|
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 |
Northern Ireland22944 Posts
On October 01 2024 06:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2024 09:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2024 03:26 Sermokala wrote:
Its not really accurate to say that its Bidens fault that the immigration situation in cities has been a disaster when we all know that the republican governor of texas was more than happy to tell everyone he was specifically transporting people to those cities to cause these problems. He specifically did it in a way to cause maximum damage and made efforts to not coordinate or do anything to mitigate the damage that he caused trafficking human beings in order to score the political points BJ is now trying to brag about. Publishing "facts" about a group of criminals when you know full well that you love generalizing the problem to all central Americans being criminals is still a bad thing no matter how you try to ret-con how you wrapped it up.
We're not memory-holding events BJ you're just presenting them in bad faith. If you're trying to justify demonizing the many for the actions of a few you're justifying calling every conservative a nazi because some conservatives are nazi's. Whoops, someone is making some faulty assumptions (as usual). I've met many illegal immigrants in my life and most of them are good people that just want a better life. Nothing in my post indicates that because the fentanyl trade in SF is dominated by a group of Hondurans that I think all Central Americans are criminals or whatever stupid conclusion you're trying to draw. These are the kinds of logical leaps that you're used to making. I suspect your post is nothing more than projection because you are exactly the person that would generalize all conservatives as nazis or racists. You should tell that to the guy who posted this On September 28 2024 22:19 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2024 21:31 Sadist wrote:On September 28 2024 20:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2024 17:41 Sadist wrote:On September 28 2024 12:29 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2024 19:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 12:54 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I found this unreasonably funny.
But yeah, talk about broad strokes, in any other context BJ would have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty involved in making too general a statement about this or that thing he feels like being contrarian about, but now that we're talking about illegal immigration, a subject where you have to bury your head in the sand to miss the latent racism, suddenly everyone is perfectly rational and unprejudiced, and nobody has an issue with people from different ethnicities and different walks of life, and all the problems they have with immigrants are all perfectly justified.
Right-O! Obviously there are elements of xenophobia/racism/prejudice. The idea that everyone is perfectly rational and unprejudiced is a ridiculous strawman. The point is people want to argue that the reason people take issue with Biden's disastrous handling of the border is because they don't like black and brown people. It's as ridiculous as dismissing critics of Israel on anti-semitism. Obviously anti-semitism is something that exists and there are elements of that as well in foreign policy discussion but that's not the lion's share of what's happening. So what you get is people posting in the Palestine thread that the criticism of Israel is not about anti-semitism before racing over to the US politics thread to call people criticising immigration policy racists, with no sense of irony about it. The reason why people argue that is because the biggest headlines, created by many Republican leaders, are indeed nothing more than racist and xenophobic attacks on these immigrants (legal or illegal). Most conservative leaders are lying about what immigrants are doing to our country, simply labeling them as rapists and murderers and pet-stealers and pet-eaters and fundamentally evil human beings and being-smuggled-in-to-our-country-so-that-they-can-become-illegal-Democratic-voters. It's obvious fearmongering and hatemongering, and it's unjustified. If Trump and Vance and other Republicans had focused primarily on truthful concerns regarding negative impacts that immigrants may have on local economies (or whatever the real problems are), then the conversation would be about those. But those legitimate concerns rarely appear, because they aren't the usual sensationalist bullshit that goes viral with Trump and Fox News. In the middle of the discussion about Springfield I posted a graph showing that violent crime had more than doubled in Springfield since 2019 which was predictably ignored. There's lots of headlines about immigration and I doubt you're just getting the pet-eating ones. If you are you should broaden your reading material. Of course it's easiest to argue that Hatians aren't eating cats but it would be a refreshing change of pace if we went after each other's strongest arguments. If you want to agree that Biden's handling of the border is disastrous and also Trump is an old white racist asshole then I'm happy to do that as well. Theres no detail there in your springfield numbers. Did crime by haitians account for the doubling? What if it was crime AGAINST haitians? How do we know unless we have the details? How do we know it’s not the native Swedes committing grenade attacks against the immigrants? Im just saying the devils in the details. Crime going up and then blaming immigrants with no Pareto chart of whats actually happening is not cool Fair enough. How about the example I posted from my locality, the SFChronicle's expose that showed the majority of San Francisco's fentanyl dealers all come from the same small collection of villages in Honduras, where they use their drug money to build mansions in their hometown and emblazon the gates to their homes with the logos of SF sports teams? San Francisco Mayor London Breed was called xenophobic and racist for saying last fall that “a lot” of the dealers are Honduran. She later apologized, saying it wasn’t her intention to single out one community or place the blame solely on them. Got her. That'll teach her not to say something factually accurate. Why do you think all the headlines I share to the thread about the disastrous consequences of Biden's border come from New York, SF, Chicago. They are blue cities with black mayors. It's like kryptonite to the people looking for the white supremacist to call racist or xenophobic. Btw, as for your request for more detailed statistics, not everyone thinks this is a good idea: San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said there is no value in studying the demographics of potential offenders. “We do not consider race or nationality in how we police,” he said. “We focus on behavior. If we see someone selling drugs, we’re going to arrest them.” One of the drug dealers the Chronicle interviewed said he was arrested and deported 9 times over. But who's keeping count? Not the SFPD, apparently. If you don't think that the fentanyl trade in SF is dominated by Hondurans you should have a problem when someone is quoted as saying most of the fent dealers are Hondurans. If you don't think all Central americans are criminals you should have a problem with those people whos objections to immigration is "not wanting their communities to be filled with central american drug dealers". I could go back and find your quote on this but you're the resident quote miner so I'll let you go and find that persons quote where they said that. It would do you good because you clearly forget to connect the narrative between your own posts and it would give you an opertunity to refresh yourself on your positions. The SF fentanyl trade IS dominated by Hondurans. Did you even read the article I linked? Nowhere does that imply that all Central Americans are fentanyl dealers. The problem is you can't grasp logic that even kindergarteners are capable of grasping. A 5 year old can learn something like "All Lions are cats but not all cats are lions." But that's way too deep for you. So if you see someone taking issue with the Honduran drug dealers in San Francisco you surmise "So you think all Central Americans are criminals" because to you that's a perfectly logical extrapolation.
