessitates being there in person, my last did not.
It’s just outright idiocy. I did way, way more work off the clock working from home. I was already at home, our local team couldn’t fix my issue, but the US guys were about to log in and hey I’m just floating around home anyway, I’ll give them a bell. I’m not doing that if I’m in an office and commuting.
The most pathetic part of the whole backlash is that it comes from people who have the very traits they rail about. Because they can’t envisage being motivated to work without supervision, they think no one else can
|
Northern Ireland24853 Posts
On June 10 2025 09:22 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 08:55 LightSpectra wrote:On June 10 2025 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2025 08:03 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10. What Trump is doing has basically nothing to do with border control. You’re falling into blackjack’s trap by accepting the premise that it does. Consider the Stalinist purges and the quotas of counterrevolutionaries that Soviet leadership were handed. Let’s say in your city you are told to find, round up, and shoot 15,000 counterrevolutionaries. You want to impress the boss so you do 20,000. Is the revolution now 33% more secure? Blackjack would say “yes”. There was a stated aim and you worked in alignment with that aim and therefore you were fulfilling it and therefore any criticism of it must be counterrevolutionary. Someone saying “where did that 15,000 number come from?” or “how did you find another 5,000?” or “what criteria did these people meet?” is an agent of the enemy. Sorry for my imprecise language. I am using Trump as a placeholder for generally right wing ideology and/or the laws pertaining to US immigration. However you want to define the difference between democrats and republicans on the vague issue of "immigration", I am saying left wing folks are too averse to their enemy's perspective. I think it is highlighted here, when people who have zero impact on immigration law, are disparaged and written off pretty easily. It all feels so incredibly similar to the weird knee jerk reaction right wingers have to abortion. Its like right wingers completely shut down and get even less rational than their generally low ability to be rational. Flashback to 2024, when Biden and Congressional Democrats were going to vote for a bipartisan border security bill that essentially gave Republicans everything they wanted, but Trump told Republicans to vote No on it so he could campaign on Biden being weak on the border. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/23/senate-democrats-immigration-border-billAt the time I thought Republicans were fucking stupid, but they did end up winning the election because of it. The moral of the story being it doesn't matter how far to the right Democrats move on immigration, they'll never satisfy the endless cruelty of MAGA. Oh FFS with border bill: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/06/border-bill-ukraine-aid-military-00139870"Of the just over $60 billion dedicated to helping Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion, it would send $48.4 billion to the Pentagon — much of it destined to be sent to U.S. companies." WTF it has to do with border?? As for border I already presented math for border crossing way earlier in the thread. The issue with border bill is the same as with many others bills - you get shitton of stuff staffed in one bill. I am with Musk on this one - there is no such thing as big beautiful bill. Vote on every part of the bill separately. Edit: Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 09:14 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2025 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
What are you talking about? the lady was giving an interview into a news camera, she had her back to the cop which means that he saw the camera crew and the giant camera, then lined up to shoot directly at her. It wasn't a long range random shot he paused, saw the camera and the lady speaking into it, then brought his launcher up and to her. Just because we literally all watched the same video of it happening doesn’t mean they can’t insist they didn’t see what they saw. First day dealing with these people? lol at bad timing 
It’s a reasonable objection. However I think if anyone genuinely believes Musk’s objection here is based on principle or procedure they’re genuinely insane.
There are many people on this Earth whose principles I think are ridiculous, but I do respect them for having principles.
Musk is not one of those people. He’s so full of shit he needs multiple colostomy bags. He bangs on about Western civilisation and its decline all the time, when he’d have been eaten alive at basically any other time and culture. He’s a fraud that can only exist in this timeframe, and rather than be grateful for it and sit around banging Grimes on the regular, he chose to pursue this bullshit.
He’s not a particularly smart man, although he has some talent. I’d consider much of this thread’s regular posters as more intelligent, and certainly have a better moral framework.
|
On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up. So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward... 1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible. 2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent. 3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored. Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking. Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways. Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists. Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress? I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
|
On June 10 2025 10:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up. So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward... 1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible. 2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent. 3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored. Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking. Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways. Unfortunately all this seems like a waste of time. Despite your points 1 and 2 being objectively correct (3rd is somewhat subjective). You will see this come up every now and again because "border bill" .
It set a threshold for continuous daily crossings of 5000 before allowing "emergency" measures. Or 8500 in any single day. This is part of a strategy of create chaos and then act like you compromised when the other side negotiates something marginally closer towards normal again.
Under Trump now there are approximately that many monthly crossings. So it turns out you can do 30x better than a bipartisan border bill with a monopartisan person who simply does his job.
