|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 21:47:00 GMT -5
I never said Trump is "just following the law" and his hands are tied. I don't think Prozyan did either. We're both aware that Trump chose to start enforcing the law, when previous administrations did not.
AFAICT, neither you nor any of the lawyers on the news are denying that previous administrations were essentially choosing not to enforce the law because they didn't want to deal with what we're seeing now.
You can argue that they made the correct choice, and Trump's decision to start enforcing the law is wrong. That still seems like a strange situation, where the executive branch is basically subverting the legislative branch because the laws the legislative branch passed suck. Trump and children being torn from families aside, I have a real problem with that, and in other contexts you probably would too.
I am aware, of course, that law enforcement authorities have always had a certain amount of discretion, that police can choose not to pursue certain types of crimes, that Presidents can tell government agencies to follow some agendas and not others, and that society would not function if every law was zealously enforced all the time.
I still think, however, that the solution of not enforcing the law because it makes for bad optics (until we got a President who doesn't care about bad optics) was a poor choice, and led to the current situation.
I was hoping that your legal analysis would provide some basis for this or previous administrations to find a loophole or legitimate, Constitutional discretion that would actually give them options between "Don't enforce the law because we don't like it" and "Start enforcing the law, even if it means taking children from parents." But I don't see any such loopholes. Instead, what I see is "Taking children from parents is horrible, humanitarian concerns should trump the law."
I'm not indifferent to the latter argument (the way ICE is being instructed to carry out these instructions seems calculated to make it as traumatic and dehumanizing as possible), but I think accompanying children are basically being used as "human shields" here, and present a similar moral dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2018 22:23:30 GMT -5
I never said Trump is "just following the law" and his hands are tied. I don't think Prozyan did either. We're both aware that Trump chose to start enforcing the law, when previous administrations did not. AFAICT, neither you nor any of the lawyers on the news are denying that previous administrations were essentially choosing not to enforce the law because they didn't want to deal with what we're seeing now. You can argue that they made the correct choice, and Trump's decision to start enforcing the law is wrong. That still seems like a strange situation, where the executive branch is basically subverting the legislative branch because the laws the legislative branch passed suck. Trump and children being torn from families aside, I have a real problem with that, and in other contexts you probably would too. I am aware, of course, that law enforcement authorities have always had a certain amount of discretion, that police can choose not to pursue certain types of crimes, that Presidents can tell government agencies to follow some agendas and not others, and that society would not function if every law was zealously enforced all the time. I still think, however, that the solution of not enforcing the law because it makes for bad optics (until we got a President who doesn't care about bad optics) was a poor choice, and led to the current situation. I was hoping that your legal analysis would provide some basis for this or previous administrations to find a loophole or legitimate, Constitutional discretion that would actually give them options between "Don't enforce the law because we don't like it" and "Start enforcing the law, even if it means taking children from parents." But I don't see any such loopholes. Instead, what I see is "Taking children from parents is horrible, humanitarian concerns should trump the law." I'm not indifferent to the latter argument (the way ICE is being instructed to carry out these instructions seems calculated to make it as traumatic and dehumanizing as possible), but I think accompanying children are basically being used as "human shields" here, and present a similar moral dilemma. There doesn't have to be a legal loophole. Cops have the power to enforce the law or not, in any given situation. They give warnings, they give passes. They literally let people get away with breaking the law. They are not "subverting the legislative branch" when they do this, and it doesn't mean the laws suck. It means they choose not to enforce them. E.g., when I was 20, my boyfriend and I were pulled over by a cop, who, after determining we were intoxicated, gave us a ride home. Did that mean the cop thought drunk driving was totes cool? No, but for whatever reason, she determined the best thing to do was not to haul us off to jail. The idea of not enforcing the law in some cases as some terrible, awful thing is nonsense, unless you of are the view that the families who benefit from Catch and Release