|
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 10 2025 21:51 Velr wrote:
Are you seriously trying to take the stance of "everyone that comes into country XYZ has a right to stay in that country just because"?
Whats the need for discussion here?
If you don't read my comments at all, then yes that's how you'd interpret my stance.
|
I read it, thats what I got from it. I also read the stuff you wrote before about the polls outcome. As usual your moraly grand standing whiteout a hint of an actual argument or reflection.
I plain wonder why you didn't just write: "Nobody is illegal". It's way shorter than your long winded posts and encompasses everything you actually want to say and is also matching the depth of your toughts perfectly.
Oh and yes, you obviously should have been deportet for "petty" crimes. IF you were a frehsly immigrated adult "illegal" alien.
|
On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote: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. If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections. Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This doesn't work for the same reason Lincoln couldn't have worked in a bi-partisan way with Democrats to help them fix the problem of slavery that they didn't believe they had instead of trying to force states to fix it when the majority of those states voted to have slavery.
|
If you want to deter immigration for economic reasons, then tax & fine companies that underpay undocumented immigrants. People will stop coming here to "take American jobs" (read with a sarcastic tone) if they don't have the "advantage" (also read with a sarcastic tone) of earning sub-minimum wages.
If you want tighter immigration controls for security reasons, that's fine by me, but that's not a justification to be doing ICE raids on farms and Home Depot to meet an arbitrary quota. Drug dealers aren't the ones making $3/hr picking strawberries and mowing lawns.
If you want to deter immigration because you hate minorities, eat shit.
|
On June 10 2025 22:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote: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. If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections. Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers. This doesn't work for the same reason Lincoln couldn't have worked in a bi-partisan way with Democrats to help them fix the problem of slavery that they didn't believe they had instead of trying to force states to fix it when the majority of those states voted to have slavery.
Jesus buddy, so California not minding having cheap labor and integration of immigrants = slavery and Lincoln = Trump.
These are some unprecedented levels of brain rot.
|
United States42486 Posts
On June 10 2025 18:41 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 18:21 oBlade wrote:On June 10 2025 18:09 Simberto wrote:Why the marines specifically? Going from land to land doesn't sound like their job. Or is he gonna invade LA from the bay? Is it just because he knows the name and they are supposed to be tough? It's because they are the pinnacle of discipline and skill and professionalism. now that is sarcasm I can get behind!
Oh no he was serious
|
Northern Ireland24910 Posts
On June 10 2025 21:12 Magic Powers wrote:
Fortunately Trump is facing fairly strong resistance.
So far the only upside for him is that this has created a decent distraction from Elon's Epstein island "truth bomb" (if we actually want to call it that).
@WombaT
It's fine, I think the poll has had quite a positive effect. The discussion around illegal immigrants is very important, and we just learned that people - not just right-wingers - are heavily in support of mass deportation. It appears to me that almost anyone in this thread who's not far left actually supports it - we just didn't realize it before. That's very useful to know because it highlights a need for discussion not just with the right, but also among moderates.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that being OK with the principle of people with no legal right to reside in a polity, do not, means one favours mass deportation. It being OK in at least some circumstances, would not necessarily mean it’s OK in all.
I’d imagine the broad position most would hold here is a fair, enforced level of border controls for economic migrants, with humane and compassionate allowances for asylum seekers. With pathways to citizenship for many already in the US without legal status.
Thresholds will vary a bit of course, I’d imagine this is pretty much most people’s position. Completely open borders, or no foreigners allowed would be the minority positions at each side of the spectrum.
I’m a pretty open borders guy, think it works pretty damn well in Europe, I’m just not in this particular context. I don’t think effectively exploiting one class of people without fully enfranchising them in one’s society, where the majority of negative externalities are borne by the poorest natives is especially desirable as a state of affairs.
|
On June 10 2025 22:38 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 22:17 oBlade wrote:On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote: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. If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections. Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers. This doesn't work for the same reason Lincoln couldn't have worked in a bi-partisan way with Democrats to help them fix the problem of slavery that they didn't believe they had instead of trying to force states to fix it when the majority of those states voted to have slavery. Jesus buddy, so California not minding having cheap labor and integration of immigrants = slavery and Lincoln = Trump. These are some unprecedented levels of brain rot.