+ Show Spoiler +
But some people are still campaigning on it. Kind of like arguing a Darth Vader is a robot theory after he said he's Luke's father and after he died and took his helmet off. It was an interesting thought for a second at the beginning but the world has moved on. There may be recession, or pandemic, or huge caravan related surges later, or an exodus in the case of the collapse of Mexico. But for now it seems the administration has most of the border tools anyone would need.
|
On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 10:08 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 22:59 Jankisa wrote:On June 09 2025 22:10 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote:
I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist. I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared! But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped. I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023? I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden. The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again. I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that. For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up. So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward... 1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible. 2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent. 3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored. Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking. Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways. Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists. Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress? I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 1 is fairly irrefutable. Even people on the left acknowledge Biden could have done more on the border, as evidenced by the fact that he finally did do more once it was an election year.
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=28254360
Jon Stewart: they let the border fester for 2 years before finally doing the thing they could have done 2 years earlier and didn’t that show people that the government could do something and they just didn’t?
Bernie Sanders: yup
|
On June 10 2025 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
While I am saddened by the fact that BlackJack tends to reduce his own thoughts to quips and snark, I do view him as a good example of how immigration ends up being a purity test that goes beyond what the testers themselves actually support or want.
For example, while I am sure some people would want this, a huge majority would not: The US declares all humans are US citizens and they can all decide to live in the US as all current US citizens do. All border-related business is ceased. No barriers to entry.
People on the left know they don't want what Trump is doing. But I often find no one on the left is comfortable saying something Trump has done is good. Its like its never ok to specify a situation when someone should be deported.
I think democrats suffer in this way the same way republicans suffer from their perspective on abortion. They are so wildly pissed off about the topic they have lost their ability to see nuance or middle ground or whatever. There's just so much baggage attached to it, its no longer possible to be reasonable.
Directly addressing the BlackJack situation: It seems like he can't voice anything other than complete rejection of Trump's immigration policies without being directly related to Trump and everything Trump does.
Let's say Trump is "10" and the left is "1". If BlackJack describes 2, he is labeled as 10.
Introvert put it best a couple months ago in one of his posts where he said something like Democrats were comfortable adopting any position no matter how crazy because they thought the electorate wouldn’t dare give Trump a 2nd term.
My criticism of crazy leftist ideas is done precisely in the hope that they would drop it so that Trump couldn’t win again and because they are just bad. But here we are. I’ve disliked Trump long before he was even relevant in politics. He’s basically a trust fund baby with unearned arrogance. There’s exactly 2 things Trump has done that I’m on board with, one is his war on flow restrictors so we can make showers great again and the other is his task force to end ticket scalpers on online ticket sites. He could have a 3rd if he ended daylights savings time but he didn’t go through with that one.
I post here far less now that the thread is all things Trump (not that I blame anyone for that) and now that whenever you want to challenge someone the automatic response is “what about this thing Trump did…”
|
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote:I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data. Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?Yes (18) 67% No (9) 33% 27 total votes Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Pretty sad to see so many people vote 'yes'. Not surprised, just disappointed.
1) Every year roughly 1.1 million people are being deported from the US. That's roughly a tenth compared to the total number of illegal immigrants currently estimated to be living in the US.
2) The clear majority of people getting deported have lived peacefully in their communities without causing harm to others (other than overstaying their visa or other very mild crimes of that nature).
3) Quite few deportations are due to more severe crime(s) such as theft. In my book that should also not be an immediate cause for deportation, but I understand that some people view it differently. Even if you disagree with me, those cases lead to a relatively small minority of deportations. Small crime like theft is further down the list of causes.
The overwhelming number of US deportations are due to people overstaying their visa and similar reasons.
My conclusion: this makes absolutely no sense. A much better approach would be to improve the process of extending visas, as these migrants are by and large peaceful and productive members of their communities and there's no reason to send them back.
Literally anyone can fall on hard times, that doesn't mean it's productive to immediately ban foreigners for failing to hold their jobs.
Please rethink your position ya'll.
|
On June 10 2025 08:53 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2025 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 05:33 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2025 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 05:15 blomsterjohn wrote:
I'm gonna take an outrageous bet and say that he was very obviously being sarcastic Mayhaps I was joining in? No it doesn't look like that. It looks like more of your woke scolding behavior when you try to convince people who already agree with you to agree with you more by just being an ass to them about the thing you already agree about. I was being sarcastic. Glad you're opposed to being an ass to people you agree with, looking forward to you implementing that yourself. I get thats what you want it to look like but the fact that someone else posted the post you responded to shows you failed, instead of owning up to your failure you have to double down on your infalability by trying to confuse people. Its not clever GH and you've never given anyone a reason to care what you're looking forward too so why should I start now? Actually it seems you are correct. While it does seem that she was between the police and protestors, it also seem like she was shot in the leg. So yes my bad.
