« Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. | Main | About the recent unpleasantness »

June 15, 2018

Comments

"every member of X group is ______." But doing the latter is indefensible, just as it is when applied to ethnic groups or genders or other groups you would leap to defend.

Being a Republican is a choice.

Are there otherwise decent people who are Republicans? Yes, but not in their political activities. I'm not just talking Trump and Trumpists here. I'd guess, for example, there are a few decent people in Kansas who are Republican legislators. But they've made a giant mess.

The fundamental problem is that Republican policy ideas are terrible, so there is no excuse for supporting candidates who want to implement them.

wj: "where am I going, and why am I in this basket of deplorables?"

GET OUT OF THE BASKET WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME.

Slowly coming around to the view that the Count warned us...

OK, Snarki, and go where?

As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with "no party preference."

And what difference does the latter make? Only this: in a Presidential primary (but no others), as a "no preference" voter I don't get a vote. For everything else, it makes zero difference. I can vote for anybody in every other race . . . and I do.

So I stay where I am, in an effort (obviously an unsuccessful one last time) to get a better nominee at the top of the ticket. Will that better nominee be someone you would support? Probably not. But given that your preferred candidate will not win every time, wouldn't it be better to have an officeholder that you disagree with than one whole is a massive across the board disaster?

The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.

If the policy to prosecute all of the people caught illegally crossing the border is suspended thus reducing those families separated that's awesome.

Despite the legitimate concerns in all this it does irk me that people generally concerned with facts just ignore them in this case.

The law that russell quotes above also defines any minor not accompanied by a US citizen or someone who is legally in the US as an unaccompanied minor. So saying the centers were built for unaccompanied minors is a meaningless distinction.

Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed. Hopefully that is suspended. Also, hopefully, Congress can address the definition of unaccompanied minors and we can apply enough resources to place all of those unaccompanied minors by DHS so the centers will be what they were originally for, 72 hour processing.

I did address one of your points directly russell, people presenting themselves at legal points of entry asking for asylum are not being treated as attempting illegal entry and are not being separated. Sorry my English wasn't clear.

Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.

This is simply not true. People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children.

That's a change. Indeed, it is a change that conflicts with US law. But there is it.

In all fairness to wj,

Non-Americans are entirely justified in lumping us all together and saying "You Americans must be insane for electing He, Trump". We can reasonably point out that more of us voted for Hillary, but we can't deny that OUR electoral system is what coughed him up. (With help from Putin, to be sure, but still.) Partly for sentimental reasons and partly for practical ones, we Americans resist giving up our status as Americans -- not even to dissociate ourselves from a disgrace like He, Trump.

Our only hope for redemption is to Make America Decent Again. That requires making an ally of wj and a laughingstock of Marty.

BTW, whatever the hell a hashtag is, I wonder whether #MakeAmericaDecentAgain already exists.

--TP

"People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children. "

The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.

As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with "no party preference."

Do you mean that you have no significant disagreements with the Republican Party? Or just fewer than with the Democrats? (Leaving aside whatever options are open to you.)

This "suspension" may mean that for a few days, or weeks, some children will be left with their parents who would otherwise not have been. And that's great, every little bit helps.

But in terms of where we're going as a country, I don't have any faith that this means a damned thing. It's just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or "forward" -- into darkness) and one step back illusion.

Has anyone said whether a dime will be spent trying to reunite the families that have already been broken? Does anyone think that will actually happen?

The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.

that's a complete falsehood.

a) the relevant laws have changed in the past 20 years.

b) policy is how laws are interpreted, and Trump and Sessions have decided to interpret the laws differently.

Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.

I guess you could split hairs about what is policy and what is practice. Either way, the practice of separating families is new in its breadth and scale. That's why people are talking about it, including people within the Trump administration. It's a choice they made.

If zero-tolerance requires the separation of families, and if they knew this going in, which I have to assume they did because they talked about before they started doing it, it was their choice to separate families. They even said outright that it was to serve as a deterrent.

But keep defending these creeps, if that's what makes you happy.