are like, destroying America. As far as bad guys, I'm quite sure DHS enforces the law where they've found drugs, smuggled children, trespassers without children, etc, etc. The problem is that they don't catch all the bad guys, not that they don't prosecute all the fleeing families. DHS can't disregard the 9th circuit decision to not detain children - otherwise DHS would be breaking the law. So, the only flexibility here is in the execution of the law, and previous admins have used that flexibility to be humane. And also because of lack of funding -- if they were to enforce the law, they don't have the resources to take care of and place the children, other than in, as we've seen, abandoned Wal-Marts. Re: "human shields" I think you underestimate the desperation it takes to leave your home with your children and travel hundreds or thousands of miles to try (and possibly fail, or die trying) to make it into the US. And "maybe they will let us in because we have children" =/= "fuck yeah, we're in, 'cuz we got these tiny human shields."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 22:53:05 GMT -5
Ha, Christine. I knew there was no way in hell you'd think this policy was a good thing. Did my pre-bed twitter check. Mostly, I'm joking with Haggis about a scheme to contact our dead former presidents via seance so they can join our living former presidents and first ladies, every one of whom has spoken out against this policy. But I caught this from another hysterical attorney (look up her bio), which seemed apropos to my last post about what the law requires vs what the law allows: Besides Hennessey, a ton of people -- like, real legal, policy expert types -- are saying just what I'm saying. I guess if what you want from us is a nice neat solution that prevents illegal immigration and makes the entire GOP happy, given with zero emotion, or a "this policy is completely illegal, which for some reason I did not mention before", well, then I cannot help you. I gotta be honest. Legal arguments aside, I really am having problems with how anyone doesn't see why this policy is inhumane, unacceptable, and in every way beneath us as a nation. To me, defending this policy is like defending the Japanese internment camps in WWII or turning away the St. Louis or a heap policies that people tried to rationalize as "well, gee, but we've got a bad problem and I don't have another way to solve it so, shrug." Sorry if that sounds melodramatic to you. But it's how I feel. Come on, even fucking Ted Cruz thinks this policy needs to end. Ted fucking Cruz. <iframe width="11.199999999999989" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 11.199999999999989px; height: 4.199999999999989px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 5px; top: 117px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_14122489" 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: 117px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_57040898" 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: 272px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_54867775" 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: 272px;" id="MoatPxIOPT2_57923714" scrolling="no"></iframe> So good night. Only it isn't. Because right now there are walmarts full of cages containing crying terrified little kids wrapped in aluminum foil blankets with the lights on 24/7 who have no idea where their parents are, and no one is even allowed to hug them. (Read the zillion or so stories of politicians and reporters who've been to the facilities if you think I'm making that shit up.) What. The. Fuck. I don't see how anyone isn't screaming bloody murder about this.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jun 18, 2018 23:10:56 GMT -5
For the record, Teddy Roosevelt is pissed as hell about this whole thing. As am I. But his opinion has more weight than mine, even if his corporal entity no longer does.
You all are old enough to remember when we threw marijuana dealers in jail for life, yes? And I'm talking about the street kids. Not the major dealers. The law was the law. So that makes it right, right? No. It was stupid then. That's why they are out of jail now.
What's happening at our borders with the children is pure bullshit and everyone (like Stephen Miller) who thinks that's the right way to deal with little children has no fucking soul.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 23:15:59 GMT -5
Well, that was....something.
First, I never claimed the 9th circuit ruling dictated that adults caught crossing illegally had to be jailed. Not once. I'm glad you spent all that time proving to me that the 9th circuit decree doesn't say this despite the fact I didn't claim it did.
You are quite correct in that there is no law requiring the separation of families at the border. I don't believe I ever said that families arriving illegally at the border were required to be separated as a matter of law.
What I did say is that once the decision was made to prosecute all illegal immigrants criminally the separation of children did become required. Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the zero tolerance policy results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away.
