|
Post by prozyan on Jun 23, 2018 13:41:55 GMT -5
I earlier raised my reasons I didn't agree with unfettered immigration or the catch and release policy. Notice I never brought up criminal immigrants. Cass is correct, they commit crimes at a far lower rate. Of course bad apples dri get through but that's no justification.
An interesting side note is many of these refugees are fleeing places like Guatemala and the increasing gang violence and lawlessness there. What is interesting is the gang problem in Guatemala most likely got its start in the US. Gang members in the US arrested for crimes and deported arrived and realized the law enforcement there was ill equipped to deal with three level of violence and organization they brought with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 14:46:30 GMT -5
Agree, Prozyan. The whole "ZOMG BAD HOMBRES ARE CROSSING THE BORDERS IN DROVES!" thing is basically a fake scare closet monster by the Trump/Nationalist/Fox/Breitbart crowd. The reason they do it and drum it so constantly is to dehumanize the migrants and create a false sense of urgency, so that decent people, people who in general would be horrified at kids being drug, caged, and taken from their parents indefinitely, stop thinking of migrants as desperate people and families. Instead, they will be all hyped up and "ZOMG WE NEED TO STOP ALL THESE ILLLLEEEEGAL CRIMINAL !!! KILLERS!!! FROM COMING IN THE COUNTRY NOW EVEN IF IT MEANS BABIES IN CAGES AND SPENDING BILLIONS ON A 3000-MILE-LONG WALL OR WE WILL ALL DIIEEEEEE!" Because if voters were all just seeing desperate people and families (with, indeed, a much lower crime rate than that of citizens) who just wanted a better life, they'd be more likely to say, "Wait a minute. We can't possibly separate families. And does it actually make sense to build a $30 billion wall and billions more maintaining and staffing it, plus spend hundreds of millions separately caging and detaining people? Maybe we can take more of them and maybe we can't. But can't we sit down and talk about what we should be doing about this situation like rational people and figure out an approach that makes more sense? But they don't want people rational. They want them hepped up, angry, scared, on their side no matter what. And that's why they do this: And to the extent Nationalists take steps that might overcome the fake scare monster and make decent people pause (e.g., caging and drugging kids), they say "IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT WE'RE DOING THIS! WE HAD NO CHOICE!" so that all the doubt and unease and anger gets directed that way. Anyway, hence why we are constantly hearing them talk about MS-13. Ditto, by the way, on Muslims, Syrians, etc. The more people don't see them as being, overwhelmingly, decent, desperate people who just want their families out of a hellhole, and instead see them as a YUUUUUGGEE DANGER! to the safety of our own children, the more we, as a country, will turn our backs on them. And, of course, as is the aim of the Nationalist/Populist types, the more voters who buy into this will see those (hint hint, Democrats!) who say, "wait, we should do more to help these people, but taking that aside, FFS, kids in CAGES?" not merely as people with whom they disagree, but stupid, dangerous, ill-intentioned, unpatriotic, and an imminent danger to their safety. You have only to view the Reagan/Bush debate above to see that we did not always have this particular partisan divide. It has been deliberately created and nursed. I can understand the argument that maybe we can't take everyone. Taking aside the context of this horrifying policy and what it's doing to these kids, we can certainly discuss what it is we SHOULD do and not do on immigration. But I really think the "WE GOTTA ! DO SOMETHING ! EXTREME, RIGHT NOW!" attitude fueled by the nationalists, along with the partisan divide, is distorting the conversation. <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 331px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_15590974" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 502px; top: 331px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_70774114" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 5px; top: 485px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_21405156" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.2px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 502px; top: 485px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_19144817" scrolling="no"></iframe> And yes, that divide has been growing for a while, but I think Trump, Russia, etc. are very deliberately fueling it, so that now, for a scary percentage of the alt-right, it's almost irrelevant whether a policy is actually any good or even whether it directly hurts their interests -- it is sufficient if it upsets Duh Libruls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 17:13:15 GMT -5
I think it plays out kind of like this:
1) Republicans want to keep their majority.
2) To keep their majority, they must keep the alt-right. Moreover, the alt-right has successfully put in enough hardline people into office that the more moderate (or at least mainstream) conservatives can't get anything done even with their majority unless they get those people cooperating.
3) The alt-right wants walls and liberal tears. They're totally cool with kids in cages. And if it makes liberals cry, well hells bells, clearly it's what we should be doing.
4) It's easier to get the saner, more moderate, more decent Republicans to loyally go along with whatever the party decides than it is to get the alt-right to do it.
5) To compound matters, we also have a president who cares only to please the alt-right, and he'll throw a wrench in any reasonable compromise with Dems or any plan at all that doesn't fund the Wall.
