« Goooooooooooal! A World cup thread | Main | OK, a final four World Cup thread that ObWi deserves »

July 05, 2018

Comments

No, it's not just another day in the US. And neither is this.

We need to quit pretending that this isn't a fight against the Nazis, and do what's necessary.

Who is going to organize this? I organized a couple of people to hold a sign for three weeks on Thursdays, so obviously I'm not so good an organizer. Let's get it together to do something. I noticed, while I was organizing, that mostly it was women who stepped up. Ummm. Yeah. Sebastian, in addition to refusing to donate body parts, are you doing anything? I know russell is. Others?

oops. forgot to preview.

We're a quiet group here, talking about peripheral things.

I suggest that we should strategize about what to do with the Nazis.

I get voting. I'm working on that in my state, and encourage everyone to do make it happen in theirs. But what do you think the traitor Republicans were doing hanging out with Putin apparatchiks on July 4?

I'm talking about Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Steve Daines (Mont.), John Thune (S.D.), John Kennedy (La.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), John Hoeven (N.D.), and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).

Electoral intervention for them?

Traitors.

How are we going to actually do something? What are we doing, each of us? GOTV your hearts out until November. If that helps, that's a start. If not, we need to have other plans and we need to start thinking about them now.

the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.

this country has lost it's freaking mind.

oops, posted before i clicked through sapient's link.

Keep making it about whites and Nazis. That's worked wonders so far. This crap will bury us all, dammit.

Yama, I suggest you keep hiding.

the military is also discharging immigrant recruits.

I wish I could say I'm surprised. But consider how intent Trump et al are about stopping immigrants from coming here. Why wouldn't he shut down a program which lets a bunch of d*mn furriners become citizens for nothing more than serving in the US military. I mean, Trump's high opinion of the military is obvious from the lengths he went to in order to enlist himself....

I actually found the Army discharge story to be strangely more shocking than the rest of the recent stories. I'm not totally sure why, but I did.

Yama, is your comment directed at the OP or sapient's comment? Fair warning, I was going to draw a nazism parallel with 'denaturalization' (perhaps Hartmut can give us the German word for when they revoked the citizenship of the Jewish citizens that I think Hilberg discusses), so I was thinking that, but I'm curious precisely what triggered your comment.

About the army discharging immigrant recruits, it also parallels some of Hilberg's arguments about the fact that Hitler should not be considered central to the Holocaust. I would be very interested to know if there were specific orders asking the armed forces to discharge immigrants and DACA or if this was taken because it was assumed that this is what the current administration wants.

I had a similar question: Who, exactly, gave the orders that led to this?

it would be to change the complexion of the House in a way that would make it more hospitable to progressive notions.

Aka more... representative of the actual electorate.

The Nazis went step by step, not in one go. The most important legal step were the two 1935 Nuremberg laws, the one being the Reichsbürgergesetz ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgergesetz )(citizenship law), the other the „Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre“ (Law for the protection of the German blood and the German honour).
In essence the first made Jews second class citizens (legal residents as opposed to full citizens), the second made miscegenation illegal. One detail that might have special meaning for USians is that the first law banned Jews from using the German flag in any form while 'granting them the privilege to fly the Jewish colours under the protection of the state'.
The latter was of course a cruel joke but, as we know from RW media, even that pseudo-privilege would be anathema to US nationalists that see any Cinco de Mayo celebration as mass treason. Iirc there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations (e.g. state visits by foreign dignitaries or international sporting events taking place on US soil).

Thanks Hartmut. That wikipedia link gave me enough to find what I was thinking about, which was

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_%C3%BCber_den_Widerruf_von_Einb%C3%BCrgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangeh%C3%B6rigkeit

Using this law, when Jews were deported to the camps that were outside the borders of the Reich, they automatically lost their citizenship. The wikipedia article notes that Theresienstadt was in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (part of Czech Sudetenland) that was declared part of the Reich in 1939, so when Jews were sent there, they had bailiffs formally serve injunctions in order to follow legal procedures.

Interestingly, it wasn't until 1968 that the legality of stripping the citizenship those who left the Reich was legally rejected.

there were attempts not that long ago to require that the US flag always fly higher even on official state events than that of other nations...

With a special exception for besties ... ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44435035

Nigel, I was going to say that under Trump we don't appear to have besties any more.

But, as your photo makes clear, we apparently do . . . just not any of the folks that would normally be preferred.

The government agency that oversees immigration applications is hiring lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants suspected of obtaining citizenship through fake identities or other false information on their applications.

Hmm, so it's a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it's not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?

Is that really where we are now?

Hmm, so it's a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it's not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?

I wonder which citizens are suspected of this. I wonder why it's a priority all of a sudden.

Your tax dollars at work, McKinney.