Trump is certainly not Lincoln. Lincoln is one of two presidents without whom the country wouldn't exist. Arguably the only one where that's true for what he did after he became president. But like Lincoln, and everyone else, Trump is a steward of keeping the Union together.
California, one of the highest minimum wages in the country, is allowed to have cheap labor. California is even allowed to accommodate the importation of minorities to work for cheap if they think it's progressive policy (I disagree). They can't mutiny against the federal government, either as a government or as individual citizens thereof.
The reason they can't do this is the document they signed to become California gave that power to the federal government, and representatives of all their fellow states voted laws specifying how that power works, and they elected someone who is using that power. What they can do is write, talk, march in Washington, and vote more next time.
|
On June 10 2025 23:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 22:38 Jankisa wrote:On June 10 2025 22:17 oBlade wrote:On June 10 2025 19:09 Jankisa wrote:On June 10 2025 13:31 Introvert wrote:On June 10 2025 11:07 WombaT wrote: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. If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections. Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers. This doesn't work for the same reason Lincoln couldn't have worked in a bi-partisan way with Democrats to help them fix the problem of slavery that they didn't believe they had instead of trying to force states to fix it when the majority of those states voted to have slavery. Jesus buddy, so California not minding having cheap labor and integration of immigrants = slavery and Lincoln = Trump. These are some unprecedented levels of brain rot. Trump is certainly not Lincoln. Lincoln is one of two presidents without whom the country wouldn't exist. Arguably the only one where that's true for what he did after he became president. But like Lincoln, and everyone else, Trump is a steward of keeping the Union together.California, one of the highest minimum wages in the country, is allowed to have cheap labor. California is even allowed to accommodate the importation of minorities to work for cheap if they think it's progressive policy (I disagree). They can't mutiny against the federal government, either as a government or as individual citizens thereof. The reason they can't do this is the document they signed to become California gave that power to the federal government, and representatives of all their fellow states voted laws specifying how that power works, and they elected someone who is using that power. What they can do is write, talk, march in Washington, and vote more next time.
Every day I am more and more convinced you are a chatbot trained on Tucker Carlson and Stormfront drivel, but at least you can be unintentionally funny!
|
The presidential function of perpetuating the existence of my country that this thread is about is funny...
|
You are living in fantasy land where your worship of an obvious conman and exposure to non stop propaganda convinced you that immigrants and democrats are what is trying to fuck up your country, despite this conman causing unprecedented economic turmoil, continuous constitutional crisis by defining the courts and now he's even deploying troops on American soil and threatening to arrest governors and cut off federal funds.
Saying that this, by all extents and proposes most divisive American of the last 50 years is the person trying to keep your country together is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.
This is who you voted for, this is who is trying to rip your country apart, you are just too brainwashed, too cynical or just too stupid to understand it.
|
On June 10 2025 23:47 Jankisa wrote:
You are living in fantasy land where your worship of an obvious conman and exposure to non stop propaganda convinced you that immigrants and democrats are what is trying to fuck up your country, despite this conman causing unprecedented economic turmoil, continuous constitutional crisis by defining the courts and now he's even deploying troops on American soil and threatening to arrest governors and cut off federal funds.
Saying that this, by all extents and proposes most divisive American of the last 50 years is the person trying to keep your country together is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.
This is who you voted for, this is who is trying to rip your country apart, you are just too brainwashed, too cynical or just too stupid to understand it.
I find it really hard to take people like oBlade serious. Surely he cannot actually believe the things that he types?
Else he must be living in a radically different reality from the rest of us. Even if he were living on Mars, he should be better informed.
You are currently going through a process that a bunch of people on this forum have went through already. You assume that surely if you point out the obvious often enough, it must stick and lead to some kind of reevaluation of things. Spoiler: it never does. Talking to him is just a waste of time.