As far as I can see, my options are... suffering from a serious self truncation.

1. There are many political parties. All but two are insignificant, but they exist. Join one.

2. If you mean an "effective" political party, then you ally yourself with and self-identify with either "Democrat" or "Republican". Pick.

3. It is indeed possible to ally yourself with a party that does not share all of your political positions. Really, it is.

4. The question the peanut gallery has for wj is, what are the dealbreaker positions of the actually exisiting Democratic Party that keeps you from allying yourself with it? Just curious.

As I said above, bobbyp, sticking with an affiliation (to a party, to a nation, to a blog even) can be for sentimental reasons as well as practical ones.

But I too am curious: leaving sentiment aside, what policy positions of the Democratic Party does wj dislike? And to extend the question a bit: what are the current GOP's policy positions on those issues?

--TP

The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.

Treating someone who takes one step across the border and immediately asks for asylum the same as someone who has entered the country illegally (or stayed illegally), traveled further in and stayed a while? Which is exactly what is being done.

Adam Silverman, fiercely, on the whole horror show but particularly the question of where the girls and toddlers are.

Bottom line...no one really has a fucking clue.

Including, for those who don't want to follow the link:

A skirmish has been won. A specific objective – rescinding the policies that separate families – has been partially achieved. This is positive. But these children are still at risk and in danger. The current administration, understaffed on purpose and by design in order to fail under a crisis, has no capability to actually resolve the crisis they’ve created. It is appropriate to take a bit of time today, catch your breath, relax and rest up, so that the pressure can be maintained and increased starting tomorrow. We need to keep asking where are the toddlers and where are the girls. And demanding answers to those two questions. We need to keep asking how the reunifications are going to happen because there is no plan in place to do this and it is clear they have don’t have even a partial clue as to how to make these reunifications happen.

NEW: In the past week I have spoken to people on the frontline of family separation — U.S. officials, federal public defenders, childcare providers receiving an influx of kids.

Their message: there is no functioning system in place for reunification. https://t.co/MMKizRdcBP

— Ryan Devereaux (@rdevro) June 19, 2018

We need to keep pushing for an end to not just the zero tolerance policy, but also a change to the policy within CBP to prevent anyone from entering at an official point of entry so they can claim asylum.

It's just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or "forward" -- into darkness) and one step back illusion.

I fear this is exactly right, with the added plus that as well as exhausting/infuriating people like us, it also sends a message to his base that he intends to keep his promises to them, even if temporarily stopped by "the optics" (I loathe that expression), and will continue to go in that direction as soon as possible, and by other means.

Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.

In terms of your status as a person requesting asylum, there is no difference. They are exactly the same.

See here, especially this:

You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

If you are physically in the US and not a citizen, you are entitled to apply for asylum.

Full stop.

For the record, you are also entitled to apply for asylum if you entered illegally, have been caught, and are currently in removal proceedings.

If you are physically in the US and are not a citizen, you are entitled to request asylum.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

That is the law.

wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.

The challenge for me is this is a complex set of situations that is being treated one dimensionally to put all of the immigration policy in a bad light.

One thing changed. There were consequences of that change that were unacceptable. It doesn't make all of the other things bad. It means that we should address that change in a way that makes sense.

The people being arrested are still entering the country illegally. Full stop.

If you think we should have open borders I respect that, I don't. No other country I have been to didn't require me to have a visa. These things aren't new or unique. These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.


if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.

that has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are entitled to request asylum, nor on how we are obliged to treat them if they do so.

if their request is bogus, they won't get asylum. this is not an "open borders" thing.

These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.

And the "one change" is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.

No other country I have been to didn't require me to have a visa.

You've never been as a tourist to the UK nor any country in the EU?

Then there's Canada, where pre-911 we (and the Canadians) weren't even required to have a passport to go back and forth, never mind a visa.

If, for the last 50 years, the US had made is as easy as possible for people to cross the country's borders while keeping a lookout for criminals and criminal activity, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants and their families in the country. A lot of the people who come here to work leaving their families at home. As it is, people come here to stay. And bring their families with them.