I don't have a problem with prosecuting (and expelling) those who got citizenship via fraud. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like the best possible use of resources at the moment. For openers, the courts which process applicants for asylum are seriously shorthanded. If we had enough lawyers and judges there, we could have avoided a lot of the family separation fiasco.

It's like the branch of ICE that goes after actual serious criminals asking to be separated from ICE because it can't get resources. On account of all resources being devoted to finding illegal immigrants who aren't breaking any other law -- apparently just because they are soft targets and can run the numbers up.

Maybe Trump's DHS would better serve the country by spending some of your tax dollars on this, McKinney. I mean, separating families, and then not knowing how to put them back together again - that seems kind of important. Also, spending tons of money (to private prison profiteers) to incarcerate asylum seekers who were doing just fine with the ankle bracelet system - all good, McKinney?

Suddenly you're very much okay with government spending!

Suddenly you're very much okay with government spending!

In other words, in answer to your question, (this one: Hmm, so it's a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it's not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi?

Yes. It's all of a piece.

The protocol for the US flag when displayed with flags of other nations on US soil is that the US flag must be no smaller than any other flag, and all the flags should be displayed at the same height, with the US flag leftmost (from viewer's point of view).

When displayed with flags of lesser jurisdictions - states, counties, etc. - the US flag should be higher.

FWIW.

Regarding revoking citizenship for folks who obtained it fraudulently, I will be curious to see what gets counted as 'fraud'. And, I'm curious to see what the countries of origin are for the folks singled out for this treatment.

Here are the top 25 countries of origin for folks here illegally. Which of them will get the most attention?

I don't agree with the "nazi" characterization. It's not needed, we have our own history and tradition of singling out people from certain places, and people who look certain ways, for special consideration when it comes to immigration and naturalization.

This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.

It's the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.

If He, Trump's administration has enough time on its hands to "review" naturalization "fraud", I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship. I don't know that she told any, and I bet McKinney doesn't know either. But I suspect only one of us wonders about it.

I immigrated to the US at age 9 through a port of entry. AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney's is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?

--TP

I wonder what little white lies Melania Knaus (current Third Lady of the United States) will turn out to have told in Her quest for US citizenship.

Just for openers, I have to wonder how she qualified for the exception (aka the "Einstein exception") that goes to those who have very rare abilities. Is it really that difficult to find a model among Americans? Even a "super model"?

AFAIK, McKinney immigrated to the US at age 0 through a maternity ward. Obviously, McKinney is more entitled to US citizenship than Melania or I are; McKinney's is in some sense a higher class of citizenship, since his is irrevocable. Right, McKinney?

You make a lot of assumptions, TP. Seems to be a lot of that lately. The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It's a simple question.

This is just more of the same old bigotry, warmed over and served up for a new generation.

It's the cruel bitch side of America. Always been part of the mix.

I disagree that we shouldn't use the term "Nazi." The United States certainly does have its own history, exactly as you say, but when we saw what it looked like in WWII, when we were fighting against it, we made a lot of progress in the ensuing years to fight what that looked like at home. We (many of us) learned a lesson, in other words, that we didn't want to look like that.

The fight for civil rights, and the idea that our society would continue to identify and eradicate bigotry, those things became popular as a result of the lessons that we learned. Obviously, that post-war American ethic wasn't shared by all, and wasn't reflected in all of our policies.

I don't reject the quest to identify and understand the ugliness in American history, especially racism. I do reject that idea that it has any place in our modern mythology, or public self-image. Trump is trying to put it back there, to glorify it as part of our national identity. You can call it neo-Confederatism if you want, but that confuses the issue for a lot of people, especially since their leader comes from Manhattan.

Settling on a term that everyone understands, about a movement that glorified violence, hatred, nihilism, and racism - I think it's easy for people to understand, and it fits them just fine.

Also, the big lie. Another similarity with the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Maoists. Pick your totalitarian movement.

That's certainly one question, McKinney.

Tell us, when you're not giving us yes/no questions (which are perfectly reasonable ones, actually), I'd like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question. It's possible some of these servicemen may have comitted fraud, but there's no particular reason to think so. We know you despise Trump and disapproved of his equivalencies after Charlottesville. How does this kind of stuff make you feel, McKinney?

Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? It's a simple question.

No.

I'm curious to know what you would call it.

We have had programs of denaturalization before, for various reasons. They have typically not been our proudest moments as a nation.

What we're living through right now is not one of our proudest moments as a nation. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this bullshit to go on.

Making things sh*tty for some of the most powerless among us is our national priority.

Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.

If this doesn't make you violently ill, than I have to wonder ....

Now the government is asking for more time to reunite families, because they never were going to do it in the first place, after having lied to these people. This is United States policy, and it's nauseating. Yes, I'll call them Nazis. Anyone else can use whatever term they find convenient.

I'd like to know what your feelings are about immigrant soldiers, serving in the US military, being dismissed with no cause given. This is not a yes/no question.

