Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:31 pm UTC

The administration itself usually isn't quite so gleefully overt about it, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Trump presidency

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:51 pm UTC

And that's better?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:50 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:Well, the bigger question actually is, how is anyone able to support the monstrous acts that the Trump administration is currently doing?


Partisanship explains quite a lot, I think. That and folks simply don't view the same things as monstrous. Or they get framed very differently by the two sides. Which acts in particular are bothering you?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:29 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
And that's better?

It's not as bad. One is negligence, the other is malice.

Tyndmyr wrote:
folks simply don't view the same things as monstrous.
Sure, but folks who don't think it's monstrous to rip children from their parents and put them in concentration camps are garbage human beings.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6254
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:14 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Sure, but folks who don't think it's monstrous to rip children from their parents and put them in concentration camps are garbage human beings.
That is not an objective statement of fact. It's not even a value judgment (even if I may hold the same values). It's an ad hominum attack.

Let's be better than that.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9874
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:29 am UTC

So... what does the government do with the kids? Are they turned over to Mexican CPS or is trump planning on using them as the most adorable wall construction crew?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5985
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:40 am UTC

Spoiler:
taco6n-1-web.jpg
"I love Mexicans"
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:55 am UTC

ucim wrote:
It's not even a value judgment (even if I may hold the same values).
If you hold "the same values", it means values were expressed in my post. So how is it not a value judgment?

It's an ad hominum attack.
Yes. I am perfectly happy attacking people who see nothing wrong with traumatizing children and infants and explicitly using them as political bargaining chips.

Let's be better than that.
Pretending those people are not garbage isn't "better" than anything. It's just impotent milquetoast bullshit that enables the further slide into fascism.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6254
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:19 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If you hold "the same values", it means values were expressed in my post. So how is it not a value judgment?
Values are implied, but the purpose of your post isn't to express your values, it is to denegrate those who don't hold them. It is a statement of the form:

Sure, but folks who {do this thing I disagree with} are garbage human beings.

It's not about this thing you disagree with. It's about looking down on people. Your statement is about feeling superior to others.

If you want to discuss it in a non ad-hominum way, the statement would have a form like:

Sure, but {this thing I disagree with} is a horrible thing to do because {reasons}. Which one of these {reasons} do you disagree with?

gmalivuk wrote:Pretending those people are not garbage isn't "better" than anything.
Yes it is. As soon as you start considering people to be garbage, you enable their marginalization, persecution, and elimination. This goes for gays, Mexicans, Jews, Nazis, atheists, trailer trash, retards, pretty much any group you want to look down on. It is what enables repressive and authoritative regimes; killing people is immoral, but killing trash isn't. Repressive and authoritative regimes are ugly, and we are moving quickly ourselves in that direction. Given the level of surveillance we've happily put ourselves under, via facebook as well as security cameras and networked databases, and given the repressive regimes the White House is cozying up to, once we move too far in that direction, there will be no return.

Thinking of people as garbage is the first step towards becoming the monster you denigrate.

Don't do it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

duodecimus
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:12 am UTC

ucim, what's your point?

Like, this is how I see this conversation right now:

gmalivuk> 'These people are monsters if I consider them in my moral framework, so I call them monsters.

ucim> 'Thinking of people as monsters makes you a monster just like them, so you should not do that.'


I find it really hard to frame this equivalency you seem to be making between :criminals doing bad things to people: and :people not liking the criminals:.
Like, sure it's something to be aware of, but calling a guy a kidnapper for taking kids from their parents and condemning them for it does not make you also a kidnapper. This feels like a discussion ender, not an actual position.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:41 am UTC

Also when doing an ad hominem you are usually attacking *someone*, not making a generic statement about hypothetical people.

speising
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Trump presidency

Postby speising » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:44 am UTC

Separate but equal. Trump evokes good old times of racial segreggation and star wars in one statement.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diemo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:58 am UTC

Yes it is. As soon as you start considering people to be garbage, you enable their marginalization, persecution, and elimination. This goes for gays, Mexicans, Jews, Nazis, atheists, trailer trash, retards, pretty much any group you want to look down on. It is what enables repressive and authoritative regimes; killing people is immoral, but killing trash isn't. Repressive and authoritative regimes are ugly, and we are moving quickly ourselves in that direction. Given the level of surveillance we've happily put ourselves under, via facebook as well as security cameras and networked databases, and given the repressive regimes the White House is cozying up to, once we move too far in that direction, there will be no return.