And absent the war on drugs and military interventions in other countries, there would be a lot fewer people coming here with no place to go back to.

JanieM: Mexico too, back in the day. No idea about today. Well, Mexico would probably let you in with no problem, it's getting back into FascioTrumpUSA that would be the problem.

And the "one change" is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.

russell, you're not supposed to object to things, or ask for things, unless you've addressed (to Marty's satisfaction) the entire policy universe surrounding those things.

IOW, you can't complain about this horrifically cruel policy of Clickbait's unless you've addressed everything there is to address about immigration, otherwise you're being one-dimensional.

Sort of like the way gay people were selfish for asking for the right to get married because (we found out much later) Marty doesn't believe the government should be in the marriage business in the first place.

If you gotta think of some way to defend the indefensible, I guess that kind of "logic" is as good as any other.

Snarki -- yes, I'm pretty syre it all changed at the same time, after 9/11.

syre->sure

wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.

Marty, over and above what Russell said, there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry. We're not talking someone gaming the system, no matter how liberally you try to interpret that term.

We're not talking someone gaming the system,

Now that you mention it, I think we are talking about someone gaming the system, and it's not the migrants.

Point taken.

as always, it bears repeating that the criminal act of entering the US without proper authorization, other than through an authorized point of entry, is a misdemeanor.

Common misdemeanors include:

* minor drug offenses, e.g. holding a doobie
* urinating in public
* gambling
* trespassing on private property
* traffic violations

Consider what a Sessions-style "zero tolerance" policy for stuff like this would be. Immediate incarceration until you have a hearing, and if your kids are with you, they go to social services.

You run a stop sign or bet $100 in a football pool, and you go straight to jail. If your kids are with you, they go into a detention facility and from there they go into foster care.

That's what we're talking about.

Just for a change of pace, I agree with ChasWT @ 5:39MP above. This agreement is subject to cessation of the repeated claim that "Libertarians have always believed this since, like forever", and is subject to the licencing agreement contained herein and accepted by letting your cursor cross over MY (mine, mine, mine!) post.

As agreed, disputes are to be adjudicated in binding arbitration, and I get to pick the arbitrator.

PS: Trump and Sessions are scum.

Seconding bobbyp at 7:04

No russell, that's not what we're talking about. The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime. The same punishment for someone illegally entering the country would allow them to stay.

Handing someone a summons to a deportation hearing is ludicrous. Here, you snuck across the border, tried to hide from authorities, we caught you, here's a summons, your free to go, welcome to America.

It's nice you keep quoting that it's a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean? Should they just get to walk across the border and stay?

"there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry"

This is classic, there was this one jerk....with no context at all. I can believe there was one complete ass working for the border patrol. So sure, that shouldn't happen, nor have I heard it happened. Every example I've seen is someone being interviewed that crossed the border in an obvious attempt to enter illegally. Then got caught. As for gaming the system, illegally crossing the border is gaming the system by definition.

So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.

I owe Marty an apology for the "we found out much later" assertion in my 5:50. I don't think that changes my sense of how the arguments go, but it's not literally true, so I retract it.

In any case, I won't bring up the old stuff again.

Marty, it would be better if we took the discussion to one about open/non-open borders. Feelings are running high, especially concerning minors and the arguments to either shift blame (it's the parents fault, not ours) and argue the law (hey, we are just enforcing what is on the books). Saying 'that's not what we are talking about' seems to be getting into questions of mind reading and that is never a good place to be for blog comments.

So why not take a step back and talk about why the US shouldn't have open borders? Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?

So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.

What we should do, and have done, for people claiming asylum, is to give them a preliminary hearing, put an ankle bracelet on them if they seemed not to be dangerous, and send them into the community, where they have to report to Immigration Control weekly. It works.

I know someone in my community that has this going on. It's a pain in the butt for her, in that she has to report to someone, but she and her kid live in a safe community, and her kid goes to public school.

Why is this not good enough?

I know someone in my community [whp] has this going on.

