|
Post by prozyan on Jun 19, 2018 2:18:55 GMT -5
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. Ready for more cognitive dissonance? I don't support the policies promoted by the Trump admin. Just because I blame the laws and Congressional inaction instead of the Trump administration does not mean I believe in or support what Trump is doing. Trump is a child. A bully. And any number of other pejoratives. But I don't blame Trump for acting like Trump. If you have a puppy that chews things you don't blame the puppy for chewing up the shoes you left on the floor. You blame yourself for leaving your shoes on the floor. Much in the same way, I don't blame Trump for using existing law and policy to a horrific end. I blame those who left behind the existing law and policy that lets it be used to a horrific end. In short, for decades everyone involved in politics or immigration issues recognized this could be an issue. They didn't do shit to solve it. So I blame the existing laws and Congressional inaction for the situation. Someone once has a signature quote regarding Don. It said something to the effect they blame the Feds for Don. If they didn't keep fucking things up Don wouldn't be able to point out how they fucked it up. I don't view this much different. If decades of kicking the can down the road and pretending there wasn't an issue hadn't occurred, Trump wouldn't be able to use the current system as the club he is.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 19, 2018 6:13:22 GMT -5
Cass is exactly right. "This policy is inhumane, unacceptable, and in every way beneath us." I'm gonna cut the quote off there, removing "as a nation" because I differentiate between individual people and governments, and has been amply demonstrated, this is most definitely not beneath those who supposedly represent us as a nation.
I hope this policy is beneath every single one of us as human beings. But it's most obviously not beneath the creatures of Mordor on the Potomac. Our so-called "representatives" put these draconian laws into place, apparently counting on the fact that the laws wouldn't actually be enforced.
That is the very definition of "rule by man, not by law." We are not and have not been, for a long time if ever, a nation ruled by law. We are ruled by the whims of the enforcers, from Big Cheeto on down. And the Big Cheeto has the power to turn bad laws into horrible policy. He's playing "The Art of the Deal" with real human lives. But that's always what politicians do.
And most people seem A-Ok with that as long as the whims of the enforcers line up with their own. But selective enforcement is precisely why the privileged youth occupy our universities and minorities occupy our prisons.
Haggis draws a parallel to the War on Drugs. Yet where was the Liberal AngstTM when Obama continued to allow the selective enforcement of draconian laws that separate families and have hollowed out our inner cities, yet appear to be inapplicable in gated communities? If he could ignore the enforcement of bad immigration laws that target outsiders, certainly he could have done the same for bad Cannibis laws that are used to target minorities in our inner cities.
What I mostly see here is selective partisan blindness and a willingness to be ruled by the whims of the enforcers, not the rule of law. I seem to remember people pointing out that the Imperial Presidency was a horrible idea when Obama was in office, and long before. I even know someone who got mightily reamed elsewhere for pointing this out in the heat of the aftermath of the 2016 election. (That someone would be me.)
So don't come whining to me when the "wrong" enforcers get in power and choose to enforce the "wrong" laws. Get rid of the "wrong" laws and the "wrong" enforcers won't get to pick and choose how you will be ruled by them.
You asked for it, you got it. No Toyotas involved.
ETA: What prozyan said above.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 7:31:02 GMT -5
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. Right, but there's a difference between saying "We're going to give these individuals a break, in this individual circumstance," and deciding as a policy not to enforce laws against drunk driving. Actually, yes, that is pretty much what I think they believe. We can see how the policy of allowing people in when they have children increased the number of people bringing their children. Read the prior-linked articles, in which it's pointed out that previously, most people coming across the border illegally were single males. As for desperation, I am sure most people in the poorest and most destitute countries of Central and South America (and elsewhere in the world) are desperate to go somewhere better. That doesn't mean we're obligated to take them. It doesn't mean the US is the rightful destination for all these desperate people.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 7:49:53 GMT -5
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. As I understand it, Trump's choices were these: 1. Continue previous policy. In effect, don't enforce the law. (Bush version.) 2. Start enforcing the law, but detain families together. (Obama version.) 3. Start enforcing the law, and take children away when parents are charged with a crime (Trump version). But! And here is where Presidential action actually makes a difference, and where you can find blame for how Trump chose to execute choice #3: Let's suppose he went with #2. At that point, you have the problems Prozyan mentioned, that without funding, the places the families will be housed will turn into hell holes. What does the President do in such a case? Apparently, Obama did very little, and the places turned into hell holes. The President could push for action (and funding) by Congress. That would involve a possibly losing political fight, and the expenditure of much political capital. Obama no doubt made a political calculation that such a fight was not worth it. His political calculus may have been correct, but if we're assigning moral culpability here, I think you have to put some on him. Any President, including the current