Thinking of people as garbage is the first step towards becoming the monster you denigrate.


Oh fuck off with this bullshit. We are saying that people who deliberately put policies into place to traumatise children are garbage human beings. Us saying that they are garbage human beings is not enabling their marginalization or persecution, those fuckwads are in the fucking white house, which is real fucking marginalised, right?
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:43 am UTC

ucim, if you're the kind of person who needs me to specifically enumerate the reasons why ripping traumatized children from their parents and putting them in camps is a bad thing, then maybe this forum just isn't the place for you.

If someone brings a potato salad with raisins to a potluck I might be personally critical of their choice, but I'd let them put it on the table with the rest of the food and I'd have no problem with other people defending their choice.

If someone brings a bowl of dogshit, then they don't get to stay at the party, and people who want to argue about the particular reasons why dogshit shouldn't be next to food for human consumption probably wouldn't be invited to any future gatherings either.

And in case the analogy is somehow not clear, putting kids in cages is a dogshit idea.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:53 pm UTC

So at this point I am guessing that everyone here will be contacting their congressman's office and telling them to support Ted Cruz's proposed solution then? Let's stop bickering about the semantics of the issue and how we got to this point. The legislature should do it's job and fix the problem.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18 ... der-texas/


  1. Doubling the number of federal immigration judges, from roughly 375 to 750.
  2. Authorizing new temporary shelters with accommodations to keep families together.
  3. Mandating that immigrant families be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to children.
  4. Providing for expedited processing and review of asylum cases so that — within 14 days — those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8076
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:07 pm UTC

Would this mean you also called your senators to support this earlier proposal by democrats?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:23 pm UTC

Both of the right wing bills will get innocent people killed.

https://twitter.com/matt_cam/status/1008577200843579393

In response to this virtually non-existent problem in the midst of lowest rates of illegal border crossing in 40+ years, both proposals would make it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers to have due process of law in reviewing their claims. Very intentionally so.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:26 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Would this mean you also called your senators to support this earlier proposal by democrats?


My issue with this bill is it does not solve the underlying issue. That children can not remain in custody for more than 20 days. (Or perhaps there is language buried later in the text that lets this legislation supersede previous legislation, but then are we really going to say we want kids to be in custody for months at a time?) So they must be released within 20 days of apprehension. Meanwhile their parents are stuck in limbo waiting for their court date to determine their asylum status.

So Feinstein's bill keeps the families together for 20 days. But after 20 days the kids are removed from custody and placed in the hands of HHS.

What we need to do is expedite processing of asylum requests. I think everyone can agree processing people faster is in everyone's best interest.
Last edited by trpmb6 on Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:39 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
folks simply don't view the same things as monstrous.
Sure, but folks who don't think it's monstrous to rip children from their parents and put them in concentration camps are garbage human beings.


Eh, it's not a new policy, really. The Flores amendment ain't new(passed in 1997). Pretty much no democrats thought it was monstrous enough to care about during the Obama administration. Can call them all garbage if you like. The relevant policies are reasonably bipartisan, spanning both party's administrations. Obama's admin's solution was to throw the kids in jail with their parents. They lost the court case over that, so now they have to be released to other family members, or failing that, an approved care organization.

Some of the "camp" pictures floating around date from the Obama administration, even. The republicans want to repeal the amendment, so they can do what Trump tried to, and send the kids to custody with the parents. I'm not sure if that's awesome, but...both parties have remarkably similar legal stances here. The idea that one happens to be garbage as a result would kind of implicate the other as well.