Great, fantastic. Awesome.
Let us live in a world where if a particular demographic is demonstrably disproportionately culpable for a particular activity, let’s call that spade a spade
You can do that without demonising whole groups of people, or equivocating on the behalf of those who do.
|
On October 01 2024 05:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 05:32 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 04:30 Simberto wrote:On October 01 2024 03:13 oBlade wrote:
Would you ever stoop to calling them bumbling fools? Dude, what is your point. Why is namecalling so important to you that you need to figure out the exact limits of peoples namecalling? Might have something to do with being told it's racist to cross the line of calling poor brown and white murderers monsters, while the only guy you get a pass to make a negative judgment on is orange for some reason. Seemed important to probe the absurdity but I severely misremembered, it was "babbling moron" not "bumbling fool." Did I dehumanize Trump? Or did I accurately describe his mental acuity and his rambling speech patterns? Don't equate me with you, especially when you can't even be bothered to get my words right the first time. Get lost. See to my eyes, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, most of the dehumanization of murderers and rapists happens by the murderers and rapists when they murder and rape, rather than the harsh words others might have for them later. But point taken. I'll move towards more neutral messaging of calling them things like "vile" then since that's just an adjective and not dehumanizing like animal or monster. Can we get you on record that you don't think all Illegal immigrants are Murders and rapeists? By the logic you're presenting you don't have a problem with the non murdering and raping migrants, and that the issue here is seperating those that are with those that aren't. The problem people have with MAGA is that they don't do this seperating and treat them all the same.
We've got oBlade on record saying legal migrants aren't legitimately legal and it's fair to refer to them as 'Kamala's illegal migrants' despite them being legal migrants. With that amount of wiggle room, I don't think there's much point trying to pin oBlade to any kind of actual position.
|
On October 01 2024 06:52 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 05:37 Sermokala wrote:On October 01 2024 05:32 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 04:30 Simberto wrote:On October 01 2024 03:13 oBlade wrote:
Would you ever stoop to calling them bumbling fools? Dude, what is your point. Why is namecalling so important to you that you need to figure out the exact limits of peoples namecalling? Might have something to do with being told it's racist to cross the line of calling poor brown and white murderers monsters, while the only guy you get a pass to make a negative judgment on is orange for some reason. Seemed important to probe the absurdity but I severely misremembered, it was "babbling moron" not "bumbling fool." Did I dehumanize Trump? Or did I accurately describe his mental acuity and his rambling speech patterns? Don't equate me with you, especially when you can't even be bothered to get my words right the first time. Get lost. See to my eyes, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, most of the dehumanization of murderers and rapists happens by the murderers and rapists when they murder and rape, rather than the harsh words others might have for them later. But point taken. I'll move towards more neutral messaging of calling them things like "vile" then since that's just an adjective and not dehumanizing like animal or monster. Can we get you on record that you don't think all Illegal immigrants are Murders and rapeists? By the logic you're presenting you don't have a problem with the non murdering and raping migrants, and that the issue here is seperating those that are with those that aren't. The problem people have with MAGA is that they don't do this seperating and treat them all the same. We've got oBlade on record saying legal migrants aren't legitimately legal and it's fair to refer to them as 'Kamala's illegal migrants' despite them being legal migrants. With that amount of wiggle room, I don't think there's much point trying to pin oBlade to any kind of actual position.
Except that he thinks legal migrants should be expected to commit 0 crimes, under threat of "remigration". If I get a parking ticket, I get a fine, but if an immigrant I work with gets a ticket, they should be deported.
|
On October 01 2024 06:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 06:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2024 09:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2024 03:26 Sermokala wrote:
Its not really accurate to say that its Bidens fault that the immigration situation in cities has been a disaster when we all know that the republican governor of texas was more than happy to tell everyone he was specifically transporting people to those cities to cause these problems. He specifically did it in a way to cause maximum damage and made efforts to not coordinate or do anything to mitigate the damage that he caused trafficking human beings in order to score the political points BJ is now trying to brag about. Publishing "facts" about a group of criminals when you know full well that you love generalizing the problem to all central Americans being criminals is still a bad thing no matter how you try to ret-con how you wrapped it up.