By the way, these folks came here in 2016 during Obama's presidency. Obama enforced the law, and life was not perfect for immigrants, but she has an existence that is safe and nurturing for her and her son.

wj, I've voted for Republicans in the past, one of them for the US Senate. That was before the Republican Party became deeply anti-science, deeply racist, and even more deeply committed to making sure that economic prosperity is not too widely enjoyed. It's not like being black or white or those other things, it's a choice, and that choice is being made in a context. It's an unconscionable choice at this moment, IMO.

Just a brief interlude here, not meant to derail the immigration topic, but mostly for wj, who I know has been interested. Maine had primaries on 6/12. The ranked-choice tabulation for some of the races has taken until today; I was hoping to do a post, but the tabulation took longer than expected and now I'm out of time prior to a trip.

The Republican gubernatorial race had 4 candidates, one of whom (Shawn Moody), won on the first round.

We voted to keep ranked choice voting (to whatever extent we can, which I forget at the moment) by 54-46 or so.

The Democratic gubernatorial race had 7 candidates. After the first round the top two had roughly 33% and 28%. The final vote tally (I haven't read how many rounds they had to go) had Janet Mills winning with 54%. She'll be a good candidate and if all goes well a good governor.

The Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional district had three candidates. The top guy, Jared Golden, had a hair under 50% on the first round, so they had to do another rond. Today it was announced that Jared Golden did indeed win the chance to unseat the (insert epithets here, including cowardly) incumbent R, Bruce Poliquin.

Short of moving to the 2nd district (the boundary isn't very far from where I live), I'm going to contribute as much $ and time as I can to get Jared Golden elected. I think he's a great candidate to have in the race.

sapient,

My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that's how it works today.

Meanwhile, in the strange bedfellows department, not to mention the "you can't make this stuff up" department, we find Michael Cohen resigning from the RNC. Citing as one reason his revulsion at the way immigrants are being treated:

As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart wrenching. While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips.

Hey, JanieM, I just kicked in a modest sum for Jared Golden in honor of our recent peace accords.

(Also, why not? He seems great.)

sapient -- thanks, good stuff!!! I'm really glad!

Every seat counts, and I'm cautiously hopeful. Jared G. ticks a lot of boxes for this race, besides the fact that he seems to be a good guy, smart, articulate, with some experience as a state legislator.

My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that's how it works today.

But you don't get to go to the entry point. Listen to or read this.

I'm not going to keep trying to prove this to you, Marty, because I will end up losing it, so I'll talk to you another day.

JanieM,

Thank you. And I apologize for any personal hurt I caused. My intent is never personal. As for your other point you are absolutely correct. My mind works that way. I process information, I guess, differently, to the point of being frustrated that one thing is being discussed without the various dimensions being considered.

In this discussion, for example, after saying Trump and Sessions are assholes and, as much as possible kids should not be taken away from their parents as givens, there seems to be a lot of variablies to consider, and the facts matter then.

But, it is a flaw to some extent that I recognize. When I had a blog the title line was: Now, A Different View
Changing the discussion by changing the question.

Your point is valid and I do mostly try to contain myself.

Thanks, Marty. Onward!

"But you don't get to go to the entry point. "

That's inconvenient, but a two day wait, or figuring out where another bridge is unconscionable only if one assumes the border guard is lusing and there really is room at processing center. Then is he just being an authoritarian ass or is that a policy?

Like so many things, I want to know if the press is flung so far and wide as to identify any bad actor, or is there a systemic policy reason. I dont see any policy statements that would have closed the bridge.

Now to take ljs advice, but maybe a step further, I am going to just lurk on this point. I want to follow the discussion but I dont think I'm offering any productive insight at this point.

Can't people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?

The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime

yes, that is exactly the difference. good for you for noticing, you make my point eloquently.

watch this:

enter illegally and we send you home.

enter illegally with your kids and we send you all home.

claim asylum and you get a hearing, if you're full of crap or don't qualify you go home, otherwise welcome to america.

claim asylum while accompanied by your kids we keep you with your kids until your hearing, then if you're full of crap or don't qualify you all go home, otherwise welcome to america all y'all.

those are policies commesurate with a misdemeanor. hold in criminal lockup and, if your kids are with you, they go to HHS or foster care, is not.

keep working that "you all want open borders" BS, it lets us all know you're drinking the kool aid.

f this noise. what we're doing is deliberately brutal, and the folks who came up with it are heinous pricks. it's fucking wrong, and you demean yourself by defending it.