CorruptUser wrote:So... what does the government do with the kids? Are they turned over to Mexican CPS or is trump planning on using them as the most adorable wall construction crew?


Assuming they have no adult relatives who are able to take them(parents get first dibs, if there are any parents to be found), generally, they go to Health and Human Services. This is also true for unaccompanied minors. If there's no adults in the picture at all, HHS gets 'em. We do *not* immediately send them back to the country, as a result of anti-child trafficking laws. Many countries that people flee from have reasons that people are fleeing them, so this makes sense sometimes. You do want to verify that the kids are going where they ought. Note that, even under the Trump administration, HHS is quite willing to place children with family members even if they are undocumented. However, if there's nobody at all that can take 'em, they end up housed by the government.

The overall numbers have been increasing, so there is a housing problem. It's definitely a growing thing, in which the democrats essentially want a policy of not prosecuting border crossers who happen to have kids, and republicans want to change the laws requiring separation in these circumstances if they are charged. Neither side particularly wants to deal with campfulls of kids, but that's the current outcome.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:44 pm UTC

There is no federal law stipulating that families be separated, and there's certainly none requiring us to then designate those children as unaccompanied.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-l ... ssed-1997/
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:51 pm UTC

What I don't quite get here: are asylum seekers locked up in the US, awaiting a decision?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:56 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:What I don't quite get here: are asylum seekers locked up in the US, awaiting a decision?


Only when they cross the border illegally, outside of an authorized port of entry. If an asylum seeker has a legitimate claim and they go to an authorized port of entry they are processed there but not allowed to enter at that time.

The issue at play here is that they entered the country illegally. So here is my next thought... If you believe you have a legitimate asylum claim.. Why would you enter the country illegally? Just go through the proper channels at the authorized port of entry.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:There is no federal law stipulating that families be separated, and there's certainly none requiring us to then designate those children as unaccompanied.


Yes, there is. Well, it's court precedent, not law, but the executive branch is bound by the judicial, yes?

If a kid has no adult with them, they are unaccompanied. Placing them with adult relatives where possible, and cared for by a government organization otherwise until they can be reunited with family is reasonable.

If you disagree, what policy would you prefer?

Zamfir wrote:What I don't quite get here: are asylum seekers locked up in the US, awaiting a decision?


Only if they cross illegally, rather than doing the normal asylum process. Framing them as "asylum seekers" is a bit odd. I mean, sure, they are seeking asylum in a sense, but most countries have some process for this, and saying you are seeking asylum doesn't bypass everything if you get caught crossing a border illegally.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:00 pm UTC

No, they didn't enter illegally. They are following the correct procedure for asylum, and they are being detained and having their kids taken away in response.

Not that the misdemeanor of unlawful presence warrants that level of cruel punishment, either.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:There is no federal law stipulating that families be separated, and there's certainly none requiring us to then designate those children as unaccompanied.


Yes, there is. Well, it's court precedent, not law, but the executive branch is bound by the judicial, yes?

If a kid has no adult with them, they are unaccompanied. Placing them with adult relatives where possible, and cared for by a government organization otherwise until they can be reunited with family is reasonable.

Name the law in question, explain what it says, and explain why it is now being applied in unprecedented numbers even though it's supposedly 20 years old.

And I was talking about kids who came with their parents who were then declared "unaccompanied". Legally orohaning them helps who exactly?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:No, they didn't enter illegally. They are following the correct procedure for asylum, and they are being detained and having their kids taken away in response.

Not that the misdemeanor of unlawful presence warrants that level of cruel punishment, either.


This is categorically wrong. The people who come to an authorized port of entry and seek asylum do not have their children ripped away from them. Only the people who are crossing the border illegally.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:28 pm UTC

"Unaccompanied" simply means they have no adult with them at the present time. It isn't making them a legal orphan. The government is still legally obligated to preferentially place them with parents first, other family members next.