We're not memory-holding events BJ you're just presenting them in bad faith. If you're trying to justify demonizing the many for the actions of a few you're justifying calling every conservative a nazi because some conservatives are nazi's. Whoops, someone is making some faulty assumptions (as usual). I've met many illegal immigrants in my life and most of them are good people that just want a better life. Nothing in my post indicates that because the fentanyl trade in SF is dominated by a group of Hondurans that I think all Central Americans are criminals or whatever stupid conclusion you're trying to draw. These are the kinds of logical leaps that you're used to making. I suspect your post is nothing more than projection because you are exactly the person that would generalize all conservatives as nazis or racists. You should tell that to the guy who posted this On September 28 2024 22:19 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2024 21:31 Sadist wrote:On September 28 2024 20:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2024 17:41 Sadist wrote:On September 28 2024 12:29 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 27 2024 19:17 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Obviously there are elements of xenophobia/racism/prejudice. The idea that everyone is perfectly rational and unprejudiced is a ridiculous strawman. The point is people want to argue that the reason people take issue with Biden's disastrous handling of the border is because they don't like black and brown people. It's as ridiculous as dismissing critics of Israel on anti-semitism. Obviously anti-semitism is something that exists and there are elements of that as well in foreign policy discussion but that's not the lion's share of what's happening. So what you get is people posting in the Palestine thread that the criticism of Israel is not about anti-semitism before racing over to the US politics thread to call people criticising immigration policy racists, with no sense of irony about it. The reason why people argue that is because the biggest headlines, created by many Republican leaders, are indeed nothing more than racist and xenophobic attacks on these immigrants (legal or illegal). Most conservative leaders are lying about what immigrants are doing to our country, simply labeling them as rapists and murderers and pet-stealers and pet-eaters and fundamentally evil human beings and being-smuggled-in-to-our-country-so-that-they-can-become-illegal-Democratic-voters. It's obvious fearmongering and hatemongering, and it's unjustified. If Trump and Vance and other Republicans had focused primarily on truthful concerns regarding negative impacts that immigrants may have on local economies (or whatever the real problems are), then the conversation would be about those. But those legitimate concerns rarely appear, because they aren't the usual sensationalist bullshit that goes viral with Trump and Fox News. In the middle of the discussion about Springfield I posted a graph showing that violent crime had more than doubled in Springfield since 2019 which was predictably ignored. There's lots of headlines about immigration and I doubt you're just getting the pet-eating ones. If you are you should broaden your reading material. Of course it's easiest to argue that Hatians aren't eating cats but it would be a refreshing change of pace if we went after each other's strongest arguments. If you want to agree that Biden's handling of the border is disastrous and also Trump is an old white racist asshole then I'm happy to do that as well. Theres no detail there in your springfield numbers. Did crime by haitians account for the doubling? What if it was crime AGAINST haitians? How do we know unless we have the details? How do we know it’s not the native Swedes committing grenade attacks against the immigrants? Im just saying the devils in the details. Crime going up and then blaming immigrants with no Pareto chart of whats actually happening is not cool Fair enough. How about the example I posted from my locality, the SFChronicle's expose that showed the majority of San Francisco's fentanyl dealers all come from the same small collection of villages in Honduras, where they use their drug money to build mansions in their hometown and emblazon the gates to their homes with the logos of SF sports teams? San Francisco Mayor London Breed was called xenophobic and racist for saying last fall that “a lot” of the dealers are Honduran. She later apologized, saying it wasn’t her intention to single out one community or place the blame solely on them. Got her. That'll teach her not to say something factually accurate. Why do you think all the headlines I share to the thread about the disastrous consequences of Biden's border come from New York, SF, Chicago. They are blue cities with black mayors. It's like kryptonite to the people looking for the white supremacist to call racist or xenophobic. Btw, as for your request for more detailed statistics, not everyone thinks this is a good idea: San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said there is no value in studying the demographics of potential offenders. “We do not consider race or nationality in how we police,” he said. “We focus on behavior. If we see someone selling drugs, we’re going to arrest them.” One of the drug dealers the Chronicle interviewed said he was arrested and deported 9 times over. But who's keeping count? Not the SFPD, apparently. If you don't think that the fentanyl trade in SF is dominated by Hondurans you should have a problem when someone is quoted as saying most of the fent dealers are Hondurans. If you don't think all Central americans are criminals you should have a problem with those people whos objections to immigration is "not wanting their communities to be filled with central american drug dealers". I could go back and find your quote on this but you're the resident quote miner so I'll let you go and find that persons quote where they said that. It would do you good because you clearly forget to connect the narrative between your own posts and it would give you an opertunity to refresh yourself on your positions. The SF fentanyl trade IS dominated by Hondurans. Did you even read the article I linked? Nowhere does that imply that all Central Americans are fentanyl dealers. The problem is you can't grasp logic that even kindergarteners are capable of grasping. A 5 year old can learn something like "All Lions are cats but not all cats are lions." But that's way too deep for you. So if you see someone taking issue with the Honduran drug dealers in San Francisco you surmise "So you think all Central Americans are criminals" because to you that's a perfectly logical extrapolation. Great, fantastic. Awesome. Let us live in a world where if a particular demographic is demonstrably disproportionately culpable for a particular activity, let’s call that spade a spade You can do that without demonising whole groups of people, or equivocating on the behalf of those who do.