Pro Bono, to not leave your question hanging, no, I have never been to Europe. But my statement wasn't accurate, I have been to Canada with only my passport.

Can't people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?

yes, they can

Ok Russell but there is a time lag between each of those things and we send you home. It's called due process. Your status during due process is what is under discussion.

If we catch you and we just March you to the border and send you home was the policy I would have a huge problem with it.

It's nice you keep quoting that it's a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean?

thanks, i'm glad you are enjoying it.

fwiw, i'm not "quoting", i'm pointing out a fact.

what it means when i say "it's a misdemeanor" is that IT'S A MISDEMEANOR. under common law systems, criminal offenses generally are characterized as felonies or misdemeanors.

felonies are serious offenses, typically punished by imprisonment for more than one year.

misdemeanors are less serious, punishable by either short term imprisonment typically not in federal lockup, or more commonly by a fine.

entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor. in particular, it is one in which no harm to persons or property is involved.

hopefully that clarifies my meaning.

Your status during due process is what is under discussion.

as if.

what is under discussion is whether it is appropriate to separate parents from their children during that period.

it's not.

It's not appropriate. It's also not necessary.

Witness the fact that, after insisting for a week that it was acting as required by a law that only Congress could change, the administration reversed itself without trouble. Even for the Trump administration, turning on a dime after numerous cabinet level officials (not to mention the President himself) claimed it was impossible is an impressive case of giving themselves the lie.

At this point, it seems undeniable (not that they won't) that the whole thing was an exercise in deliberate, malicious cruelty.

Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?

i agree, and thank you charles.

i'll offer my take:

immigrants are already here and doing useful, valuable work. for us. for not a lot of money.

unemployment is minimal.

if people want to come here and work, let them do so. if they don't want to stay, they still have to pay taxes etc.

if they want to stay, let them stay.

we issue about a million visas for permanent residence a year. that's about one third of one percent of the population.

trying to keep people out who simply want to come here in good faith and improve their lives, and ours, costs us a ton of money and is rotting our souls as a nation.

i see no upside to what we do now, except as a growth industry for for-profit detention centers. which are a moral blight.

so let's stop being boneheads and let people come.

Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.

You may want to hold off on your assessment of whether it is legal or not.

Just because he signed the order doesn't mean it will stand up in court.

So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.

So my take.

I think that we need to do two things.

We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.

We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.

Right now each side supports one of those positions.

One million visas will be a drop in the bucket if we abandon the first, even one order of magnitude will have a huge economic impact but that would be a small estimate of potential immigration.

We should welcome many more immigrants with less restrictions. We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.

But we need to agree to both, each on it's own is untenable.

When Marty says "fix the problem", sentient people can reasonably ask: which problem?

When ICE arrests 146 workers at an Ohio meatpacking plant, and does NOT perp-walk the plant manager out ahead of them, it's reasonable to suspect that "the problem" Marty means is brown-skinned people trying to earn a living, and not the pasty-white members of the NFIB who so loudly cheered He, Trump's verbal diarrhea a couple of days ago.

--TP

We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.

No, we do not. It has always struck me as odd that we have laws that can only be broken by people who are not even citizens...but whatever. If you demand it be made a crime, then what is to be the punishment? We have several examples of current policy disputes where these two things are at loggerheads: Drugs, abortion, and sex work. If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense. The right always invokes the mantra "We are a nation of laws", well sure, except for those laws they don't particularly care about....LIKE HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS (emphasis mine-thanks Tony) or turning a blind eye to abortion when it's your daughter, concubine, or wife, or getting busted for smoking some dope.

If you don't want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don't even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens. Or, what russell said.

We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.