They just can't throw the kids in jail for crossing illegally. This is due to the Flores agreement in 1997(eventual result of a decade of litigation, etc). Obama attempted to ignore this, and in 2015, got slapped down by a California judge. So, now there's pretty open and shut precedent*.

*https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/detained-immigrant-children-judge-dolly-gee-ruling.html

I'm gonna copy the exact text for how children are held. Feel free to highlight parts you dislike:
Juveniles be released from custody without unnecessary delay, and in order of preference to the following: a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed appropriate by the responsible government agency.

Where they cannot be released because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns, juveniles must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs, generally, in a nonsecure facility licensed by a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and delinquent offenders.


There are some delays associated with the process, due to background checking. This background checking dates to the Obama administration, after it turned out the administration was directly releasing children to human traffickers. So, now there's some checking to make sure people are actually making legitimate claims to kids. The resulting slower processing time is increasing the backlog, so numbers are generally increasing.

Incidentally, detention numbers are growing across most western nations(all of which have similar policies for detaining illegal immigrants/asylum seekers). That said, the US definitely has the most. We're a big country, but even so, we're a popular destination for folks.

gmalivuk wrote:No, they didn't enter illegally. They are following the correct procedure for asylum, and they are being detained and having their kids taken away in response.

Not that the misdemeanor of unlawful presence warrants that level of cruel punishment, either.


Literally every western nation does this.

Anyways, there's two kinds of asylum. Affirmative, and defensive. Basically, the latter is when you immigrate illegally, and then get caught, and then attempt to claim asylum to avoid deportation. This tends to result in detention. Affirmative is applying proactively. In this case, you will only be detained if you request protective custody and a judge approves you on the basis of having a credible fear.

This fight is about the former. That's how you end up in jail, and separated from your kids.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:34 pm UTC

They are arresting and separating families who cross legally and present themselves to authorities. Those aren't the only people they're treating this way, but they are included.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/opinions ... index.html

The message it sends is, stop going in legally, start sneaking in. At worst, you end up in the same situation as people who tried to do it "the right way".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:40 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:They are arresting and separating families who cross legally and present themselves to authorities. Those aren't the only people they're treating this way, but they are included.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/opinions ... index.html

The message it sends is, stop going in legally, start sneaking in. At worst, you end up in the same situation as people who tried to do it "the right way".


That's not standard policy, government admitted culpability on that one, and lost the lawsuit. They were in the wrong, definitely, but portraying that single case as normal, or the legal policy, is incorrect.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:46 pm UTC

No the real message that is being conveyed is that a lot of these people aren't really seeking asylum. They just want to come to America. The claim of seeking asylum comes later once they are caught.

To me that says, you weren't really interested in truly claiming asylum. It's just a convenient means of avoiding deportation.

Follow the process and apply for asylum correctly and don't enter the country illegally. Good way to keep your kids with you.

I'm not going to take my kids and try to enter another country illegally because if I'm caught there's a very high likelihood we will be separated. Rational people don't put their children in danger.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8076
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:The issue at play here is that they entered the country illegally. So here is my next thought... If you believe you have a legitimate asylum claim.. Why would you enter the country illegally? Just go through the proper channels at the authorized port of entry.

Perhaps because CBP agents are instructed by the government to stop people from getting to the border.
Or possibly because they'll have to wait at the border for almost two weeks to just get seen, while staying in potentially dangerous territory for them and with no ability to support themselves.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:50 pm UTC