The problem is people are incapable of distinguishing between the two
|
On October 01 2024 06:54 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 06:52 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 01 2024 05:37 Sermokala wrote:On October 01 2024 05:32 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 04:30 Simberto wrote:On October 01 2024 03:13 oBlade wrote:
Would you ever stoop to calling them bumbling fools? Dude, what is your point. Why is namecalling so important to you that you need to figure out the exact limits of peoples namecalling? Might have something to do with being told it's racist to cross the line of calling poor brown and white murderers monsters, while the only guy you get a pass to make a negative judgment on is orange for some reason. Seemed important to probe the absurdity but I severely misremembered, it was "babbling moron" not "bumbling fool." Did I dehumanize Trump? Or did I accurately describe his mental acuity and his rambling speech patterns? Don't equate me with you, especially when you can't even be bothered to get my words right the first time. Get lost. See to my eyes, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, most of the dehumanization of murderers and rapists happens by the murderers and rapists when they murder and rape, rather than the harsh words others might have for them later. But point taken. I'll move towards more neutral messaging of calling them things like "vile" then since that's just an adjective and not dehumanizing like animal or monster. Can we get you on record that you don't think all Illegal immigrants are Murders and rapeists? By the logic you're presenting you don't have a problem with the non murdering and raping migrants, and that the issue here is seperating those that are with those that aren't. The problem people have with MAGA is that they don't do this seperating and treat them all the same. We've got oBlade on record saying legal migrants aren't legitimately legal and it's fair to refer to them as 'Kamala's illegal migrants' despite them being legal migrants. With that amount of wiggle room, I don't think there's much point trying to pin oBlade to any kind of actual position. Except that he thinks legal migrants should be expected to commit 0 crimes, under threat of "remigration". If I get a parking ticket, I get a fine, but if an immigrant I work with gets a ticket, they should be deported.
I don't understand your reasoning for including yourself in this post. It's fine to argue immigrants shouldn't be deported for a parking ticket (although I don't know if anyone made this point), but you're seemingly trying to paint some double standard because you're not at risk of being deported...? That's kind of how it works. There's no circumstance where you would be deported.
|
On October 01 2024 07:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 06:54 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 06:52 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 01 2024 05:37 Sermokala wrote:On October 01 2024 05:32 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 04:30 Simberto wrote:On October 01 2024 03:13 oBlade wrote:
Would you ever stoop to calling them bumbling fools? Dude, what is your point. Why is namecalling so important to you that you need to figure out the exact limits of peoples namecalling? Might have something to do with being told it's racist to cross the line of calling poor brown and white murderers monsters, while the only guy you get a pass to make a negative judgment on is orange for some reason. Seemed important to probe the absurdity but I severely misremembered, it was "babbling moron" not "bumbling fool." Did I dehumanize Trump? Or did I accurately describe his mental acuity and his rambling speech patterns? Don't equate me with you, especially when you can't even be bothered to get my words right the first time. Get lost. See to my eyes, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, most of the dehumanization of murderers and rapists happens by the murderers and rapists when they murder and rape, rather than the harsh words others might have for them later. But point taken. I'll move towards more neutral messaging of calling them things like "vile" then since that's just an adjective and not dehumanizing like animal or monster. Can we get you on record that you don't think all Illegal immigrants are Murders and rapeists? By the logic you're presenting you don't have a problem with the non murdering and raping migrants, and that the issue here is seperating those that are with those that aren't. The problem people have with MAGA is that they don't do this seperating and treat them all the same. We've got oBlade on record saying legal migrants aren't legitimately legal and it's fair to refer to them as 'Kamala's illegal migrants' despite them being legal migrants. With that amount of wiggle room, I don't think there's much point trying to pin oBlade to any kind of actual position. Except that he thinks legal migrants should be expected to commit 0 crimes, under threat of "remigration". If I get a parking ticket, I get a fine, but if an immigrant I work with gets a ticket, they should be deported. I don't understand your reasoning for including yourself in this post. It's fine to argue immigrants shouldn't be deported for a parking ticket (although I don't know if anyone made this point), but you're seemingly trying to paint some double standard because you're not at risk of being deported...? That's kind of how it works. There's no circumstance where you would be deported.
You do understand that's my point, right? I'm a citizen, and if I commit a crime I'm subject to the normal punishment for that crime. If someone is a citizen who immigrated here, the standard should be exactly the same. The standard shouldn't be different just because you were born here vs. immigrated here. Raising the stakes to "commit no crimes or else you can't be a citizen anymore" is cruel and unusual punishment, that hundreds of millions of Americans literally are never subject to. If someone migrated and is now a citizen of the US, they are a citizen, full stop. They buy into the same social contract as the rest of us, and should be subject to the same rules. If the punishment for breaking the same law is so vastly different, we're not subject to the same rules. You can't include an if-then qualifier for the case where they weren't born in the US. I know you don't like this, but that's what the Nazis did.
I'm not painting a double standard. I'm pointing it out. It's there whether or not I make this post.
|
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I.
|
On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I.
oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported?
|
On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported?
Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail.
Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated.
|
United States41538 Posts
On September 30 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote:Yet the House Budget Committee just announced the US spends at least $150 or as much as $400 billion on illegal immigrants per year. FEMA's #1 strategic coal is "Instill equity (communism) as a foundation of emergency management." recruitment has plummeted because nobody wants to sign up to an incompetent military whose goals are diversity and inclusion instead of defense and invasion. These are the DoD's explicit goals, of this administration. Competence and readiness have been forced so far in the backseat that they would be liable to cause a civil rights protest.
Few things here but basically you’ve got fucking brain worms and should drink bleach.
Edit: not medical advice. Do not drink bleach.
I don’t have the number to hand but I can confidently say the US does not spend $400b/year on illegal immigration. I know that because I know that a billion is a lot and $400b is 400 of them. At $100k/year you could put about 4,000,000 men on the southern border. After excluding males over 50 or under 18 l, plus immigrants of course, that’s about 1 in 10 of us.
FEMA is not trying to implement communism. That’s some weird Jade Helm remix conspiracy theory.
The idea that nobody wants to join an organization because it’s too inclusive is something you should have said out loud to yourself before hitting post. Consider what you’re proposing here. You want to increase membership by making the organization more exclusionary.
|
This is supposedly a quote and a source. Where in that source is that FEMA quote?
Also, asking again:
On September 30 2024 23:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2024 23:47 oBlade wrote:On September 30 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
EnDeR_: "Trump called Harris mentally disabled."
oBlade: "Context is important. Trump said she was born that way."
What kind of contextual explanation is that, oBlade? It explains that he is using a comparison to call her even stupider than Biden, while honorably complimenting Biden on the fact that at least he managed to win votes, and he won a primary, whether Drumpf liked it or not, and had built up a base over decades. To me it seems like an interesting point because I do remember there was a time when Biden was able to differentiate an air strike and a labor strike. But I don't know that I've ever witnessed the same acuity from Harris. Do you think that calling Kamala Harris mentally disabled is an accurate and appropriate way of making the point that you wish she would have won the nominee in a traditional primary format, like Biden had?
|
oBlade has never said to denaturalize citizens, also a single parking ticket is not a criminal issue in any jurisdiction that I know. There is no slippery slope from deporting people who entered and remain in the country illegally, and taking citizenship from people for parking tickets.
On October 01 2024 06:52 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 05:37 Sermokala wrote:On October 01 2024 05:32 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 01 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2024 04:30 Simberto wrote:On October 01 2024 03:13 oBlade wrote:
Would you ever stoop to calling them bumbling fools? Dude, what is your point. Why is namecalling so important to you that you need to figure out the exact limits of peoples namecalling? Might have something to do with being told it's racist to cross the line of calling poor brown and white murderers monsters, while the only guy you get a pass to make a negative judgment on is orange for some reason. Seemed important to probe the absurdity but I severely misremembered, it was "babbling moron" not "bumbling fool." Did I dehumanize Trump? Or did I accurately describe his mental acuity and his rambling speech patterns? Don't equate me with you, especially when you can't even be bothered to get my words right the first time. Get lost. See to my eyes, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, most of the dehumanization of murderers and rapists happens by the murderers and rapists when they murder and rape, rather than the harsh words others might have for them later. But point taken. I'll move towards more neutral messaging of calling them things like "vile" then since that's just an adjective and not dehumanizing like animal or monster. Can we get you on record that you don't think all Illegal immigrants are Murders and rapeists? By the logic you're presenting you don't have a problem with the non murdering and raping migrants, and that the issue here is seperating those that are with those that aren't. The problem people have with MAGA is that they don't do this seperating and treat them all the same. We've got oBlade on record saying legal migrants aren't legitimately legal and it's fair to refer to them as 'Kamala's illegal migrants' despite them being legal migrants. With that amount of wiggle room, I don't think there's much point trying to pin oBlade to any kind of actual position.
Are you talking about CHNV parolees? Let's not fall back on it's not illegal if the president does it. You can paint stripes on a horse, but that doesn't make it a zebra.
There is such a legal category as nonimmigrant aliens. For our colloquial purposes, we can call Haitian, Cuban, etc., parolees "immigrants" for several reasons. First, their temporary stay (ostensibly up to 2 years) is long enough to fall outside what most people think of as a trip or tour length. Second, the purpose of their lengthy detour from their home country is hopefully not tourist in nature. But under the CHNV program they are nonimmigrant aliens, technically.
What are the requirements to apply? Not that you're 5 minutes from death, but that you can buy a plane ticket to the US, and that you have someone in the US who can "sponsor" you/vouch for you. The criteria for that person? They merely need to have at least "temporarily protected status." This makes it de facto chain migration. You can see more evidence of that because when Texas sued the DHS about this, parties came forward to say that ending this program (which the current regime already temporarily paused in August or so of this year) - that ending this program would hurt their ability to reunite with their families and loved ones. This is preposterous. I do not know a single sane country on Earth that allows a temporary protected immigrant to sponsor a nonimmigrant parolee with no legal visa. You do not even have to be in the totally-non-shithole country that you need a temporary humanitarian escape from. You can be in Portugal, be from Venezuela, and get in with this parole program.
As to the hard-working nature of immigrants - in the case of CHNV parole they have to apply separately for a waiver to work, as they don't have a work visa (or indeed any kind of visa - they have parole, which means the DHS knows about them, the DOJ knows about them, but they are allowed to be around despite being otherwise inadmissible). So this raises the question of what is going to happen to all the important jobs they are doing for Democratic donors, once the two years runs out.