Amadan points out that out administrations knew the consequences of punishing illegal crossings with criminal proceedings and thus avoided doing so. I agree with that and also with his point about not enforcing certain laws because it is inconvenient, looks bad, or is generally distasteful is not really any policy at all.
I also agree with Amadan that for all your legal analysis you provided nothing more substantive than "this is bad and we shouldn't do it". I, unlike you, am not a lawyer. But I'm pretty sure that isn't much of a legal argument.
That said, I agree. This is horrible. This isn't right. This isn't how shit should work. Where we differ is in what to do about it. You seem to want to return to the status quo of ignoring the situation. Pretending it doesn't exist and kicking the can down the road. I want Congress to get off their ass and pass some sensible immigration laws that both recognize the plight of asylum seekers and acknowledge the fact the US isn't in a position to take in an unlimited about of immigrants or refugees.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 23:25:19 GMT -5
I understand the desperation. I understand the motivation. That said, for at least a year the US has been loudly and clearly broadcasting don't come here. In the words of Rage Against the Machine....There be no shelter here.
Is that shitty and inhumane? Yeah, probably. But being smack in the middle of an area that has seen the negative results of the catch-and-release policies and basically unrestrained and unregulated immigration, I don't know if it is incorrect.
What I see over the last decade, locally, is increased pressure on local healthcare. Classroom size increased while school funding is decreased due to falling test scores. Oil patch companies taking incredible advantage of undocumented workers placing their safety in extreme jeopardy for what is nothing more than pennies a day.
The problem gets quite a bit larger than simply humanitarian issues at the border.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2018 23:39:12 GMT -5
I understand the desperation. I understand the motivation. That said, for at least a year the US has been loudly and clearly broadcasting don't come here. In the words of Rage Against the Machine....There be no shelter here. Is that shitty and inhumane? Yeah, probably. But being smack in the middle of an area that has seen the negative results of the catch-and-release policies and basically unrestrained and unregulated immigration, I don't know if it is incorrect. What I see over the last decade, locally, is increased pressure on local healthcare. Classroom size increased while school funding is decreased due to falling test scores. Oil patch companies taking incredible advantage of undocumented workers placing their safety in extreme jeopardy for what is nothing more than pennies a day. The problem gets quite a bit larger than simply humanitarian issues at the border. I don't see how any of those problems are the fault of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Sounds like your area needs some funding, regulation and health care reform. If only the GOP master plan wasn't deregulation, destroying Obamacare instead of fixing it, giving away money in tax cuts to the 1%, and spending billions on the military.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 23:50:19 GMT -5
Yeah. This place was a paradise under Obama.
ETA: That was unnecessarily short and dismissive.
I wouldn't say any of it is the fault of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Just that it is a consequence of them, intended or otherwise.
Healthcare overloaded? Has nothing to do with Obamacare. Has everything to do with literally thousands of new patients flooding a hospital and clinic designed for much less. Has everything to do with the number of doctors. Nurses. Supplies.
Education overloaded? Yeah, average classroom size has increased from 22 to 36 since 2011. Non-english speaking students have skyrocketed. Fortunately being close to the border most people around here speak at least a version of Spanglish. Unfortunately, standardized tests which are used to determine school ranking and funding do not.