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... id=1524223


So, I did immigration casework for Senator Fritz Hollings, studied immigration law at law school under a former INS general counsel, and worked for a border Congressman in the district that included the Rio Grande Valley. So hear me out:
1. These people in detention have not committed a crime.
2. I don't mean that in a moral or a figurative sense. I mean literally. It is NOT a crime to ask for asylum.
3. These people didn't jump a fence, they didn't sneak into the back yard. They are knocking on the front door and saying "People are trying to kill me in my home country, will you let me in?"
4. Now, I didn't fall off the turnip truck. Some of these people are lying. That's why you have a hearing. And because they might wander off, these people are held in detention until the hearing.
5. This hearing is NOT in a criminal court. It's in an immigration court. Because these people have not committed a crime.
6. Immigration court is not like criminal court. You don't have a right to an attorney.
7. So these people are waiting around, separated from their children, with no attorney, until they get a hearing.
8. In 2015, the median wait for an immigration hearing was 404 days.
9. Here's where it gets even more twisted.
10. If people plead guilty to asylum fraud, they get their kids back and get deported.
11. So these people knock on the front door, which is perfectly legal, and we take their kids, and tell them the quickest way to get them back is to confess.
12. If someone committed a crime - shoplifting, armed robbery, murder - and you took their kids away to make them confess, that confession would be thrown out.
13. But these confessions are lawful, because this isn't criminal court.
14. Because these people haven't committed a crime.
15. Now some people think that if we make it so unpleasant for these people, they will stop trying to cross the border.
16. But the message this sends isn't "Go Home." The message it sends is "Sneak in."
17. If they go home, they think they will be murdered. If they request asylum, they are separated from their children.
18. If they sneak in successfully, they're safe. If they sneak in and get caught, they are no worse off than if they sought asylum legally.
19. And remember, these people haven't committed a crime.


Also, this is not what other countries do, but if they did it would be a garbage policy supported by garbage human beings there, too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44374756
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:57 pm UTC

Both of your links essentially boil down to the same thing. Going the official way sucks, because there are lots of delays. That is definitely true, and a problem. I think most everyone here agrees that the official immigration process is too unwieldy.

That said, you'll note that no separation happened in those. I'm still not seeing what your problem is with the separation policy.

gmalivuk wrote:https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10104389659683616&id=1524223


We're doing facebook as our sources now? This is a lot of blended facts to construct a narrative. Yes, it's true that asking for an asylum is not a crime. No, that's not why folks are being separated from kids as a matter of policy. Yeah, the wait for an immigration hearing is obscenely long. No, they are not required to be imprisoned while they wait, if they showed up at the border legally.

If they REQUEST protective custody, cool. But the government isn't a monster for granting their request.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8076
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Both of your links essentially boil down to the same thing. Going the official way sucks, because there are lots of delays. That is definitely true, and a problem. I think most everyone here agrees that the official immigration process is too unwieldy.

How is "I am physically blocked from applying for asylum" a legal strategy that you consider the "official way"? In any case the question was why would anyone not go through a border crossing - the answer is simple - they often can't.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:07 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Both of your links essentially boil down to the same thing. Going the official way sucks, because there are lots of delays. That is definitely true, and a problem. I think most everyone here agrees that the official immigration process is too unwieldy.

How is "I am physically blocked from applying for asylum" a legal strategy that you consider the "official way"? In any case the question was why would anyone not go through a border crossing - the answer is simple - they often can't.


Come back and try again the next day. People are definitely successfully applying for asylum that way. Yes, the bureaucracy is nightmarish, but that is the official way.

We haven't actually walled off the border crossing, but the US is not actually under any obligation to accept immigrants at all. Regardless, crossing illegally is still crossing illegally. It *seems* like what you(and democrats in general) want here isn't anything to do with the policy on kids changed, but rather, a lack of prosecution for illegal immigrants. The kids are just a convenient thing to shout about.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

I'm using experienced immigration attorneys as my sources. They are as capable of using social media as anyone else and don't magically become less reliable for doing so.

And if you're running for your life, "come back tomorrow" isn't exactly a viable solution.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1802
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It *seems* like what you(and democrats in general) want here isn't anything to do with the policy on kids changed, but rather, a lack of prosecution for illegal immigrants. The kids are just a convenient thing to shout about.


democrats regrettably support atrocities regarding immigrants frequently as well; without democratic support in previous years for ramping up ice and bp's reach we wouldn't be in this position.

i do support open borders and no prosecution for illegal entry, because in my ideal world ilegal entry would 6 non-existant. unfortunately pretending the democrats also support this is a strawman, i wish they did but republicans only pretend they do to scare people into thinking we're going to be overrun by ms13 or whoever their latest boogeyman is.

anyway, though, i do think the issue of family separation is simple. if you aren't locking up parents en masse EITHER, then there isn't a giant problem of your own making of what to do with their unaccompanied children.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:31 pm UTC

Facebook is not usually a good source. It lends itself to memes and short bursts. Good for advertising a point of view, not good for supporting it.