As we have been assured this contains no legal pathway to immigration, residency, visas, or citizenship, after 2 years you would expect the parolees to go home again. Except for one problem.
They are being admitted from countries the US has rocky at best diplomatic relations with. In some cases, barely discernible governments. How do you deport to that? "Hey CUBA, hey HAITI, take your temporary parolees back." "No." Well, you could deport to a third country, like Mexico, but that would be inhumane. They might not speak the language or know the local culture. So that option is out. This is intentionally creating a problem that the actual law has to solve down the road. What do you think that will be? "Oh oops, we let all these people in, I guess we have to create a special clemency/pathway law to take care of their unique situation." Meaning amnesty, legalization, pathway to citizenship. It's transparent.
The CHNV program uses executive authority to admit nonadmissible aliens. Not as immigrants, but as temporary paroled nonimmigrant aliens. That's a power that is reserved in law, but has been greatly overstepped, and in this case abused to the point of ignoring the law that created the original power. Here's the applicable part of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, section 212, that the tenuous legal theory for this authority is based on:
(5)(A) The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 214(f), in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from
which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
(B) The Attorney General may not parole into the United States an alien who is a refugee unless the Attorney General determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee under section 207.
So the current regime went from "case-by-case basis" and "that particular alien" got engorged to "Let's try a 30k a month quota."
1) Why would some months not have more or less critical cases that need parole? Why would this be a steady quota?
2) If some months there are tons of people in a terrible humanitarian situation and need to leave, why cap it at 30k? That's so cruel. Seems like all those people would be supposed to be categorized as refugees, but as (B) says you can't just go around the legal system for "refugees" by taking everyone who you think is a refugee and paroling them this way.
3) If some months the "true in-need" number were less than 30k, then it goes without saying this program would be subject to exploitation of people again taking advantage of the generosity of the United States liberal and the incompetence of the United States government.
The mass parole program is nothing more than an open borders administration skirting existing law to fast track people into the US, and create a problem that they can get credit for solving with an amnesty program down the road to permanently settle people that nobody asked or agreed to have in the US, and that they had no legal authority to bring in en masse to begin with.
There is a reason the House brought impeachment articles against Mayorkas. And there is a reason the Senate never held a trial.
On October 01 2024 15:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote:Yet the House Budget Committee just announced the US spends at least $150 or as much as $400 billion on illegal immigrants per year. FEMA's #1 strategic coal is "Instill equity (communism) as a foundation of emergency management." recruitment has plummeted because nobody wants to sign up to an incompetent military whose goals are diversity and inclusion instead of defense and invasion. These are the DoD's explicit goals, of this administration. Competence and readiness have been forced so far in the backseat that they would be liable to cause a civil rights protest. I don’t have the number to hand but I can confidently say the US does not spend $400b/year on illegal immigration. I know that because I know that a billion is a lot and $400b is 400 of them. At $100k/year you could put about 4,000,000 men on the southern border. After excluding males over 50 or under 18 l, plus immigrants of course, that’s about 1 in 10 of us.
1) Okay, then only the small pittance of $150 billion.
2) Your confidence is that it's impossible for the US government to spend/waste a lot of money, when they spent $10 trillion in 2023, while idealist, is misguided. Doesn't seem like a sound basis to go off of. $100k per year for 4 million men sounds exactly in a ballpark of plausibility to spread over 12 million alleged illegals which works out to roughly $33k per year per person of expenditures.
On October 01 2024 15:51 KwarK wrote:
FEMA is not trying to implement communism. That’s some weird Jade Helm remix conspiracy theory.
You never realized equity was a dog whistle?
On October 01 2024 15:51 KwarK wrote:
The idea that nobody wants to join an organization because it’s too inclusive is something you should have said out loud to yourself before hitting post. Consider what you’re proposing here.
Goodness me, I've got it all wrong. The DPRK is actually democratic. Saying you're inclusive, or purporting to be inclusive, makes you actually inclusive. You didn't miss the point at all.
Recruitment is not at an all time low because this administration, the Secretary of Defense, the DoD, and the military are too good at bringing people into the fold. It's not a national security crisis because they're so good at recruiting people that they've already snatched up anyone who would possibly join, and there's nobody left to recruit. They have miserably failed, despite making it an explicit goal, which means either they suck at their job, or it's deliberately obfuscating something other than actual inclusion, or both.
On October 01 2024 15:51 KwarK wrote:
You want to increase membership by making the organization more exclusionary.
Yeah I remember proposing that on Nevertember Neverteenth.
|
On October 01 2024 15:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported? Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail. Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated.
Depends on the crime, imo. If someone comes over murdering people you can't just say "ok mister that's enough of that, we're going to send you back to Lithuania." Some kind of prison sentence is called for. But if they are some low level drug dealer from Honduras? We imprison enough people in this country already that we don't need to start adding people from other countries. Deportation should be sufficient penalty to protect the public and serve as a deterrent. At least it would if you couldn't get arrested and deported 9 times over like that guy in San Francisco.
|
On October 01 2024 17:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 15:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported? Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail. Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated. Depends on the crime, imo. If someone comes over murdering people you can't just say "ok mister that's enough of that, we're going to send you back to Lithuania." Some kind of prison sentence is called for. But if they are some low level drug dealer from Honduras? We imprison enough people in this country already that we don't need to start adding people from other countries. Deportation should be sufficient penalty to protect the public and serve as a deterrent. At least it would if you couldn't get arrested and deported 9 times over like that guy in San Francisco.