one, could likewise expend political capital by turning this into a major issue and pushing Congress to actually fix the laws, as Prozyan outlined. Trump is certainly not going to do that (well, he's trying, but essentially by creating the horrific situation we have now in the hopes that it will force Congress to act), and it's legitimate to blame him for that, but then you also have to blame all his predecessors. And then we have choice #3. Even going with that, there are "hard" options and "soft" options here. Soft options would include giving detainees as many opportunities as possible to stay together, pointing out their options, pointing out the consequences if they choose to claim asylum, and if they do, trying to be as humane as possible in dealing with their children. Even setting up a way to track them and reunite them should asylum claims be rejected and the parents are deported. Trump, of course, chose the "hard" option. Being brutal, ripping families apart without warning, and putting children in kennels. And I will absolutely join you in condemning him for that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 19, 2018 8:35:35 GMT -5
I think--while again I don't like the idea of pulling families apart being US policy--there's also some overstating going on in all of this. Consider this piece at the LA Times (hardly The Daily Caller or the like, right?): www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-border-patrol-center-20180617-story.htmlFrom it: Obviously, that "matter of hours" doesn't apply to all of the children, but then let's not be so naive as to think every adult crossing with kids is on the up and up. As said upthread, this is a complicated issue--series of issues, really--and I think Trump's ham-fisted approach is not the right answer. But then, the Obama admin--nor ones previous--didn't have the right answer, either. Neither did all the Dems and Repubs in Congress who are currently flailing their arms over this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 8:42:52 GMT -5
This has got to be a bit what it was like to debate slavery before the civil war. Don't just say "pfft, but that was SLAVERY!" Bear with me for a minute.
"Slavery is perfectly legal. It is enshrined not just in our laws, but in our constitution. Our presidents, our great men, owned slaves.
Then there is the economic end. Hey, people invested a lot of money in those slaves. They've been feeding and housing them. If you made slavery illegal, what, are you going to bankrupt the country reimbursing the slave owners, or let them go bankrupt? Who is going to pick all that cotton? The slave states would collapse economically without them and take generations to recover.
And then what do you suggest doing with all those uneducated slaves who have never lived as free men? Where would they go? Where will they live? The bankrupt cotton farmers wouldn't be able to afford to pay them. If you can't come up with some solution to that, well, it's hardly the South's fault.
Hey, I know the concept isn't ideal, but it's legal and you can't just suggest taking people's property away, bankrupting half the country, and releasing a horde of illiterate unemployed impoverished people into our economic system. And I think you are exaggerating the problem a bit. Most of the slaves are well-treated. The are fed and housed. Yes, there are some bad owners who beat and rape their slaves, but it's up to Congress and local officials to pass laws about that. Abolitionists should pressure them to do that.
And slavery isn't something new, you know. Lots of great countries had slavery. It's in the Bible, Cass. God is fine with slavery, too, so you can't even argue religion. Come on."
"But...but slavery is wrong! Legal or not, whatever economic and property issues there are, it is fucking wrong for people to be enslaved! Human beings have goddamn essential basic rights! It's just fucking wrong and nothing can justify it!"
"Wow. Honestly, Cass, I've never seen you so emotional and impractical. You're a lawyer, yet you just want to ignore property rights, economic reality, the laws, and the constitution. It's unfortunate, but we don't really have a good solution."
It seems pretty obvious to us now that, um, yeah, slavery is just wrong, and the Constitution be damned. But that had to be the way a lot of conversations went in 1850 or so.
I feel a similar way about yanking kids away from their parents. It's simply and obviously wrong, and nothing can justify it. Only here, it's not enshrined in the Constitution and the law doesn't have to be changed to stop it.
So, yeah, given how I view this, I actually find y'all as unpersuasive as you apparently find me.
ETA:
Rob, there a buttload of articles supporting everything I say about the camps, the process, and so forth, from the NY Times, WaPo, our senators etc. I've posted some. I could post them for pages.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 8:58:13 GMT -5
"Wow. Honestly, Cass, I've never seen you so emotional and impractical. You're a lawyer, yet you just want to ignore property rights, economic reality, the laws, and the constitution. It's unfortunate, but we don't really have a good solution." This is really unfair. All of us saying "You can't just ignore the law" have also pointed out all the different ways this could have gone in the past and should go now. No one is saying "Well, but it's legal, so we just have to accept it. (Shrug)" There are a number of options besides "Don't enforce the law" and "Put children in kennels." You seem to be implying that all of us who have a problem with the former are therefore endorsing the latter. I am not even touching the slavery comparison because I'm not sure which part you think it comparable to slavery - not allowing people to immigrate illegally? Turning back families at the border? Charging adults with crimes and removing custody of their children? Or separating children from parents ever for any reason?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:06:11 GMT -5
Separating the kids from their parents. IMO, like slavery, is just plain wrong and nothing can justify it.