Those dudes are in Mexico, and were from Guatemala. It is unlikely that whatever situation they were fleeing in Guatemala applies to Mexico.

Also, you'll note that in your second link, which claims wait times of two weeks, the actual wait time to see an immigration official is "up to five days". It looks like they might be conflating time to get a decision with time to file the asylum request. The former is, of course, longer. Particularly if you're not in any real danger at present. In any case, waiting for days to apply is definitely still lengthy, but it still has very little to do with the child separation policy.

The children are essentially just being used as levers for a more open immigration policy/non enforcement of existing law. And, of course, the current situation is of bi-partisan creation.

natraj wrote:anyway, though, i do think the issue of family separation is simple. if you aren't locking up parents en masse EITHER, then there isn't a giant problem of your own making of what to do with their unaccompanied children.


Non enforcement does avoid the separation in many cases. However, enforcing existing law is...pretty much what the executive branch is for. And it's kind of unfair to childless people if only parents get to skip out on charges solely for having kids.

Also, non enforcement doesn't address children crossing without parents, which is an increasingly common occurrence. Those kids end up in the same situation. Really, it's not the government separating the kids from anyone, it's the government attempting to take care of them.

Edit: Not so much trying to defend the current delays, as noting that it's hypocritical to criticize only Republicans for the child-separation situation. The democrats had a roughly equal hand in creating the scenario, and the Republicans are actively attempting to fix the child-separation problem, but democrats are insisting on leveraging it to change immigration on a broader scale. If anyone's using the kids as political pawns, it's the democrats. The republicans don't have any particular desire to have kids in camps, they just want an immigration crackdown.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Facebook is not usually a good source. It lends itself to memes and short bursts. Good for advertising a point of view, not good for supporting it.
Whatever it "lends itself to" isn't relevant when evaluating any particular point made there (or on Twitter).

Those dudes are in Mexico, and were from Guatemala. It is unlikely that whatever situation they were fleeing in Guatemala applies to Mexico.
Yeah because there are no international gangs anywhere or anything.

The children are essentially just being used as levers for a more open immigration policy/non enforcement of existing law. And, of course, the current situation is of bi-partisan creation.
The children are explicitly being used as political levers by the administration that has separated 2000 of them from their parents in the past six weeks. The fact that Democrats are also trying to pass legislation in response is not really the important thing here.

Really, it's not the government separating the kids from anyone
Flat-out denying reality doesn't change it.

it's the government attempting to take care of them.
Holding thousands of children in overcrowded prisons covered with Trumpist propaganda is not attempting to take care of them.

If you want to discuss the merits of bringing dogshit to a meal, I'm sure there are coprophagia forums you could join instead.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:51 pm UTC

Changing topics..

NYTimes and others are putting out fact checks of Trump's recent tweets about Germany's violent crime statistics. The times piece notes that violent crime had a small tick downward in 2017.
NY Times wrote:Crime statistics for 2017 showed the lowest level of crime in Germany in 25 years, according to figures released in May by the federal criminal office.


Reuters however, released this back in January detailing violent crime statistics from 2015 and 2016 showing a 10% rise in violent crime with nearly 90% of said increase (90% of the 10% rise) being attributed to male refugees from a specific age range.
Reuters wrote:Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees. The government-sponsored study showed a jump in violent crime committed by male migrants aged 14 to 30.


So someone's report is wrong.

One theory for the discrepancy might be that violent crime in no go zones are being under reported? But somehow were captured by this other study? Hard to tell exactly what numbers are being cited by both reports here as well.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 15 guests