I mean, that's the argument, in a nutshell, for processing all criminals, regardless of origin in the same way.
|
On October 01 2024 17:35 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 17:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 15:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported? Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail. Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated. Depends on the crime, imo. If someone comes over murdering people you can't just say "ok mister that's enough of that, we're going to send you back to Lithuania." Some kind of prison sentence is called for. But if they are some low level drug dealer from Honduras? We imprison enough people in this country already that we don't need to start adding people from other countries. Deportation should be sufficient penalty to protect the public and serve as a deterrent. At least it would if you couldn't get arrested and deported 9 times over like that guy in San Francisco. I mean, that's the argument, in a nutshell, for processing all criminals, regardless of origin in the same way.
I think that's an argument for why we should try to enforce immigration laws and secure the border
|
On October 01 2024 17:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 17:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 17:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 15:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported? Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail. Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated. Depends on the crime, imo. If someone comes over murdering people you can't just say "ok mister that's enough of that, we're going to send you back to Lithuania." Some kind of prison sentence is called for. But if they are some low level drug dealer from Honduras? We imprison enough people in this country already that we don't need to start adding people from other countries. Deportation should be sufficient penalty to protect the public and serve as a deterrent. At least it would if you couldn't get arrested and deported 9 times over like that guy in San Francisco. I mean, that's the argument, in a nutshell, for processing all criminals, regardless of origin in the same way. I think that's an argument for why we should try to enforce immigration laws and secure the border
How will securing the border and enforcing immigration laws help you deal with the millions of immigrants already in the country? Securing the border doesn't fix any of the problems you are highlighting.
Can you be more specific into how this will help? I'm not trying for a gotcha here, I'm just trying to understand what you think is the best way to deal with this issue.
|
On October 01 2024 18:07 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 17:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 17:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 17:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 15:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 01 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:On October 01 2024 08:30 NewSunshine wrote:
Let me point out that I'm aware of things like Dreamers, DACA, work visas, and so on, and that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who migrated legally and obtained their citizenship in the US, in a non-conditional way. I'm talking about a group of people that I've only seen oBlade now say should be subject to deportation if they commit a crime. That he thinks should be held to a higher standard despite being no less a citizen than I. oBlade has been repeatedly mentioning the immigrants on the non-detained docket. I don’t think any of them are U.S. citizens. He’s repeatedly mentioned the 13,000+ immigrants on the non-detained docket with homicide convictions. Do you agree that people that are in this country uninvited and who violate the law in egregious ways should either be in prison or in process of being deported? Isn't their point that immigrants should be treated the same way under the law as full citizens? I.e. if they commit an egregious crime, they get sent to jail. Or are you arguing that instead of going to jail, they should just be released back to their country of origin? Is the implication here that they will then be re-tried in their country of origin or are you hoping that Honduras or what have you will uphold US court rulings? How would that work if the laws differ? This sounds complicated. Depends on the crime, imo. If someone comes over murdering people you can't just say "ok mister that's enough of that, we're going to send you back to Lithuania." Some kind of prison sentence is called for. But if they are some low level drug dealer from Honduras? We imprison enough people in this country already that we don't need to start adding people from other countries. Deportation should be sufficient penalty to protect the public and serve as a deterrent. At least it would if you couldn't get arrested and deported 9 times over like that guy in San Francisco. I mean, that's the argument, in a nutshell, for processing all criminals, regardless of origin in the same way. I think that's an argument for why we should try to enforce immigration laws and secure the border How will securing the border and enforcing immigration laws help you deal with the millions of immigrants already in the country? Securing the border doesn't fix any of the problems you are highlighting. Can you be more specific into how this will help? I'm not trying for a gotcha here, I'm just trying to understand what you think is the best way to deal with this issue.
The sentence you highlighted in my posts references someone that was arrested and deported 9 times. That means they jumped the border 9 times to continue to sell drugs. You said it’s an argument for why they should go to jail instead of being deported. I said it’s an argument for why you should secure the border because then you could prevent 8 arrests and deportations.
|
Norway28488 Posts
I mean, that's just part of it?
If we accept that there's a problem that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the US, and we agree that they should, especially if they commit crime, be deported, then that must be coupled with securing the border for it to have any effect. Otherwise, the people deported can rather easily return. At least it seems like that's the case for some people who live in areas where there's 'smuggle people to the US'-infrastructure in place (which seems to be the case for some of the fentanyl dealing).
There are a lot of complex issues relating to immigration and how to deal with illegal immigration. For example we can assume that serious attempts at finding all the illegal immigrants in the US will inevitably result in a lot of profiling and overzealous cops harassing citizens who happen to look like they might originate from central america. I also think there's an issue with what to do with illegal immigrants who have established themselves and built a life for themselves and their families - I think if there's a 10 year old boy who was born in the US then deporting him to a country he's never been in because his parents lied 12 years ago is inhumane, and I feel much the same way about sending back just the parents while letting the kid stay. At the same time - giving an excemption for illegals who have children born in the US gives a somewhat perverse incentive to have children, and establishing at what point a child is too integrated in the US to no longer be deportable seems rather tricky.