Yes indeed. But the details matter here. But why not try something different? Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? There are a variety of policies in this regard that we should give more attention to.

We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.

I don't see this as serious. Just how much "financial stability" will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board? And sponsors? Egad. You know what sponsors want? They want cheap labor.

So is cheap labor your preferred way of promoting the General Welfare, Marty?

So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.

The weak link consists of moderate Republicans wher are willing to work with Dems to pass a humane immigration reform package, but GOP leadership, held hostage by their extremist wing, will not allow a vote.

The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out and take their taco trucks, their restaurants with menus in Spanish, and their brown skinned kids in THEIR schools with them.

Barring a total Dem electoral sweep (an outcome devoutly to be wished), this is a civil war that has to be settled amongst those on the right of the political spectrum.

If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense.

Well, in the sense that people's welfare is promoted by feeling virtuous. Even though they behave otherwise. That's the basis of all "blue laws" -- they forbid "sinning" (however defined).

Of course they don't work. But it makes those demanding them feel good and virtuous.

The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out

I think you're inaccurately conflating two different groups.

One wants cheap labor. They could generally care less whether the immigrant part of that labor is temporarily or permanently resident. (So long as they don't become voters who will vote "wrong," of course.) Mostly, their concerns about cultural contamination are minimal -- perhaps because they mostly see their culture as different from that of the "uncultured" masses. For example, their kids aren't going to be in public schools with "those people's" kids anyway.

The other doesn't want guest workers, or any other kind of immigrants who might hold wages down. They don't much care for anyone who is not like them (however defined -- a shifting target). They actually need some of them around, just to feel superior to. But heaven forbid they be in sufficient numbers to be a significant part of society. That might have been tolerable when there were laws to "keep them in their place" (i.e. down), but no more.

The other doesn't want guest workers

Yes. They do. Because that is the way to keep "them" socially isolated and under control. I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.

I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.

Specifically agricultural wages? No. But unhappy about lack of jobs paying decent wages? Very much so.

From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not...

Is that correct ?

Of course immigration to relatively wealthy countries is a problem whether or not they have as president a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Migrants continue to drown in the Mediterranean in numbers I will not estimate, since each man's death diminishes us.

However, it's impossible to have an informed debate on current US policy, since the president, in addition to what I've already quoted about him, is a habitual liar who lies about everything he does and the reasons for it.

Steve Schmidt -
"Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump."
https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/steve-schmidt-gop-1202852019/

A handful of Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that they have a problem...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-sanford-insult-amash-costello-660488
“Had a great meeting with the House GOP last night at the Capitol,” the president posted on Twitter as he was en route to Duluth, Minnesota, for a rally Wednesday evening. “They applauded and laughed loudly when I mentioned my experience with Mark Sanford. I have never been a fan of his!”

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) responded that that lawmakers were instead “disgusted.”
“House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity,” Amash tweeted. “Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted.”

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) also denied Trump’s claim that Republicans were cheering about his Sanford comments at the GOP closed-door conference on Tuesday night.
“Categorically false,” Costello tweeted in response to the president’s post.

Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.

because it's no secret that the Flores case is a 'conservative' bête noire and now they've crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.

it's no accident. it's not unplanned. Trump et al aren't hapless naifs struggling against the evil Courts.

"If you don't want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don't even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens."

Could not agree more.

"Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? "


I made this point, last week I think.

"How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? "

Great ideas, 100% agree.


"Just how much "financial stability" will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board?"

Canada accepts many more immigrants than we do by percentage. Their requirements seem reasonable to me YMMV.

The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist. It's actually just tiresome at this point to read another five sentences about how everyone who disagrees is just against brown people. If all the poor people in Guatemala and Mexico were white there would still need to be immigration laws, but it would be more difficult to profile a set of people for suspicion or to treat them as an oppressed minority. So likely racists and Democrats would care less about the issue.

Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem

Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem

what's crucial, and missing, is Republican leadership willing to let things come up for votes, and a President who would sign something that doesn't contain hundreds of billions of dollars for an unneeded wall.

Trump's war against irony rages on...

Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime confidant and former personal attorney, has resigned from his post as deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee's Finance Committee, sources close to the RNC told ABC News.

...

"As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart wrenching,” Cohen wrote. “While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-resigns-rnc-committee-post/story?id=56033406

The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Right now each side supports one of those positions.

this is false.

nobody is calling for open borders.

what people are opposed to is "zero tolerance" enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.

Right now each side supports one of those positions.

this is false.

nobody is calling for open borders.

what people are opposed to is "zero tolerance" enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.

We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.

No. We should not prosecute them. Not only is it inhumane, it's a waste. Do we want to do what it takes to detain, hold, try, and imprison those who cross illegally? Remember, they really have done nothing that resembles committing an actual crime. Besides, ICE is thuggish enough already. Let's not expand it and give them more excuses for bad behavior.

The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral.

Spending $20-25 billion on a useless wall is a complete waste.

Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.

because it's no secret that the Flores case is a 'conservative' bête noire and now they've crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.

correct.

there are legal challenges because the new policy conflicts with... the law.

cleek thinks this is a plan, i could be easily persuaded that "a plan" gives too much credit, and that it's trump, miller, et al flipping us all the bird.

just another way of saying "womp womp".

horrible people make horrible policy. the price of your wonderful tax cut is cruel, half-assed clusterf**ks like this.

there was no prepation for this policy, sessions dropped it and now everyone is scrambling. and not doing such a great job, some of these people won't see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.

it's a f***ing mess.

more people try to enter the country than we have resources to manage at the "well, just enforce the law" policy you seem to be looking for. so, we prioritize. obama aggressively went after people who had criminal histories, or who were more serious violaters - re-entry after prior deportation, etc. and obama-era policies were quite aggressive.

sessions decided the thing to do was focus on aggressively prosecuting every entry under criminal law. so now we have a mess.

if you want to tell me that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of these people are brown and speak a different language, i'm going to ask you what freaking country you hink you are living in, and invite you to review every freaking stump speech trump ever gave, beginning with the very first one.

this shit is what he ran on. it's what his people want, and he is giving it to them.

some of these people aren't going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it's stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.

Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform

actually, that was barack obama.

you know, the tyrant.

you can look it up, don't take my word for it.

"imprison those who cross illegally"

I'm not talking about imprisoning them, except for the shortest time possible while deporting them. But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that's a crime and you are subject to deportation. The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.


Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.

"Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral. "

No, its amoral as is most government. There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.

That's really how government should work.

From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not...

Is that correct ?

Not exactly.

The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist.

Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve "the problem" is no excuse to not solve "the problem".

Maybe first somebody should tell me what "the problem" is?

some of these people won't see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.

This, to my mind, is the most unforgivable piece of an overall massively immoral policy. No way to track the individual kids, so you could someday return them to their parents?

Just to take the most obvious point, if you don't track the kids, how will you know when their parents are deported? And if you don't know that, are you just going to keep the kids here until they turn 18 and you can deport them separately?

I'd ask what these morons were thinking, except the answer is obvious -- they don't think.

Not exactly

"...an employer can be penalized for discrimination for checking documents too zealously or insisting on a particular document, such as a green card. The way the rules put it, you should accept documents from the I-9 lists that “reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.”..."

But substantially.

Slate makes a respectable point:

In abusive relationships, abusers know how grateful people feel when the suffering they’ve inflicted stops. This is a dynamic worth resisting, so here is where the words you choose matter: If you describe the moment when an abusive person stops as relenting or relieving or any variant that invokes mercy, you’re flattering the abuser, painting him as not just powerful but benevolent. Crediting him with defusing a situation he created positions him (as Brian Phillips points out) as the hero deactivating the bomb rather than the person who lit the fuse....

It's the same pattern with NK. From "little rocket man" and "fire and fury" and "bigger nuclear button" to "Look how much safer we are now that I've diffused all this tension!"

Maybe first somebody should tell me what "the problem" is?

Fever dreams of welfare cheats born elsewhere draining our scarce resources.