If they were contracted with full disclosure--or all of the disclosure requested--and if this is a 'thing' about not allowing otherwise eligible and qualified immigrants to serve and nothing else, then it's pretty shitty, but that case has yet to be made.

I'm curious to know what you would call it.

I'm a lawyer. All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages. So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don't care who is president when it happens.

All of my training and my personal instincts are that if you get something by fraud, you have to give it back and pay any attendant damages.

Please do a damages valuation.

What about the fraud committed when snatching people's children under false pretenses? A valuation of that too, while you're at it, would be appreciated.

Read this, McKinney, and tell me how our priority right now should be digging into citizenship files and trying to denaturalize people.

Ok, let's be clear about one thing: I'm not going to get into a debate about anything with you. Even when you are right, you are generally so over the top that reasoned discourse just isn't going to happen. Anyone who doesn't buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program is on the suspected Nazi list. You probably don't appreciate the irony of that.

So, no problem in principle with declassifying under these specific circumstances and I don't care who is president when it happens.

I'm not sure how to square "in principle" with "under these specific circumstance." What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?

Anyone who doesn't buy into your specific and incredibly demanding program

It is your choice not to interact with me. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States should consider the claims of asylum seekers and not treat them as criminals. My specific and incredibly demanding program requires that the United States not engage in a witch hunt to ferret out citizens who are causing no trouble whatsoever, in order to strip them of their citizenship and make them miserable.

We live in a country made up of immigrants, descendants of immigrants, native Americans, and slaves. There is a white supremacist program of ethnic cleansing going on, and I refuse to pretend that it's okay. That's my specific and incredibly demanding program.

The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok?

Well, that's one question. Another is, what are our priorities? Your local police department can increase its number of arrests by focusing on (minor) crimes that are easy to close. Say littering.

No question that's illegal. No question that it's a problem. But do you cut staff devoted to homicide or grand theft in order to get more littering arrests and convictions? Because that's the kind of thing that a focus on obtaining citizenship by fraud instead of drug traffic or human trafficing is doing.

I'm not sure how to square "in principle" with "under these specific circumstance." What specific circumstances? Why in principle rather than in practice?

I tend toward hedging my bets when I'm working off of a one or two sentence blurb. Years of unpleasant experience in and out of the courtroom has taught me that what is *said* to have happened or *said* to be the case and what actually *happened* or what actually is the case are often different things, sometimes very different. Everyone tends to be the hero in their own story, few take ownership of a bad result. So I'm buying in in principle assuming the facts are as represented. Covering my bets, so to speak.

So what are we talking about here?

LJ says: "But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?"

I will repeat two of his words: "Main Focus".

However, as I've noted, the circumstances for declassification are fraud in the inducement.

Then the subject gets changed--not unusual in my experience--to nit-picking such as WJ's "priorities".

LJ says it's the 'main focus'. Do the rest here agree with that?

If we are going to rend ourselves over something, shouldn't we first agree that that the "something" is worth the candle?

lj and wj are two different people, thus the l and the w.

I'm not sure wj is nitpicking, in light of the resources being taken away from the people who go after drug and human traffickers. The concept of priority is rather important.

I'm a lawyer

I'm not a lawyer, so my avenue of discourse is common sense and noting the obvious.

Since 1990, there have been about 300 civil denaturalization proceedings. Trump's program anticipates 'several thousand'. So, this will not be business as usual.

The bar for fraud as a justification for denaturalization has apparently been fairly high, historically. People are denaturalized for things like hiding the fact that they were Nazis. For example.

Is that what we're talking about? The sudden discovery that 'several thousand' nazis or their like have, somehow, fraudulently acquired US citizenship?

What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on 'fraud' of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.

You know, like the bullshit the insurance companies pulled when they wanted to kick sick people off of their health insurance coverage.

The value of this exercise relative to its cost and intrusiveness will be minimal, other than to demonstrate hostility to 'foreigners' and to appease the malice of Trump's supporters.

That's how this particular non-lawyer sees it.

It is not only possible, it's quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.

Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.

That's what this is. It's a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump's people don't like.

Shame on him, and on them.

Effing illegal immigrants, they should have chosen to be born in the United States, not my fault you chose some sh1thole country to crawl out of your mother's uterus in.

I say, let 'em crash.

The concept of priority is rather important.

Especially when this priority is seen in light of other priorities, it all adds up to ethnic cleansing.

This article recounts an interesting history of denaturalization. I wonder why it's suddenly seen as a problem. I'm sure that intimidation, and making people feel unwelcome and insecure has nothing at all to do with it. Nothing at all.

It is not only possible, it's quite common for people to abide by every letter of the law, while using it to screw other people over, for no particularly good reason.

Even you, a lawyer, must be familiar with that phenomenon.

That's what this is. It's a petty, malicious vendetta against people that Trump's people don't like.

Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing. Generally speaking, using BS pretexts to screw someone out of anything is bad business. So far, that hasn't been demonstrated in this particular instance. It could be demonstrated later, but right now, it's supposition.

Taking something away obtained by fraud--if the deception is material--doesn't bother me. It is well short of declassifying and gassing all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other undesirables.

To pour some extra oil into the fire: The Nazi laws in question here were directly inspired and heavily influenced by US laws existing at the time (also Hitler repeatedly referred to them both in his book and in speeches, and in the post-war trials it was a standard part of the defense to cite those laws chapter and verse.)

As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.

wrs

the #1 consistent policy-based (as opposed to rampant corruption) priority of this administration from day 1 has been to sh1t on Hispanics and Muslims, American citizens or not, legally, and illegally if they can get away with it.

Stephen Miller got his dream position and the racist sociopath is taking full advantage.

"pretty shitty" seems to me to best describe actions by individuals. What if it turns out to have been some kind of "policy" under the circumstances you describe, how would you see it then?

wus

McTX,

Forgive me for having "assumed" that you are a maternity-ward immigrant rather than that lesser kind of citizen whose citizenship is open to "review".

But just to get your "principles" nailed down:
If it turns out that Melania Trump, or Rupert Murdoch for that matter, lied on some naturalization form -- IF, I said -- would you advocate that they be deported? Or merely be absolved from jury duty, removed from the voter rolls, and have their US passports confiscated?

As for your "don't cry until you're bitten" theme: nice try at changing the subject.

--TP

Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.

Indeed, and since when you start digging into the historical records there turns out to be almost no such thing as an incontrovertible fact, there will be a plethora of flimsy excuses.

Example. Every now and then I spend some time trying to find more information about my ancestors. For a while, www.ellisisland.org made if very easy to search their database and see photos of the ship manifests that recorded information about passengers who were coming to this country.

My paternal grandfather came to the US from Italy as a child, with his mother and half a dozen siblings. Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database -- easy to understand why, since it was transcribed by volunteers trying to read old-fashioned handwriting that quite often probably recorded misspellings in the first place, or equally often was just misread. Also, it would appear that a woman traveling with her children was recorded under her maiden name. So it took me a long, long time to find the family grouping (with my g-g-grandmother under her mistranscribed maiden surname), all the more so since they apparently tried to come over twice and didn't make it (maybe one of the kids was sick and so the family wasn't allowed to board the ship). I found this out by looking at two ship manifests where the relevant names were recorded and then crossed out; the database does not reflect that level of refinement.

But finally they got here, where admitted, and headed from Ellis Island to Ohio to join my great-grandfather, who had come a couple of years previously to find work.

Meanwhile, one of my second cousins had done some other digging and had come up with a copy of my grandfather's naturalization form. He was maybe nine or ten when he came over, and IIRC he was in his late twenties when he became a citizen.

Interestingly, the year recorded on the ship manifest (of which the website has a photo) was one year different from the year on his citizenship application.

I'm as sure as I can be that this was exactly the kind of mistake russell is talking about. He came as a child; in my experience, they weren't a family to get very worried about precision of numbers and dates. (That's my mom's side. ;-)

Is this fraud? I hardly think so. Would Clickbait and his minions treat it as such if the person in question was the wrong color, the wrong religion, or otherwise qualified for Jeff Sessions's fever dreams of undesirables? I'm quite sure they would.

Any system will have cheaters, and there's a tipping point in any system where it costs more (in $ and other things) to root them out. Saying that this is an evilly-inspired expensive witch hunt is not the same (no matter who cleverly McKinney twists the logic) as saying that fraud is okay.

If they reallyl care about fraud, I have a few suggestions for them.

What I expect from this administration is harassment of people who are living useful, productive, law-abiding lives, and the denaturalization and immediate deportation of several thousand of them, in many cases based on 'fraud' of the caliber of mis-stating simple facts. Wrong address, incorrect name, got the wrong dates for previous residence, omission of less-than-consequential detail.

Yes.

These investigations are not neutral. And often they will be inaccurate or unfair. "Gave us the wrong birthdate? Out with you."

Is it " a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? " Depends. It is a very nasty play to start investigating right and left, and trying to deport people whose "fraud" may have been an honest error.

Come on, McKinney. You're a lawyer. Surely you are aware that coming under government investigation, even if innocent as a babe, is an extremely unpleasant experience. And surely you also know that when the investigator is a vindictive thug, which is the default assumption for this Administration, bad things can easily happen.

So let's not pretend they are rooting out war criminals or the like and that it's all fine. We know how the Administration"enforces the law" when brown people are involved.

As for those directly involved in the child separation program, SOME of them ARE G#DDAMNED NAZIS IN ALL BUT UNIFORM!!! and Himmler would be proud of them.

Anyone who reads the court documents that I linked to at 2:49 pm, and ignores that what's happening to those families, taken together with the Muslim ban, the threat to denaturalize citizens, and to incarcerate asylum seekers for unlimited amounts of time, focusing instead on petty justifications for policies that are far from normal, are enabling something very, very dark.