Exploited workers? Nothing to do with regulation. Social classes that are unable to appeal to authority are easily exploited. That, unfortunately, is nothing new among migrant workers.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2018 23:55:47 GMT -5
It's not about who is or was President. It's about a general view on what are right (helpful), or wrong (unhelpful), policies. It's about politics. I think you've made yours clear, regarding immigration, but I'll ask anyway:
Do you argue against school funding based on test scores as vehemently as you argue for strict border policies, or do you blame immigrant children for low test scores? Do you argue for universal healthcare, or do you think all those damned immigrants are ruining what would be a great free market system? Do you want regulations to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions, or do you think this would happen naturally in the absence of immigrants so desperate they'll work for pennies a day?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 19, 2018 0:12:22 GMT -5
Yeah. This place was a paradise under Obama. ETA: That was unnecessarily short and dismissive. I wouldn't say any of it is the fault of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Just that it is a consequence of them, intended or otherwise. Healthcare overloaded? Has nothing to do with Obamacare. Has everything to do with literally thousands of new patients flooding a hospital and clinic designed for much less. Has everything to do with the number of doctors. Nurses. Supplies. Education overloaded? Yeah, average classroom size has increased from 22 to 36 since 2011. Non-english speaking students have skyrocketed. Fortunately being close to the border most people around here speak at least a version of Spanglish. Unfortunately, standardized tests which are used to determine school ranking and funding do not. Exploited workers? Nothing to do with regulation. Social classes that are unable to appeal to authority are easily exploited. That, unfortunately, is nothing new among migrant workers. It sounds like you're saying that, though it's not the immigrants' fault, the system isn't equipped to deal with immigrants, so.... we can't have immigrants. Which is, I imagine, what the existing residents of our country said about every influx of immigrants. I'm not persuaded.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 19, 2018 0:22:38 GMT -5
Questions, honestly: do you argue against school funding based on test scores as vehemently as you argue for strict border policies, or do you blame immigrant children for low test scores? Do you argue for universal healthcare, or do you think all those damned immigrants are ruining what would be a great free market system? Do you want regulations to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions, or do you think this would happen naturally in the absence of immigrants so desperate they'll work for pennies a day? Serious questions. Serious answers: 1. I think the current state of education in the US is an embarrassment. I completely disagree with funding based on standardized test scores especially when these standards are handed down from the Federal government. They totally disregard what may be unique situations, such as the one I see locally. I don't "blame" immigrant children for lower test scores. It isn't their fault at all. I strongly disagree that teacher performance evaluations are tied strictly to student performance with no tolerance for exigent circumstance. I personally know of a local teacher that was dismissed when his performance fell below a certain level. It didn't matter that he was the only teacher in the "Phoenix Program", our local name for the secondary school that is in charge of the "at risk" students. It didn't matter that he failed a large majority of the class because the student's refused to do assignments. It didn't matter than the average student attendance hovered somewhere around 30%. For whatever its worth, I do have a BA in education with a specialty in Special Ed, though outside of my student teaching semester I have never taught in the classroom. 2. I 100% support universal healthcare with a SINGLE PAYER system. I think the healthcare insurance industry is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American public. That said, I do not support the travesty of wishy-washiness that was Obamacare. I did and do not fall into the something is better than nothing camp. I firmly believe if you are going to do something you do it right. That should be evident by my stance on the border. Quit kicking the can down the road and fix the damn thing. 3. I support regulation for workplace safety and fair wages. I'm not going to get into the living wage debate. But, as I said above, illegal immigrants are prime targets to be taken advantage of because they fear an appeal to authority. That said, I don't blame the immigrants. I've lived near the border for my entire life. Back before the rise of the cartels I made frequent trips to Juarez. My mother's family still lives in Mexico. I am not blind to the plight and never have been. But, as I mentioned earlier today, the US does not have the infrastructure in place to support mass immigration. We just don't. Too many things are underfunded or paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape. Catch-and-Release policies are a failure. But to fix these problems new law is required. Funding is required. That derives from Congress, not the President. The President, no matter who, has no authority to create new law. They have no authority to dictate funding. I made a point earlier that I think only Amadan understood....the President only has two options. 