I can absolutely guarantee that if he responds to you, it will be with either a similarly nonsensical strange "gotcha" things where you cannot tell if he is sarcastic and stupid or just stupid, or by distracting towards something else entirely in such a ridiculously stupid way that it will once again be hard to ignore.
At this point, i assume that this is just a part of the conservative brainwashing where they somehow managed to actually completely immunize their people against other points of view or facts that disturb their point of view. When you say something, he doesn't actually interact with what you are saying, it doesn't ever reach the thinking part of his brain. It gets intercepted and sent into an area that is solely focused on crafting a winning reply against it.
But since building a valid argument while completely ignoring facts and reason is usually not successful, you just get the next complete insanity.
|
Trumpers living in "a radically different reality from the rest of us" is correct. FOX News and boomer Facebook are a wasteland of fake news and bigotry-fueled hysteria.
|
Northern Ireland24910 Posts
It’s a live ticker rather than an actual article, but something I found quite interesting and worth scrolling down a bit for.
But a small glimpse of the future shitshow we’re walking into. AI bullshit images, and even the skeptical who try to confirm veracity by asking AI may get false negatives or positives there.
It really doesn’t bode well the more sophisticated these images and videos become.
I’m already having a hard time with some, many of the more obvious tells are quite quickly disappearing.
Audio stuff? I’m finding that incredibly hard. That trademark flatness and lack of human inflection used to make it pretty trivial, I’m encountering more and more that are cracking that problem.
www.bbc.co.uk
|
Northern Ireland24910 Posts
On June 11 2025 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:
Trumpers living in "a radically different reality from the rest of us" is correct. FOX News and boomer Facebook are a wasteland of fake news and bigotry-fueled hysteria.
It’s often either only explicable by either that, or dishonesty.
One either believes the bullshit, or does not but presents as if they do.
I’ve got more sympathy with the former, it’s quite tricky to be accurately informed at times if the world is either intentionally throwing bullshit at you to mislead you, or unintentionally spreading things that are bullshit, but with earnest intent.
The latter is mostly cowardice, you know exactly what Trump is, and you’re OK with that. However you don’t want to own that, so you’ll spin a wee yarn in lieu of ‘yeah he’s a piece of shit but he’s doing things I like’.
Obligatory caveat that not all Trump voters etc..
But if you’re the kind of person for whom the only predictive barometer I have on what your position is on an issue is ‘what has Donald Trump said or done on said issue?’ then you’re either a cultist or being disingenuous.
|
On June 10 2025 23:47 Jankisa wrote:
You are living in fantasy land where your worship of an obvious conman and exposure to non stop propaganda convinced you that immigrants and democrats are what is trying to fuck up your country,
We must have been through this because I have deja vu. Just because someone doesn't share your demon, doesn't mean they worship him. I look at the chart. It says December 2023, 250,000 crossings. It says March 2025, 7,000 crossings. That's my propaganda. All it took is be the only politician since Bush invaded Iraq to actually do something, and the first since Clinton to do something that actually worked, to get my support.
I listen to the sheriffs. They said, CBP aren't allowed to talk, but we can. Cartels traffic families of people as a distraction tactic, drop them off and tell them to call 911, they get picked up to go claim asylum, and during the overload when CBP personnel are picking them up, the cartel smuggles much worse in a different sector. Cat and mouse. They say they pick up bodies and rescue people dying of thirst or abandoned with broken limbs in the middle of a desert by traffickers. Traffickers in a cartel that control the territory in Mexico opposite the border. That specifically force all border crossings to go through them, which they charge money for, or enslave people for drugs or sex, to repay, and prevent anyone from using the land ports of entry to claim asylum. Know what the sheriffs say now? They say the difference is night and day. That's my propaganda. Propaganda is when your friend gets his identity stolen by people using it for Obamacare because he had a different insurance arrangement. Propaganda is when your relative gets their car totaled by an unlicensed illegal driver. And most of all, saying we should enforce federal law and improve the federal government - now THAT is Stormfront fascism if I ever saw it.