6) So it's Walls and zero tolerance from the Republican side, period. They've all agreed, on the surface at least, that it's the way to go, period.
7) The Democrats think that's totally batshit. They offer a plan with 40 billion for border security. But no wall.
8) No wall, so Republicans (because of the alt-right and Trump), despite Dem's proposed 40 billion for border security, say "that's OPEN BORDERSs! and fuck Reagan, we can't have that because MS-13 will killlll us aaaallllll in our beds!"
9) Republicans in Congress and certainly not Trump, are never going to alienate the alt-right by admitting that maaaaayyyybeee the Trump / alt-right position on borders could possibly be modified a tad without everyone dying (because alt-right votes and campaign cash), so they say "see? there's no compromising with Dems! It's their fault!"
10) Republicans, alt-right or merely loyal, mostly buy "it's all the Dems fault!" without questioning or examining it for a nano-second because either Trump or Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, depending on which is their totem.
11) And so, never, ever, ever, ever, will we come up with a plan.
I submit that's because it isn't simply a matter of Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan/Jeff Flake compromising with Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. I think if it were, we'd get there, sooner rather than later if we just made it a priority. But it's not. It's basically the alt-right base-n-Trump vs. the Dems, their way or the highway, and their way, to Dems, is fucking batshit.
I'd really love to see the GOP, instead of placating the alt-right, extending out to third party conservatives and moderates instead. But I think Trump and the GOP will need to implode for that to happen.
Indeed, that's what George Will, Steve Schmidt, and a lot of other "traitor" conservatives think, too. Which is why their values remain conservative, but they are urging people to vote for Democrats in 2018.
ETA:
Those of you who think it's the Democrats who've gone all whackadoodle left more than the GOP has to the right on this issue, I invite you to watch the Reagan/Bush debate clip I posted above, and consider that Schumer's proposal included $40 billion for border security. Schumer ain't open border like Reagan and I are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:41:42 GMT -5
Way to Be Best, Mike Huckabee. You are using the Nazi handbook with your tweets using MS-13 members.
MAGA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 20:12:52 GMT -5
Melania posted a video commemorating her visit to the children. Again I am struck. We see no children's full faces. We don't see her hug one. All the focus is on Melania and it is nearly entirely her interacting with staff. FFS, they show her deplaning and driving to the center, but no pictures of her hugging a kid. Please, I need just one of you to confirm that it's weird before Rob tells me it's no big deal. ETA: Wait, WTF, did she say the children were "kind"? WTF sort of bizarre compliment is that? You say Theresa May was kind when you visit her. You say the Bushes were kind when you went to the funeral. But the kids? FFS, you are visiting a bunch of traumatized kids who've been ripped from their families and don't know when or if they'll see them again. They were KIND?! Gaah, haggis ! maxinquaye ! michaelw ! Angie ! markesq ! Please, one of you agree this is a very strange video before my head explodes !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 20:43:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 10:08:18 GMT -5
Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law fame, clarifies when, in his opinion, it is and isn't appropriate to invoke the Nazis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 12:06:38 GMT -5
These migrants have due process rights. Trump really doesn't care. Do u?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 13:22:46 GMT -5
FYI, if you think I'm just being all softie mcsoftie like that commie liberal Ronald Reagan again when I talk about the due process rights of ilLEEEEGGals, see, e.g., SCOTUS in 1982: Donald Trump really doesn't care about the Supreme Court, our Constitution, due process, or the rule of law -- any more than he cares about kids in cages, or migrants , in violation of their due process rights, being held in cells in horrible conditions for months without access to a lawyer to help them or any ability to assert their asylum claims, or get deported without ever having had a chance to assert them, perhaps without their children. Do u?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 15:00:03 GMT -5
By the way, I just want to clarify one thing, if it isn't clear already. Much earlier in the thread, looking just at the statute making illegally crossing the border a misdemeanor and the Flores case, I said, essentially, "well, it's not that it violates the statute to throw them in jail, it's just that it's incredibly wrong to take their kids away and in no way is it required by the law."
Over the last few days, it's become clear that things are actually far worse than I even thought originally, and no, Trump's obviously temporary EO does not fix it. And I've had more time to read and think.
So to clarify: what the Trump administration is doing is unconstitutional and continues to be so, because migrants are still in jail deprived of access to lawyers, ability to assert asylum claim, or their children. And Trump is making it very clear he's up for doing this to more families, if Congress doesn't stop him. It will get worse.
And even if you don't give a shit about the migrants, you should give a shit that your president doesn't care about the constitutin, due process, and rule of law.
And now I'm going to try really hard to shut up, because if you don't think maybe I have a point, I do not think you ever will.
I got this emotional because I really, really, really care about -- not only the migrant kids, but also about our constitution and our country's fundamental values and the rule of law, all of which transcend parties, policies, and political posturing.