1, continue with business as usual and ignore the problem or 2, enforce the current laws. Yes, Trump could make a declaration that families are to be housed together. Obama did as much. It was a disaster, because while the President can issue such a directive, he has no power to put funding behind the directive. Look up some stories about a place called the Artesia Immigration Detention Center. This was about a half hour drive away from me. It was one of the places that opened to house families under the Obama policy. But since it couldn't be funded properly by executive memo it was understaffed, under regulated and, well, under funded. In short, the place was a hell hole. I do not agree it would be ok to go back to those policies. I do not agree that catch-and-release works. As has been my primary point from the beginning....this is a Congressional problem and Congress needs to get off its ass and fix it.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 19, 2018 0:25:47 GMT -5
It sounds like you're saying that, though it's not the immigrants' fault, the system isn't equipped to deal with immigrants, so.... we can't have immigrants. That would not be an inaccurate statement. If you missed it earlier, I said the US of today is not the US of 100 years ago. Yes, I do think the US needs to be very careful and selective about the number of asylum requests granted and the number of immigrants allowed in each year. At least until we decide to get our shit together and fix the very real problems we have. Of course, I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 0:42:38 GMT -5
Yeah. Insomnia. It's a bitch. Well, Prozyan, I guess we're even, since I find your arguments on how this isn't Trump's "fault" to be serious head scratchers. I guess I still don't get WTF you're arguing, in that regard. Sorry. Seriously, I don't. I don't see how Trump is not responsible for a situation resulting from a policy Trump enacted. From all your "how can you sidestep this law, Cass?" "You can't ignore the law, Cass," "he has to enforce the law, Cass", and your waving about how the 9th circuit decision forced Trump's hand, and it wasn't his fault, I understood you to be saying that Trump was just doing what he had to do under existing law. Indeed, Trump has been claiming just that. And, like I said, it is not true. which is why I wasted a night saying so. If that's not what you mean, I really do not, at all, get how you can insist this policy is not his "fault." Nor do I get the point of waving about the law and insisting he was just enforcing it. From what you're now saying, you agree -- he's NOT required to do it. He's choosing to. So, yeah, we can agree to disagree on just how bad the idea is, but he's certainly responsible for electing to do it and the consequences. So...I guess your point he was driven to do it because things are sooooo awful and Congress hasn't acted; thus it's not his fault? Well, there we just disagree. I don't think the problem is anywhere close to being as dire as you imply, nor that it could ever justify this policy. You talk about funding, but wtf. Trump isn't trying and never has or will try to get funding for any solution here but his fucking wall. So his choice is, what, get the fucking wall or put kids in cages? (Though I suspect he sees "both" as an option.) This is a dude who issues executive orders every ten minutes, but now suddenly he's powerless. Damn that Congress, putting Trump in that position. Clearly, he's not at fault. You may be right that only Amadan understood what you meant here, because I sure don't. Write me down as stupid if you must. To me, he had choices, and he deliberately picked the very worst, most unforgivable, most harmful one. And that's his fault. And while you may find my hand-wringing over the kids to be too much, we're even there, too, since I think your and Amadan's hand-wringing about illegal immigration and its dire consequences to be really pretty damn overdone. Yeah, no, IMO, I'll say it again, the problem and consequences of it doesn't come anywhere in a universe close to justifying what Trump is doing. haggis 's post and his analogy to the life sentences for pot dealers is pretty dead on, IMO. This is a lot like the "ZOMG we need a War on Drugs to wipe-out the pot dealers once and for all -- zero tolerance! Life sentences!" Only this involves little kids in cages. At least we agree Clinton didn't enact the policy. *** By the way, fun side note: Godwin's law guy Godwinned this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 19, 2018 0:44:39 GMT -5
Well, prozyan, you can imagine my cognitive dissonance in reading your three enumerated points, all of which with I wholeheartedly agree.
I guess I still don't understand how you can basically support the immigration policies promoted by the Trump admin - unless it's out of your own desperation (or, the perceived desperation of others) as it were. America first?
I dunno. I don't see the numbers of illegal immigrants making it into the U.S. each year having a significant impact on (worsening of) the problems we already have in this country, specifically in impoverished areas.