On June 10 2025 23:47 Jankisa wrote:
despite this conman causing unprecedented economic turmoil,
Dear God, the stonks went down and then up, this is unprecedented.
On June 10 2025 23:47 Jankisa wrote:
continuous constitutional crisis by defining the courts and now he's even deploying troops on American soil and threatening to arrest governors and cut off federal funds.
Okay let's try to think past level one on this buddy. He's deploying US troops in the US to defend federal agents. What would spur this action. Is this a massive act of tyranny like you probably believe Eisenhower was acting tyrannically when he invaded Arkansas with the US military to allow black people to go to high school even though Arkansas didn't vote for it? Why would Trump do something so capricious and dictatorial as to send the California National Guard to California?
Oh, because people are attacking federal agents. Mystery solved.
"Threatening to arrest governors" is a shittalking case - Homan started that. He said in an interview he wouldn't rule out arresting leaders - which he isn't the FBI so he doesn't have the power to investigate or arrest leaders - Newsom went on TV himself and said bring it on - then Trump said when asked while walking to Marine One that it would be great - in between saying he likes Newsom but he's grossly incompetent. So 99% that's shittalking between two huge egos. We can revisit if the situation changes though, I'm happy to admit when I'm proven wrong, like for example once we actually have Newsom's mugshot. I mean that'd just be the most antidemocratic thing. Unprecedented. We haven't had a mugshot of an elected politician since- oh.
On June 10 2025 23:47 Jankisa wrote:
Saying that this, by all extents and proposes most divisive American of the last 50 years is the person trying to keep your country together is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.
This is who you voted for, this is who is trying to rip your country apart, you are just too brainwashed, too cynical or just too stupid to understand it.
I notice some of our European colleagues lack an ethos context about this. So I brainstormed a bit. Most European governments don't have as extensive a history. The nations or the people have usually been around longer than the US, but not necessarily the governments. The US is basically the first Enlightenment government. Only the UK has comparable or better longevity. And it's basically for the same reason, a rigged spawn - we share stability through geographic isolation. Europe is tightly packed. So it's understandable. When things go awry in Europe, people have a revolution and flip everything upside down. Shift the borders a bit. Create a country, absorb a country. France is on what, the 5th Republic? That's fine, that's one way to do things. But the Atlantic is a divide on this.
California or LA can vote for what it wants but it cannot mutiny against the federal government. That's the deal. The reason that's the deal, is because of the period from 1861-1865. People misunderstand the US. We had one revolution for our collective independence, and one civil war. That's it. You can tour the battlefields. You can see brothers buried in opposite cemeteries. The reason the the Civil War is so important that Lincoln fought instead of letting them go, is not that the Confederates were fascists (not that you or anyone said that specifically, it's a placeholder for misunderstanding), which would be an anachronistic application of 20th century European issues to 19th century America, and that also the US now is fascist so you're supposed to fight them also because it's the same as when Lincoln fought the Confederacy. Rather, it's something else. The reason it's important is this: It infused a national lesson that those hundreds of thousands of people killing each other made a sacrifice - so that we would realize the most important things are deciding issues in ways other than that, and staying together despite drifts. That's why the US and Europe politically lean towards continuity and malleability respectively. That might explain why some Continental minds spectating America look at leftist violence and say look, a brave vibrant political revolution, and normal people who witness or experience it say, wow, obviously this must stop.
Nobody who has fought the federal government since 1865 has won, or had a snowball's chance in hell. A select few have managed to appear favorably in the annals of history. The people attacking federal agents are antithetical to America. Trump is not being divisive by protecting federal agents any more than pineapple pizza is being divisive by existing. Extremists are being divisive through their imbecilic, violent, unemployed behavior. They are not going to achieve anything, they have no endgame, their only possible successful outcome is terror and more violence.
|
Oh, I understand how these people work and I'm not trying to "win" or even more foolishly try to convince people like him of anything, I am honestly entertained by the lengths and absurdities that they will go to justify their world view.
I'm kind of new to these threads so I get people trying to warn me about guys like him or GH (by Kwark in Russia/Ukraine thread) on the other side of political spectrum because it might seem like they get to me, they really don't, I just refuse to let their moronic bullshit stand without calling it out, it's both entertainment and a public service for me to reply to them to let them know in which exact ways they are full of shit.