You May Be A Racist If:

1) You talk as if walking across the US/Mexico border is the only form of illegal immigration.

That is all.

--TP

Just came across a great line (from a Public Defender in El Paso, whose trying to work with the detained parents):
If you arrested, they take your wallet and you get a receipt. When you leave, you get the wallet back. But now, if they take you child, you don't even get a slip of paper? And they have no way to even find the child again??

MAIA -- make American Incompetent Again.

"Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve "the problem" is no excuse to not solve "the problem"."

We are not talking about hurt feelings here, we are talking about adults working out disagreements without resorting every fifth sentence to calling each other names like twelve year olds. Both sides. Yes, both sides. FFS.

There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.

That's really how government should work.

I disagree. First of all, even for those who want much better border security, the wall is a bad idea and a waste of money. It's popular with some because it sounds tough, and Trump made an issue of it during the campaign.

More important is this. A substantial majority of the country wants to do something to legalize the Dreamers. Even Republicans. Even Trump claims that he wants to. (He's lying, but let's take him at his word.)

So why make the damn wall an obstacle to doing something, unrelated to the wall, about the Dreamers? It's nothing but hostage-taking.

Compare:

"Yes. I really want to let your kid go home, but you have to send me $50,000 first."

and.

"Yes. I really want to do something about the Dreamers, but you have to give me $25 billion for the wall first."

That is what Trump, and the Republicans in Congress, are doing. Simple cruelty.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/stable-genius-at-work.html

https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Trump-retreats-on-separating-families-but-13012090.php

Notice the continuity between that photograph and this, especially the expression on the face of the lunkhead God bothering ghoul standing to the right:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QzX5cGKN6Eg

That scene in It's A Wonderful Life was shot two ways by Frank Capra. The alternative, which will see the light of day in good time, has George Bailey dropping the cigar as a ruse and drawing an NRA-approved semi-automatic pistol and shooting the two vermin villians in their heads and then, instead of getting drunk and attempting suicide, he gathers up his family, Zuzu's petals, the hapless Uncle Billy, cabbie Ernie and Violet Bick and heads for the hills to remake America from common decency while filling Potter's Field with millions of dead Potters.

Even guardian Angel Clarence relents and joins the effort as he realizes Bailey's amorality is just the ticket for some savage fucking justice against home-grown assholes and jagoffs.

"Yeah, But What About McManus and Stalin"', the musical, opens on Broadway, but closes after one matinee performance, as the public yawns at its utter irrelevancy and forgettable songs.

Try this for the photograph in that second cite.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/their-hero.html

But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that's a crime and you are subject to deportation.

I think everyone understands that entering without proper documentation is against the law, and doing so makes you subject to deportation.

The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.

Apparently you do not have a clear understanding of what sanctuary cities are about.

Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.

This man, he is made of straw. If you're addressing me, you need to read my comments more carefully.

Conversely, when people tell me that this whole issue has nothing to do with race, after the very public statements of the POTUS and folks in his circle, to say nothing of the public statements of his rank and file followers, I have to ask if those people are arguing in good faith.

Want to close that gap? You need to be a hell of a lot more candid about what motivates the folks who support this crap. I have eyes in my head, and the whole "it ain't about them being brown" thing is a dog that does not hunt.

If you want to get down to it and talk about what's actually going on here, fine with me. Then let's really get down to it.

We can start with a review of Trump's speech, declaring himself a candidate for office. And then we can proceed from there.

oh look, Trump found yet another policy option he didn't know he had.

We’re suspending prosecutions of adults who are members of family units until ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can accelerate resource capability to allow us to maintain custody,” the official said.

[ht BJ]

bbbbuutttt Caaaahhhhnnnnngresssss!

Per cleek's link, zero tolerance is still the policy, yet they won't detain families for extended periods, rather they will release them to await a hearing.

Because ICE lacks the detention capacity to increase the number of families it holds in detention, the official acknowledged that many migrant parents and children will likely be released from custody while they await court hearings.

So zero tolerance doesn't require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.

Marty?

The comments to this entry are closed.