Whatever the illegal immigration problems may be, even if they are twice as bad as you and Prozyan argue, whatever it costs, whatever Congress hasn't done, that policy is cruel, wrong and unacceptable.
We can debate the rest. But that, for me, is the priority, the starting point and a given, and burying it in an avalanche of "but illegal immigration!" "but catch and release" and "it's legal!" is grotesque.
We should demand it stop today, now, without waiting to sort out what else we're going to do. And if that means catch and release until we sort it out, by hell yes, that's what we do.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 9:12:02 GMT -5
Separating the kids from their parents. IMO, like slavery, is just plain wrong and nothing can justify it. Okay. That's the point on which we can only agree to disagree. Both that nothing justifies, and that it is comparable in moral abhorrence to slavery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:17:21 GMT -5
I did say the issues were identical. I said they are both morally abhorrent.
So is torture and rape. So were the Japanese internment camps. Obviously, those aren't quite equivalent to slavery or to each other, either. But they all are morally abhorrent and we can condemn them without ranking them to decide which is worst and why.
Sure, something could justify taking kids from their parents at the border. If they are shitty abusive parents or they are trafficking them, looking out for the kid's interest might well require parting parent and child.
Here, what we have is "well, illegal immigration is a big problem and that's why Trump is going with zero tolerance and bunging parents in jail, and so, hey, we can't legally put the kids in jail with them. Which is sad, but, yanno, illegal immigration. We need to fix illegal immigration."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 19, 2018 9:22:32 GMT -5
Rob, there a buttload of articles supporting everything I say about the camps, the process, and so forth, from the NY Times, WaPo, our senators etc. I've posted some. I could post them for pages. Your point? Is there a reason to think the LA Times piece is incorrect on the specifics there? As I noted, that "matter of hours" isn't true for all cases. Indeed, it's only true--for that limited region--for less than half. 463 children returned shorty after separation (because their parent(s) were being processed in court, apparently) means there were still 711 children who were not returned in such a time frame. And I don't like that at all, either. But still, there are no doubt some cases--unverified numbers are being floated on this--where children are being used by people who are not their parents to facilitate the border crossings of those people. That's being going on for a long time. How many children have been used in this manner? Here's an old piece on the subject: dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/01/official-believes-illegals-renting-kids-to-cross-border/From that same piece, there is also this disturbing bit: Then there's also the issue of custodial rights, which runs in both directions. We know non-custodial parents in the US kidnap their children and cross the border. There's no reason to assume it's not going the other way. And there is also the spectre of child sex trafficking. The point being: some of these kids need to be separated from the adults with whom they crossed the border. But I'm betting it's very difficult to make that determination in many cases. All of which leads back to my previous point: this is a complicated situation. And it has been for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 9:23:20 GMT -5
Yes, I understand that. I do not agree with the equivalence or the moral abhorrence. (Note: this does not mean I think how we are implementing the current policy is good. As I have said repeatedly, but somehow I get the feeling you're going to tell me again that I think Trump is just following the law and has no choice.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:37:23 GMT -5
Rob, I guess I'm having some trouble with your points, too. The kids are safer in Walmart without their parents? There are only a couple thousand of them, fewer than some might think?
Sure, this is a big, complicated situation. But there is one part that is, IMO, simple. Whatever policy you adopt, you don't separate families (unless the family itself is a danger to the kid).
I know you guys don't think the policy is good. But I do get the feeling in this thread of "well, what else can we do? Until we sort out the complicated, this is where we are. So what do we do?"
To which my answer is "not this."
That, in my view, should be point numero uno, not point number 112 under a bushel of caveats and quibbles. Today. It should stop today. We never did it before, so that shouldn't be so fucking hard. I do get the sense that Prozyan at least thinks this policy is preferable to Obama, Bush's, and Clinton's catch and release or family detainment policies. I don't, obviously.
I might spend my birthday participating in a protest on this, if Trump hasn't reversed himself by then. He may--I am far from the only person holding this view.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 9:42:46 GMT -5
I think what we should do (until this is "all sorted out") is detain them together and deport them together. And if detaining them together means putting them in terrible facilities, that's the marginally less terrible thing than separating children from parents. Maybe.
But if comes down to it, yes, I would choose separating children from their parents over catch and release.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:44:22 GMT -5
I'm okay with your first paragraph (with the caveat of sorting out legitimate asylum seekers, of whom I'm certain I'd allow more of than you, but whatever--the basic principle of "whatever we do, we keep them together".)
But I will never, for all the reasons above, agree with your second.
|
|