It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.

A quick googling spat out this, just in case someone is asking for evidence (concerning US influence on the Nuremberg Laws):
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10925.html
The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.

Taking something away obtained by fraud--if the deception is material--doesn't bother me.

Ah, but is it material? Given the Trump administration track record, that doesn't seem to be something that one can assume. Rather the contrary, when it comes to immigrants -- legal or illegal.

The author states in an interview that he even looked into the stenographic notes of the sessions wherein the laws were crafted and they were full of references to US law.

I've read this as well. What we need to have learned is that resurgent racism is common among humans and we have to fight it before it turns into institutionalized genocide. What's happening is not trivial.

Well, what I do see is a lot of moving targets and subject changing.

And what I see is a dogged determination to not address any point raised other than "sapient called them Nazis" and "if it's fraud the law says you can take it back".

If there are multiple subjects under discussion and you only want to talk about one or two very narrow ones, I'm not sure you get to claim "moving targets". We're not obliged to only talk about the points you want to argue against.

right now, it's supposition.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.

There were actually three questions: Hmm, so it's a play right out of the run up to the Holocaust to revoke fraudulently obtained citizenship? Anyone who says it's not ok to obtain citizenship under false pretenses is a Nazi? Is that really where we are now?

None of them were simple, and all of them were lawyerly traps made of convoluted logic and the usual putting words into people's mouths that they didn't say and thoughts into their heads that they didn't think, with an accusatory sneer as icing on the cake.

I, for example, trying to untwist the logic a bit, would happily agree that "it's not okay to obtain citizenship under false pretenses." But that really has nothing to do with the actual issue, which is that what the Clickbait administration is doing is a witch hunt that has almost nothing to do with true fraud. It's their patented petty viciousness and fear-mongering and nothing much else.

IOW, "simple" question #2 mischaracterized what people are objecting to. I leave the rest as an exercise for anyone who doesn't any anything better to do.

Finding them was quite a quest: names are often misspelled in the database

A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.

By the time they left Ellis, it was 'Bishop'.

The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud. Is that ok or not ok? Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism?

On the second question, I'd lean toward no. I'd have to assume the proper execution of executive/administrative functions as well as judicial processes though. Which is what I think people are fighting you on here.

On the first, meh, tell me what counts as material fraud.

One of the reasons immigrants have been given for their being discharged from the military is that the DoD has been unable to complete a background check. So, not that the background check revealed a problem - just that they "couldn't" do one.

Along the lines of what wj wrote, I'm not sure why the burden of proof should be on those who don't trust the Trump administration. What good faith have they demonstrated? What competence?

I'm listening to the radio. They're discussing the discharge issue. A review of the paperwork for an interviewed Pakistani immigrant being discharged revealed that the reason was "foreign ties." His parents and fiancé are in ...Pakistan!

Immigrants with foreign ties. Who knew?

UPDATE: Govt tells judge only half of the ~100 children under 5 separated from their parents will be reunified by July 10 deadline. 20 pct of parents have been released and their whereabouts largely unknown.

But hey

Govt lawyer tells judge she has dogsitting responsibilities so will have to leave town and cannot meet tomorrow for status update on 100 children under 5. I love my dog but...but this is a new one!

A friend of mine of Russian Jewish extraction has a historical family name of Faybusovitch.

By the time they left Ellis, it was 'Bishop'.

Besides the problems Janie describes, there is also the issue that many immigrants - Russian, Greek, Armenian, others, came from countries that did not use the Latin alphabet. Many European Jews, even if their home country did use it, were more accustomed to using Yiddish, written with the Hebrew alphabet, as their everyday language.

There is an old joke about some Jewish immigrants at Ellis Island being so nervous they forgot their names. When asked they responded, "Schoen Vergessen" - I just forgot - which the officer duly recorded as "Sean Ferguson."

I don't know why that makes me think of John Smoketoomuch.

Hitler was born in Austria. CHECKMATE, LIBS!

McKinney,

Your argument presupposes good faith on the part of the Administration. I am not willing to grant that, especially not in immigration cases. Do you truly believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Not only did they separate children from their parents, they apparently couldn't be bothered to keep track of the whole process.

Now, they are crying for more time, and expressing amazement, in court, that the judge's reunification order extends to parents who have been deported while their children continued to be held.

Nazis or not, the people doing this are racist thugs.

Papers please

The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.

The issue is the reallocation of resources to what appears to be a rather minuscule matter. The issue is how this sudden priority fits into a grander theme....the racist anti-immigrant tenor of this administration and the public policies that result.

I would assert it is reasonable to characterize Trump as a racist pig. It would also seem reasonable to hold the opinion that he is trying to shape public policy in light of this fact.

Reasonable enough for you? Yes or no!