My middle son's graduating high school class included a large population of students from Indiantown (FL) - people can look it up if they're not familiar. My son's education did not suffer. We had excellent funding. Perhaps because the entire county is wealthier on average.
It seems to me that just because a county is underfunded doesn't mean it's because of immigrants. It could be that the entire county is poor to begin with, which a population of immigrants certainly doesn't help, but it doesn't mean immigration is the cause of the poverty. A systemic fix is needed, immigrants or not. But.... I can understand the idea of "not now, we can't take anymore." So... I get it.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 19, 2018 2:11:09 GMT -5
Yeah. Insomnia. It's a bitch. Well, Prozyan, I guess we're even, since I find your arguments on how this isn't Trump's "fault" to be serious head scratchers. I guess I still don't get WTF you're arguing, in that regard. Sorry. Seriously, I don't. I don't see how Trump is not responsible for a situation resulting from a policy Trump enacted. Fair enough. I suppose it is easiest to say you blame Trump, I blame the horrible laws. In my mind it is not a question of policy. It is a question of enforcement. At the most basic level everyone agrees that crossing the border illegally is a criminal act according to US immigration law. Trump has simply decided to enforce that whereas past administrations chose to overlook that mainly because they knew that once you started prosecuting adults in criminal proceedings children would be taken away. This is something Trump apparently doesn't care about. I do see your point about blaming Trump., but from my viewpoint Trump didn't create the existing laws. Trump didn't ignore the situation for decades. Why wasn't something done to address asylum seeking families way back in 2005 when it became apparent there was a problem? That isn't the fault of Trump. Why didn't the Obama administration work to create sensible family immigration laws when they realized the US was about to be swamped with refugee seekers from Honduras other other Central America nations? That isn't the fault of Trump. Way back in 2005 when Bush started up Operation Streamline it was recognized that prosecuting adults will lead to familial separation. Bush's answer to that was to basically ignore families. The Bush administration recognized there was a discrepancy in enforcing border security on an individual and on a family. Why wasn't this address then? A simple law stating family units stay together would work nicely I think. Bush chose to ignore it and institute catch-and-release for families. Jump forward a bit and Obama saw the same problem in 2011. His solution was to order families be detained together. Yet he worked through executive action which has no bite behind it. You can deride me all you want for mentioning funding but this policy is a perfect illustration of what happens when you act without it. The situation was terrible. But instead of act to correct it, Obama chose to basically ignore family units and instituted the catch-and-release 2.0. If any administration or Congress had acted to correct this problem going back all the way to Reagan's amnesty of 85 Trump wouldn't be able to do what he is doing now. Yeah, Trump is a dick for going balls to the wall. He's handling a complicated and delicate situation with his usual ham-handedness. But I still can't blame Trump for acting like Trump. Congress is the entity with the power to resolve this situation once and for all. Again, that is not what I've been saying. There is no law that requires the separation of families when they are detained at the border. When the separation becomes required is when the adult(s) are charged and prosecuted criminally. Trump did nothing more than decide to treat ALL illegal immigrants equally under the existing law. The law I am speaking of does not pertain to the separation of families. It is prosecuting the act of illegally entering the country. Once that process starts, the system takes over. The system, which has been in place for years, says that when you are being prosecuted your kids are taken and housed separately. Your point centers around "But Trump doesn't HAVE to prosecute illegals. No one else has. Well, unless they showed up alone, them fuck 'em". You're right. He didn't have to. But as I said earlier, I'm not going to fault him for enforcing what is a valid law. The law of entering the country illegally. Christine points out that there is usually some discretion when applying the law, as seen with police all the time. She is correct. I think most of us have been in the situation where we've been pulled over for speeding. I'm sure we've all been ticketed and we've all been warned and let loose before. I'm thankful when I just get the warning, but I don't fault the officer if he writes me a ticket. The bottom line is I broke the law. Maybe I'm just an jaded asshole, but I don't see the issue of illegal immigration much different.
|
|