It's kind of like tricking an AI to say something patently absurd, the fact that this empty barrel of a man (I assume, sorry for assuming your gender oBlade) actually compared Trump to Lincoln is honestly hilarious to me, when he does shit like that as compared to his usual long winded posts with links and "explanation" for these fascists doing fascist things it's kind of fun because it's so patently absurd that it gives me hope that sooner or later people will notice how ridiculous these people are and their bullshit will stop working.
EDIT: I just noticed he replied, this long winded reply I will simply ignore it and won't read it, and now we wasted a nice amount of his time that he can't spend posting this shit on reddit or stormfront or wherever he usually spews his bullshit. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
|
On June 10 2025 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2025 01:11 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2025 19:05 baal wrote:On June 04 2025 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, its another example of republicans being experts in culture war at this point. They are the Sparta of culture war. They essentially normalize each other while also making each other look more reasonable in comparison. They each get to use each other as a "fall guy" to shed their baggage for some % of people.
This situation has made me realize why so many people thought TV wrestling was real. I always find it funny when people assume hyper competence from obviously very flawed politicians. Republicans think left wing ideologues infiltrated academia 40 years ago to infect young minds into the rise of socialist, and democrats think right wingers are brain washing young men with Joe Rogans and Andrew Tates but these things just happen organically. They are not playing 4D Chess, they are playing checkers and badly, but out biased belief systems make us too invested and thus too blind to see how badly they are actually playing. Yeah I don't think it's 4d chess, it's just checkers ( thought this sounded familiar) Wrestling is real. It's not a video game. Owen Hart actually died and getting hit actually hurts. They are however performers playing roles. Politicians are similar in that this is all a performance to them but real people are really getting hurt and dying as a consequence. Musk, Rogan, and Trump/his successor are going to dominate the Overton Window and libs will try to find policy that lands somewhere between those three with Rogan (generally) being the "advocate" for human rights. I don't even think they are doing this consciously, I think to them it really does feel like conflict. But more like friends trying to beat each other in a frivolous game than some sort of major clash. I haven't seen any Musk, Trump, or Rogan talking points going mainstream among liberals. + Show Spoiler + The only person attempting to do that is Gavin Newsom and his popularity has been crashing as a result. It's subtle, but it's there. On June 10 2025 00:33 Sadist wrote:On June 10 2025 00:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 09 2025 23:45 Sadist wrote:On June 09 2025 23:26 Magic Powers wrote:On June 09 2025 21:42 Sadist wrote:On June 09 2025 21:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2025 21:16 Sadist wrote:
So I am curious what the rationale for not treating illegal immigrants the same way you would if someone had a warrant for their arrest. What i mean by this is if you have a warrant and you get pulled over, arrested for something else, etc per my understanding you would be arrested for said warrant.
I can understand the thought process that if you check someones immigration status when they report a crime, are pulled over, are arrested for something else, etc that you could discourage people from interacting with police or reporting crimes. However, if thats the case how would immigration actually enforce immigration laws on illegal immigrants?