Is that ok or not ok?

That depends (Really, I am not a lawyer!). What do you mean by "OK"?

It seemed like such a simple question. I guess not.

Jesus wept.

Papers please

Just to be clear, within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally. That "within 100 miles of the border" includes the coasts -- so if you are in such notable border states as Virginia or Oregon, you can still be required to show papers.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not routinely carry my passport. So how would I go about proving my right to be here? A drivers license, after all, is ID but proves nothing about citizenship. (Or course, being a blue-eyed blond I would be extremely unlikely to be stopped....)

JUST IN: Federal judge agrees to delay next meeting about extending deadline to reunite 101 children under the age of 5 until Monday because Trump administration lawyer has “dog sitting responsibilities” this weekend.
@JuliaEAinsley

I love this country.

The issue is obtaining US citizenship by fraud.

No, that isn't the issue. Or, wrs about narrowness of focus.

Jesus wept

A much better response than mine.

So what are we talking about here?

LJ says: "But my main focus is taking away citizenship and if anyone is as horrified as I am about it. Or is it just another day in the US?"

I will repeat two of his words: "Main Focus".

Sorry, the time zone difference (and the World Cup game) had me late to the party.

McT, in the phrase above, 'main focus' is modified by the possessive pronoun 'my'. Ya see, I'm in the process of getting Japanese citizenship, hence the 'my'. (also, as Janie points out, Lj is not Wj. Two different people)

Anyway, MY main focus doesn't have to be yours and it isn't the 'blog's', unless you believe that the Blog is Me. So you may want to drop tnat line of argument and get to the main thing, which is to explain to all us fuzzy headed C/S progressives what constitutes 'material'.

Of course, again, being the fuzzy headed C/S progressive that I am, I would point out that your viewpoint comes from your privilege, making it hard for you to understand and sympathize with a situation such as this

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/immigrant-parents-fragile-state-interviews-asylum-child-separation

I'd also note that when you try to reduce the issue to simple yes/no questions, it makes you look like a racist, something you might want to avoid if you aren't.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/among-the-putative-parents

But it also seems clear that the government is holding out the specter that substantial numbers of these “putative parents” may be human smugglers or unrelated criminals when there is really no evidence that’s the case. It is, as the judges sometimes put it, something that shocks the conscience that, having first separated these families, the government would now make itself the judge of the parents’ fitness to be parents. It is impossible to read these arguments and not be convinced that the same aggressive and punitive desire to do harm isn’t motivating the nominal reunification process just as it drove the decision to separate the families in the first instance.

The same applies to asking to be let off the hook about parents who’ve already been deported. I don’t doubt that there are cases where it actually will be difficult to reunify … say, an impoverished mother in Guatemala who is hiding from her abusive husband with two children who’ve been transported from Texas to Ohio. But who’s fault is that? It goes without saying that that is going to make unification a real challenge and create a real risk the family will never be reunited. That was obvious going in. But they did it anyway. Certainly the government has a deep, affirmative responsibility to do everything it can to bring these parents and children back together.

within 100 miles of the border ICE can stop anyone and require them to prove that they are in the country legally.

Apparently a guy in Harvard Square, the very heart of the very heart of the good old People's Republic, was stopped by ICE, interrogated, and fingerprinted. Because he looked kinda foreign, to them.

The guy was a native American. I.e., an indigenous resident of this continent.

And they say irony is dead.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the freaking problem is. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. That includes everything from the dreaded MS-13 nutjobs to some guy that overstayed his visa because he met a nice girl.

By far, most of those people are working. They don't qualify for all of the welfare state stuff that everything thinks they're stealing. Many of them if not most are paying taxes. Basically all of them are contributing in some way to the local and national economy.

Folks who are in favor of the current direction of immigration policy talk about these people as if they were some kind of invading army.

They want to pick your lettuce.

I'm open to any discussion about immigration policy that is rooted in something resembling reality. What Trump and his folks are selling is harassment and persecution. And if calling it racist bugs you, I'll settle for noticing that it is, by far, disproportionately focused on people whose skin ranges across various shades of brown and tan.

This is an exercise in malice and fear-mongering. We should be ashamed of ourselves for treating people this way.

Young man, are you not aware that entering the country without permission is a CRIME?"

from bobbyp's link

Just look at that. Don't look at it and feel sorry for the kid, necessarily, although I'm sure you do feel that way. Look at that and think about how many adults participating in this farce are able to keep in character while doing it. Kids as young as three are being obligated to appear alone in whatever they're calling these obviously illegitimate on their face pseudo-legal proceedings, conducted in a language they do not understand, and somehow everyone involved was told this was to be the case and they nodded and said "OK see ya tomorrow at 8 AM, then!"

Juxtaposed with McT

Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat) to have obtained his/her status by fraud Third Reich level Nazism? (emph. mine)

by judicial process

Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does "you have a right to an attorney" include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?