But neither of these arguments are really arguments against 'deport immigrants who overstay their visa status' 'deport immigrants who commit serious crime' or 'try to hinder people who have been deported from reentering the country through making the border harder to cross'. There might be other arguments against the latter (it's too costly compared to the benefit?), but I don't really see a principled reason why more focus on securing the border wouldnt/shouldn't be part of an effort to combat illegal immigration. And even if there's no real effort made at finding and uprooting all the illegals in the US (because of aforementioned issues) then finding some could still be considered preferable to none, or more could be preferable to some. There's also no intrinsic conflict between this, and between making legal immigration easier and more accessible to more people, or between this and working to improve living standards in areas where people migrate from.
|
On October 01 2024 18:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, that's just part of it?
If we accept that there's a problem that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the US, and we agree that they should, especially if they commit crime, be deported, then that must be coupled with securing the border for it to have any effect. Otherwise, the people deported can rather easily return. At least it seems like that's the case for some people who live in areas where there's 'smuggle people to the US'-infrastructure in place (which seems to be the case for some of the fentanyl dealing).
There are a lot of complex issues relating to immigration and how to deal with illegal immigration. For example we can assume that serious attempts at finding all the illegal immigrants in the US will inevitably result in a lot of profiling and overzealous cops harassing citizens who happen to look like they might originate from central america. I also think there's an issue with what to do with illegal immigrants who have established themselves and built a life for themselves and their families - I think if there's a 10 year old boy who was born in the US then deporting him to a country he's never been in because his parents lied 12 years ago is inhumane, and I feel much the same way about sending back just the parents while letting the kid stay. At the same time - giving an excemption for illegals who have children born in the US gives a somewhat perverse incentive to have children, and establishing at what point a child is too integrated in the US to no longer be deportable seems rather tricky.
But neither of these arguments are really arguments against 'deport immigrants who overstay their visa status' 'deport immigrants who commit serious crime' or 'try to hinder people who have been deported from reentering the country through making the border harder to cross'. There might be other arguments against the latter (it's too costly compared to the benefit?), but I don't really see a principled reason why more focus on securing the border wouldnt/shouldn't be part of an effort to combat illegal immigration. And even if there's no real effort made at finding and uprooting all the illegals in the US (because of aforementioned issues) then finding some could still be considered preferable to none, or more could be preferable to some. There's also no intrinsic conflict between this, and between making legal immigration easier and more accessible to more people, or between this and working to improve living standards in areas where people migrate from.
The problem is there is a political party that swings wildly between "the border is secure" and "it's cruel to turn anyone away." You would think that in a sane country what's happened at the border over the last 3 years would be grounds for bipartisan condemnation, but it's not. Instead of fixing it as a prerequisite to "immigration reform" Democrats see the security of our border as a bargaining chip for their preferred policies. It's abhorrent and I really so loath them for it.
|
On October 01 2024 22:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2024 18:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, that's just part of it?
If we accept that there's a problem that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in the US, and we agree that they should, especially if they commit crime, be deported, then that must be coupled with securing the border for it to have any effect. Otherwise, the people deported can rather easily return. At least it seems like that's the case for some people who live in areas where there's 'smuggle people to the US'-infrastructure in place (which seems to be the case for some of the fentanyl dealing).
There are a lot of complex issues relating to immigration and how to deal with illegal immigration. For example we can assume that serious attempts at finding all the illegal immigrants in the US will inevitably result in a lot of profiling and overzealous cops harassing citizens who happen to look like they might originate from central america. I also think there's an issue with what to do with illegal immigrants who have established themselves and built a life for themselves and their families - I think if there's a 10 year old boy who was born in the US then deporting him to a country he's never been in because his parents lied 12 years ago is inhumane, and I feel much the same way about sending back just the parents while letting the kid stay. At the same time - giving an excemption for illegals who have children born in the US gives a somewhat perverse incentive to have children, and establishing at what point a child is too integrated in the US to no longer be deportable seems rather tricky.
But neither of these arguments are really arguments against 'deport immigrants who overstay their visa status' 'deport immigrants who commit serious crime' or 'try to hinder people who have been deported from reentering the country through making the border harder to cross'. There might be other arguments against the latter (it's too costly compared to the benefit?), but I don't really see a principled reason why more focus on securing the border wouldnt/shouldn't be part of an effort to combat illegal immigration. And even if there's no real effort made at finding and uprooting all the illegals in the US (because of aforementioned issues) then finding some could still be considered preferable to none, or more could be preferable to some. There's also no intrinsic conflict between this, and between making legal immigration easier and more accessible to more people, or between this and working to improve living standards in areas where people migrate from. The problem is there is a political party that swings wildly between "the border is secure" and "it's cruel to turn anyone away." You would think that in a sane country what's happened at the border over the last 3 years would be grounds for bipartisan condemnation, but it's not. Instead of fixing it as a prerequisite to "immigration reform" Democrats see the security of our border as a bargaining chip for their preferred policies. It's abhorrent and I really so loath them for it.
But wasn't there a bipartisan bill that trump killed because it would have been bad for them to reach a deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