And you know my next question...
*bans self from thread*
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 25, 2018 4:29:46 GMT -5
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the US has an amazing ability to ignore its own constitution when it wants to. From 4th amendment concerns with the NSA spying, to Jim Crow, to internment of the Japanese during WW 2, and to this. If the 2nd amendment is important because "it's the constitution", then the 4th amendment is equally important, as is the 5th in this case. If the 4th can be broken because of expedience, and if the 5th can be broken at will, then I don't see why the 2nd can't be. Anway, if the constitution is important, then all of it is, at all times. There's no time when - because of expediency - it can be broken. If the constitution is not important when it comes to people that a large number of people don't like, the none of it is important.
There's a Russian saying. "Lavrentij Berija didn't need his free speech protected". What it means that the head of the NKVD, the Stalin secret police, didn't need any constitutional protections. The people he didn't like did.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2018 7:22:55 GMT -5
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the US has an amazing ability to ignore its own constitution when it wants to. From 4th amendment concerns with the NSA spying, to Jim Crow, to internment of the Japanese during WW 2, and to this. It's not so much that "the US ignores its own Constitution." It's that Presidents and other politicians have an amazing ability to bend their understanding of what authority they have under the Constitution, and also that Constitutional law is more complicated and malleable than you think. A lot of laws are not determined to be unconstitutional until they actually come before the Supreme Court. We've had laws all throughout our history that were eventually shot down when they came before the Supreme Court (albeit not always the first time). The fact that politicians abuse and ignore laws they don't like is not a feature unique to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 25, 2018 11:32:43 GMT -5
Presidents and other politicians do that because they correctly or incorrectly make a calculation in their heads about what benefit flaunting the constitution has at the moment, and run with it. Right now, Donald Trump is arguing that "illegal aliens" have no constitutional rights. It's all over Twitter. A large number of people are filling the airwaves to agree with him on that. Jim Crow worked because many white people thought blacks weren't people, and thus the constitution didn't apply. Japanese were interned because Pearl Harbour, and people hated the Japanese citizens. If people had lover them, and supported them, Roosevelt wouldn't have interned them.
And in law, non-citizens probably aren't protected by the constitution as much as citizens. Cass can talk about that better than I can. But the consequence of following Trump down that road is, of course, that ICE can nab a brown skinned person, deport that person without having to go to court. Because the "constitution does not apply to non-citizens". But whether or not that person is a citizen was never tried in court. Even if that person was actually a citizen of the United States, and enjoyed the protection of the constitution, that person is now trying to survive in the slums of Guatemala or Mexico city.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 25, 2018 13:00:20 GMT -5
And in law, non-citizens probably aren't protected by the constitution as much as citizens. C I'm not Cass, but I'm pretty sure once someone is within US borders there are afforded the full protections of the US Constitution. Or at least supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2018 13:10:20 GMT -5
Presidents and other politicians do that because they correctly or incorrectly make a calculation in their heads about what benefit flaunting the constitution has at the moment, and run with it. Right now, Donald Trump is arguing that "illegal aliens" have no constitutional rights. It's all over Twitter. A large number of people are filling the airwaves to agree with him on that. Jim Crow worked because many white people thought blacks weren't people, and thus the constitution didn't apply. Japanese were interned because Pearl Harbour, and people hated the Japanese citizens. If people had lover them, and supported them, Roosevelt wouldn't have interned them. And in law, non-citizens probably aren't protected by the constitution as much as citizens. Cass can talk about that better than I can. But the consequence of following Trump down that road is, of course, that ICE can nab a brown skinned person, deport that person without having to go to court. Because the "constitution does not apply to non-citizens". But whether or not that person is a citizen was never tried in court. Even if that person was actually a citizen of the United States, and enjoyed the protection of the constitution, that person is now trying to survive in the slums of Guatemala or Mexico city. Generally speaking, everyone within the U.S. has Constitutional rights, except those specifically enumerated for citizens. I.e., obviously a non-citizen does not have the right to vote, but the police cannot violate the 4th Amendment if the suspect is a non-citizen, nor can you pass a law restricting a non-citizen's freedom of speech, etc. Non-citizens have a right to an attorney, a right to a jury trial, cannot be given cruel and unusual punishments, etc. All that being said, can ICE just summarily deport non-citizens without a trial? There you would have to ask Cass (or another lawyer), but my understanding is no - since the non-citizen has committed a crime, you would have to charge him, and then he'd get all the usual rights of a criminal defendant. As a practical matter, ICE can probably tell the people they round up "Leave voluntarily and we won't put you in jail and generally make your life suck." But no, they can't just send brown people to Guatemala.
|
|