Seperately, its pretty clear ICE are escalating things unnecessarily. Plain clothes agents, grabbing people aggressively, face masks, etc. My concern is the well is poisoned on both sides of the immigration issue and we are never going to move forward. Unfortunately, Trump and other Republican leaders treat illegal immigrants as sub-human and worthless, so it's unsurprising when illegal immigrants aren't afforded rights or respect. I guess what im saying is if an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime and goes infront of a judge, even if the charges are dropped why would they not be held for being an illegal immigrant? Thats how my understanding of a warrant would work. Again i get the downsides of doing this (illegal immigrants would avoid police and not come forward as witnesses etc) but in practical terms how would we enforce immigration laws? They're not being brought to court for alleged crimes. They're brought to court for being immigrants, then the courts dismiss the claims, then they get arrested in spite of their case being dismissed. If they are legal immigrants obviously they should be left alone but if they are illegal immigrants IMO they should be detained even if the charges are dropped from an unrelated case. It should be done with some common decency like not roughing up people, talking to them like human beings, wearing uniforms without face coverings, etc. I would fully expect if I as an American was an illegal immigrant in another country I would get the boot if I was caught or charged with something unrelated. I disagree very strongly. There's a reason why cases get dismissed on the basis of police misconduct. This is meant to prevent abuse of authority. If protocol isn't being followed, the suspect can often simply go free, regardless of any proof of guilt. Same situation here. If ICE gets the desired result of deporting illegal immigrants by unlawfully snatching suspects of the streets, then not only is that in and of itself an illegal activity committed by ICE, but it also creates a situation where suspects are at a severe disadvantage due to not having sufficient legal representation (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). If you allow one criminal activity, you allow two, and so forth. It results in perfectly legal immigrants being arrested and some of them even deported. On top of that it also creates an extremely hostile climate which leads to more violent protests, which leads to more violent enforcement, which is an escalation that helps absolutely no one. You cannot ever reward illegal behavior by the executive branch. If you do that, you create a police state, regardless of how many illegal migrants get deported at the end of it. This is completely unlawful, immoral and extremely damaging to the communities. By the way, it is estimated that illegal immigrants make up roughly 3% of the American population. Anyone arguing that these people are a problem is the real problem. I feel like we are talking past each other. I dont condone what it looks like ICE is doing. Im just pointing out that to an average american citizen, its going to be confusing why ICE apprehending someone at a court house is a big deal. IMO The big deal is no due process or the way they behave. Not the actual act of arresting someone who is illegal and deporting them after they get due process. Thinking ICE should exist is a right-wing position. Using phrases like "arresting someone who is illegal" is right wing. Im not right wing. Im not using words like undocumented immigrants or pretending like enforcing immigration law is right wing. I dont personally think illegal immigration is this huge scourge to our country like the right wing guys do but I also dont live in an area really impacted by it. GH you will turn off reasonable people by fighting over language like illegal immigrants or saying ICE shouldnt exist. I dont care what you call it but there has to be some type of immigration enforcement agency in a real country. ICE can go but someone has to do that job. I'm not worried about "turning off" so called "reasonable people" by pointing out the fact that ICE's existence is a right wing thing born out of the bipartisan laying of fascist groundwork that came out of 9/11. I was just pointing out how ostensibly left wing people are already falling into this trap of pushing right wing trash in an attempt to find some "reasonable" "middle".
Increasingly looking like Fetterman will be the standard bearer for so called "reasonable Democrats" looking to find a "middle" between the protestors and those cracking down on them:
|
On June 10 2025 23:41 oBlade wrote:
The presidential function of perpetuating the existence of my country that this thread is about is funny...
I thought america is done for, rotten, garbage, down the drain, weak and what ever word comes up when trump sees himself in the mirror without the comb over and the makeup in the morning.
|
On June 11 2025 01:19 Jankisa wrote:
Oh, I understand how these people work and I'm not trying to "win" or even more foolishly try to convince people like him of anything, I am honestly entertained by the lengths and absurdities that they will go to justify their world view.
I'm kind of new to these threads so I get people trying to warn me about guys like him or GH (by Kwark in Russia/Ukraine thread) on the other side of political spectrum because it might seem like they get to me, they really don't, I just refuse to let their moronic bullshit stand without calling it out, it's both entertainment and a public service for me to reply to them to let them know in which exact ways they are full of shit.
It's kind of like tricking an AI to say something patently absurd, the fact that this empty barrel of a man (I assume, sorry for assuming your gender oBlade) actually compared Trump to Lincoln is honestly hilarious to me, when he does shit like that as compared to his usual long winded posts with links and "explanation" for these fascists doing fascist things it's kind of fun because it's so patently absurd that it gives me hope that sooner or later people will notice how ridiculous these people are and their bullshit will stop working.
oBlade: Trump and Lincoln were both presidents.
Jankisa: fascist
We'd hate to see what it would look like if it got to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
57297
16905
222
EPT