Or, alternatively, is it even still a "judicial process" if you have no Miranda rights?

Quick question, for any of the lawyers here: Does "you have a right to an attorney" include an attorney with whom you share a language, so that you can actually communicate?

Translators are assigned in most courts. There is no right to an attorney for immigration cases however.

Jesus wept.

Normal reaction to discovering that He shares a "base" with He, Trump.

Anyway, pity poor McKinney. He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking "simple" questions. Sad.

--TP

McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking "simple" questions. Sad.

Tax cuts are a hell of a drug.

McKinney - if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I'm happy to have that with you.

Does full Due Process as currently understood under the U.S. Constitution in the course of de-naturalizing a U.S. citizen make us Nazi Germany? Of course not.

Is material fraud in obtaining U.S. citizenship "okay"? I wouldn't think so, though I can think of substantial mitigating factors that would augur against both bringing a de-naturalization case in the first instance or a judge deciding against de-naturalization in a judicial proceeding.

Great, that's settled. Now what?

Well, the comments above are "now what."

McKinney - if you want to get into a debate about legal issues on an antiseptic basis I'm happy to have that with you.

McKinney's probably spending time with his grandkids. That's right, the kids who haven't been separated from their families.

He, Trump (who McKinney claims to dislike) undertakes to poke librul commie socialists in the eye, and McKinney gets triggered into defending Him by asking "simple" questions.

Just to clarify, I don't think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.

This is a perfect example. I say I want to discuss something that is of interest to me and he leaps in with the 'I'm just asking simple questions' shtick. He's worked up enough to not even give the 'oh, I'm so busy, I can only drop in to note...' routine. And his lawyerly training refuses to allow him to admit error. It's sad cause I think he's capable of better, but to do better, he'll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.

Some more stories
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/my-son-is-not-the-same-new-testimony-paints-bleak-picture-of-family-separation

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/05/migrants-seeking-asylum-legally-ports-entry-turned-away-separated-fami/

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/they-came-seeking-asylum-now-they-want-their-children-back-n886781

Just to clarify, I don't think McT is a racist (except for the quotient of racism that I believe every American has, which is something else to argue about, but maybe somewhere else), I think that _he_ (i.e. McT) is so intent on poking us C/S libruls in the eye that he loses track of who he ends up in bed with.

lj is so much more generous than I am. Seems to fly in the face of evidence, but whatever. By the way, I'm not denying that we all have our racist blind spots, including me, but being blind to these kids and their parents takes a lot of work.

Is declassifying a citizen determined (by judicial process, not executive or administrative fiat)...

Why is this not a legislative function?

Why is this not a legislative function?

For a single citizen? Bill of attainder.

The legislative function would involve (potentially) creating a process and criteria for denaturalization. But execution of the process would either be judicial or administrative.

Except in the case of impeachment, the legislature does not hear cases and make judgements.

I think the Nazi analogy is appropriate but I dont use it because it does not communicate outside of well people who think we are dealing with nazis. I have rightwing facebook friends and I am trying to communicate with them. I have been explaining the elements of authoritarianism. I have been explaining who Karl Rove is and what his tactics are. I have been explaining the difference between policy and name-calling. Etc. I have been explaining the division of power, the rule of law...They honestly don't know. Because they literally are the same people who supported Hitler in his early days.

The Republican party is authoritarian and has the goal of ending representative government by over throwing it from the inside on behalf of the kleptocrats. We know this but Republican voters don't.

I read a quote from a Russian immigrant something to the efect that demoguges grwo their bas by corrupting their base. That's what I see happening. Those who gave their allegiance to Trump have to corrupt themselves to keep that allegiance. For example in Montana Trump told his audiance that Putin was a great guy and we Americans can be friends with him. And his audiance of so-called patriots all went right along with that, lets be freinds with the foregn government that interfered with our elections! They gave up their patriotism without a second thought. Just as they gave up civiity long ago in order to vote R and just as they are giving up basic huand decency over Trump's immigration policy. Little by little his supporters-- and this includes members of Congress have to choose what values they are willing to throw in to the garbage can to keep up their support for him.

And so far they look to be willing to throw ALL of their state values. All of them.

Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.

Yeah, Trummp supporters are fucking Nazis. But they dont recognize that about themselves and I do want to be able to communicate with them.

I agree with this, and I don't call them Nazis to their face. But, say, someone like McKinney, who is doing his very best to justify his apathy towards those who are suffering because of Trump's policies in order to enjoy his tax cut, I don't really care to "communicate" with him, and he doesn't with me.

The fact is this: McKinney is a wealthy, perhaps respected, lawyer, who lives within a quick flight (or a long drive) of the border. He could make a difference. He could sponsor someone from his firm to do that. I asked him about that in an honest way, knowing that I was prying, but he demurred.