If you have any more doubts, here are some videos of LAPD trampling protesters:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalNews/comments/1l7dqkr/lapd_beat_and_trample_a_protester_in_la/
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalNews/comments/1l6wa03/lapd_when_they_think_no_one_is_looking/
|
Norway28624 Posts
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people.
|
On June 10 2025 15:08 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote:I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data. Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?Yes (18) 67% No (9) 33% 27 total votes Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Pretty sad to see so many people vote 'yes'. Not surprised, just disappointed. 1) Every year roughly 1.1 million people are being deported from the US. That's roughly a tenth compared to the total number of illegal immigrants currently estimated to be living in the US. 2) The clear majority of people getting deported have lived peacefully in their communities without causing harm to others (other than overstaying their visa or other very mild crimes of that nature). 3) Quite few deportations are due to more severe crime(s) such as theft. In my book that should also not be an immediate cause for deportation, but I understand that some people view it differently. Even if you disagree with me, those cases lead to a relatively small minority of deportations. Small crime like theft is further down the list of causes. The overwhelming number of US deportations are due to people overstaying their visa and similar reasons. My conclusion: this makes absolutely no sense. A much better approach would be to improve the process of extending visas, as these migrants are by and large peaceful and productive members of their communities and there's no reason to send them back. Literally anyone can fall on hard times, that doesn't mean it's productive to immediately ban foreigners for failing to hold their jobs. Please rethink your position ya'll.
So if I've got this right, you shouldn't deport people who briefly overstayed a visa - for example, they had a visa that allowed them to be a guest in a country that was connected to their work, but they lost the work that justified the visa and couldn't find a new one - shouldn't deport them, because everyone has ups and downs. Also, if they need to steal a little bit from the country they're living in without residence to survive, that's a normal part of life that could happen to literally anyone so we shouldn't deport people without legal status who are convicted of theft because in the land of the free you have the liberty to commit crimes like that. But then if they stay like that for 10-20 years they become undeportable pillars of communities. There's no window left when someone should be deported, if they got a visa and set foot in the US they just assume a natural right to an unlimited stay.
At least the House passed a bill not to disburse SBA funding to people without legal status. So these ridiculous stories of people operating a restaurant for 20 years without permission to even be in the country might decrease.
|
On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people.
Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them.
Please read this:
https://theworld.org/stories/2017/10/25/overstay
|
On June 10 2025 16:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people. Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them. Please read this: https://theworld.org/stories/2017/10/25/overstay
They overstayed tourist visas because the person they paid to human traffic them into Canada illegally took their money and ran.
This is an incredibly valid reason + Show Spoiler +
|
On June 10 2025 16:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people. Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them. Please read this: https://theworld.org/stories/2017/10/25/overstay
I'm with drone on this one. If you overstay your visa, getting deported is not really a punishment, assuming it is done humanely.
For cases of someone living undocumented for years with no criminal history and effectively have been living like role models, I'd set an automatic legalisation route of some sort. Removing them from the community doesn't really accomplish anything other than cruelty.
|
On June 10 2025 16:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 16:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people. Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them. Please read this: https://theworld.org/stories/2017/10/25/overstay They overstayed tourist visas because the person they paid to human traffic them into Canada illegally took their money and ran. This is an incredibly valid reason + Show Spoiler +
You're lying by omission.
|
On June 10 2025 16:53 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 16:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people. Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them. Please read this: https://theworld.org/stories/2017/10/25/overstay I'm with drone on this one. If you overstay your visa, getting deported is not really a punishment, assuming it is done humanely. For cases of someone living undocumented for years with no criminal history and effectively have been living like role models, I'd set an automatic legalisation route of some sort. Removing them from the community doesn't really accomplish anything other than cruelty.
The problem is that people answered "yes". They're not - unlike yourself - considering illegal immigrants' histories on a case by case basis. They're just calling for the deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of reasons, causes or promising alternatives.
Edit:
I think if the poll had a third option such as "it depends" (i.e. case by case basis), maybe some people would've voted for that option instead of preferring blanket deportation for all illegal immigrants. I don't know, I'm hoping people voted with their gut in this poll without thinking about it or doing research. Because the more research I do, the more I learn about the lives of illegal immigrants, the more I realize many of them don't deserve deportation (including some who have committed petty crime, but that's a view that can be more controversial).
In reality I think there are cases where the answer regarding deportation should be "hell yeah, deport them immediately" (such as robbery or murder, obviously) and in other instances the answer should be "hell no, please keep them" (such as no crimes being committed, working productively, fleeing from violence and abuse, etc.)
There are far too many instances where the "hell no" option should apply, and not seriously considering this option is a huge blunder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/mC33yM60/nobill.png)