If he cared about it, he'd be championing it. And he's in a great position to do so. But he's not. Will I be like lj, and give him the benefit of being like all the other people? Nope. He's like a physician who refuses to treat the heart attack victim on the plane. I think of him like that.

The thing is, if he is as you say, sapient, he's not going to change and he's only participating here to get a rise out of us, so why bother? If that's the case, it's not apathy, it's him choosing not to do anything, right? On the other hand, if I'm right, there is a chance that he might change his mind.

I'm also not really sure I understand why writing to someone on a blog can be so different to the way you treat them face to face? I suppose you could say that if you are deferent on a blog, in face to face interactions, you might be even more so, too much so in our current situation, like an overton window, but then you are arguing that you should be more combative online so you can be more combative offline. I'm not for 'civility', but if you start out looking for a fight, you'll probably find one.

I understand what you're saying, lj, and you're right, I'm sure. At some point though, don't we have to be honest with people, especially in a forum where violence isn't a possibility?

I don't think McKinney will change his mind. He's certainly not going to be listening to me. But what do other people here think of the fact that he has special gifts to offer to make a difference to the people suffering on the border. But he turns a blind eye. You, lj, and they, keep hoping for the McKinney who will do the right thing in favor of human rights. I keep hoping that Sebastian will crusade for a law for people to donate body parts. This is where we talk about that.

Probably McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. I have no doubt that he has [tax deductible] charities that he supports. Maybe he's modestly contributing hours or dollars in a way that we'll never know. I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That's fine, and in that case he's getting what he wants from me.

I see no harm in being honest about what I see, and allowing for whatever I don't.

The thing about nazis most of them were very nice people in most aspects of their lives. That's why they did not recognize their descent into evil. So I am trying to point that descent out to people by explaining how Trump and Republians in general violate their (ny freinds')m values. I am making headway with one of them.

I am making headway with one of them.

That is truly admirable, and I envy you.

Everyone here knows that patience isn't a quality of mine. I have to put my energy elsewhere.

Sapient, if you don't see how that same thing can be turned on you, I'm not sure I can explain it to you. You can't get people to join on to your causes without providing compelling reasons. (and saying 'this isn't my cause, this has to be our cause' is not even minimally compelling, at least to me) Sebastian is not going to go all in for body donation because you use it to score debating points. I know you think it is a knock down argument, but it is, in a very real sense, ad hominem because the issue is not what is being discussed, but how you think Sebastian should be living his life to accord with your moral principles.

Probably (!?!) McKinney is hiding his light under a bushel. ... I totally hold that out as a possibility, and that in this forum he just wants to be a PITA. That's fine, and in that case he's getting what he wants from me.

So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan? And by having you play the moral scold so he's 'getting what he wants', do you think you are helping provide any clarity to the discussion at all?

It seems that you haven't really thought out why you react the way you do and I wish you'd give it some thought. Yes, it's great that this forum doesn't have the possibility of violence, but I don't think that means we should try to make up for it. That's what I see, though if I'm wrong, I'd love to know why.

First of all, lj, I've never called McKinney a Nazi. I do think the program that is being undertaken by the Republicans is leading to a similar path that was taken by Nazis. If I'm to understand Hartmut, and other people here, I'm not the only one who thinks that. And I think that people who are ignoring the clear signs of that, and doing nothing but making excuses for parts of their program, are enabling them. Perhaps you disagree.

I've been here commenting, as has McKinney, for many years. Am I going to persuade McKinney by recognizing that he's a "decent guy"? No. No one who has or has not recognized McKinney as a "decent guy" has persuaded him of anything.

So is he an unregenerate racist or a secret samaritan?

I think he's a wealthy lawyer from Texas, who wants to keep his estate in good order to give it over to his kids and grandkids. I am not under the impression he cares about much else. That's basically my impression, and I may be totally wrong, because I only know him from his comments here.

On the other hand, from what he says here, he is in a uniquely privileged position to use his talents to help people who are being oppressed, and instead he's making excuses for the oppressors. What's wrong with pointing that out?

Are my comments on this blog effective to produce justice? Probably not. Is standing around with a sign effective? Not likely. When I took the opportunity during a calm time at work to represent a Central American child who sought special immigration status, was that effective? My representation resulted in a good outcome, but the case isn't finished in the immigration court, so maybe not. Maybe nothing helps. Maybe nothing.

But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.

to do better, he'll have to stop treating the comments like a court room.

yes.

But this blog allows me to speak. Thanks for letting me speak.

pretty much where i'm at.

i gave up on 'changing minds' a long time ago. i'm just here to state my own point of view.

it's an indulgence. thanks for indulging me.

mck is who he is. as is marty. as am i, as is everyone else here. it's fun to hang out.

when we're not hanging out here, let's find a way to get these bastards the hell out. they're greedy corrupt mendacious hateful liars, they need to go.

there really is no thoughtful dialog to have about the shit that is going on right now. across the board. it just needs to stop.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad