Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not sure what more you could ask for.
An acknowledgement that a change that happened four months into calendar year 2018 isn't going to be part of any organization's 2018 budget.

This whole policy is about cracking down on illegals.
No, that's the talking point you've bought hook line and sinker, right down to calling them "illegals", but seeking asylum isn't illegal and Trump has also been strongly against accepting refugees (which is also a legal process to enter the country) and is trying to significantly reduce the number of legal options to immigrate.

Show me the new policy that Trump's instituting to make sure different parents end up with the detained kids.
When kids end up in private adoption agencies all over the country they're unlikely to end up back with the parents whose information hasn't followed the kids there. There doesn't need to be an official explicit policy for something to happen anyway.

Trump is more anti-illegal immigration.
No, Trump is more anti-all-immigration (of the wrong kind of people). The kids in cages thing has gotten the most media attention and has been generally conflated with illegal entry, but if you've been paying any attention to all of the other things Trump has said about immigration, and the actual changes that have happened, you'd see that it's all part of an overall drive to discourage and decrease immigration.

Sure. There is a reason why. The number of immigrants has been increasing since the 60s, and it's become a bigger and bigger problem to deal with. Overall, it's been on a long term increasing trend. So yes, new facilities have to be built to handle the increased workload.
There's been a generally upward trend over the past 50 years, but a downward trend in illegal border crossings over the past 20.

And new facilities are being built to imprison everybody, which is not and never has been some kind of intrinsic requirement of a functional border policy. Even if the number starts going back up again, we wouldn't have to build "tent cities" to house everybody if we hadn't also suddenly decided to start detaining all of them.

But the last fifteen years has been pretty much a problem escalating ever larger
[citation needed]

There were fewer apprehensions of illegal aliens in each of the past 10 years than in any of the 17 years before that.

But on the flip side, we've also been gradually allowing in more legal immigrants. The trend is not primarily towards hating immigration as a whole(though there is a side order of that, in certain communities, which is unfortunate). It's mostly towards strictly enforcement.
Again, that's only the impression you'd get if you haven't bothered paying any attention whatsoever to anything else Trump has ever said about immigration.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Trump is more anti-illegal immigration. Sure. There is a reason why. The number of immigrants has been increasing since the 60s, and it's become a bigger and bigger problem to deal with. Overall, it's been on a long term increasing trend. So yes, new facilities have to be built to handle the increased workload.

Sorry, I can't let this fake-news talking point stand: Illegal Immigration has actually been decreasing in recent (and not so recent) times (since the 2000's). So, please give some sources to back up your assertion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/the-s ... ehensions/
spoiler for chart
Spoiler:
Image
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not sure what more you could ask for.
An acknowledgement that a change that happened four months into calendar year 2018 isn't going to be part of any organization's 2018 budget.


Wasn't that much of a surprise, given that their budget includes a boost in beds needed for detainees. I think "trump wants more illegal immigrants detained" was an extremely predictable turn of events.

This whole policy is about cracking down on illegals.
No, that's the talking point you've bought hook line and sinker, right down to calling them "illegals", but seeking asylum isn't illegal and Trump has also been strongly against accepting refugees (which is also a legal process to enter the country) and is trying to significantly reduce the number of legal options to immigrate.


Already covered earlier. This whole thing is about folks illegally coming here before requesting asylum. You don't end up detained if you do it legally.

Show me the new policy that Trump's instituting to make sure different parents end up with the detained kids.
When kids end up in private adoption agencies all over the country they're unlikely to end up back with the parents whose information hasn't followed the kids there. There doesn't need to be an official explicit policy for something to happen anyway.


Evidence that it's happening, then. Yes, kids are fostered sometimes. Foster care ain't adoption.

If the detained kids are being forcibly adopted to other parents, while they still have existing suitable parents, that's big. Evidence, please.

Trump is more anti-illegal immigration.
No, Trump is more anti-all-immigration (of the wrong kind of people). The kids in cages thing has gotten the most media attention and has been generally conflated with illegal entry, but if you've been paying any attention to all of the other things Trump has said about immigration, and the actual changes that have happened, you'd see that it's all part of an overall drive to discourage and decrease immigration.


Trump says a lot of stuff. But what actually has traction is the anti-illegal immigration. That's why it's happening, and why he has support for it. I agree that Trump might do some other wild shit if he had public support for that, but this is what he actually has support for.

The rest is pretty similar to Freezeblade's statement, so I compiled that into one reply.

freezeblade wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Trump is more anti-illegal immigration. Sure. There is a reason why. The number of immigrants has been increasing since the 60s, and it's become a bigger and bigger problem to deal with. Overall, it's been on a long term increasing trend. So yes, new facilities have to be built to handle the increased workload.

Sorry, I can't let this fake-news talking point stand: Illegal Immigration has actually been decreasing in recent (and not so recent) times (since the 2000's). So, please give some sources to back up your assertion.


Apprehensions at the border are down. This isn't the same as number of illegal immants. A big issue is folks simply overstaying a visa. That avenue doesn't involve the sort of border crossing that is often portrayed, but it still involves potential enforcement action. A lot of the current problem is wrongly portrayed as happening "at the border". Sure, a fair amount is, but a *lot* of ICE actions can be pretty far from the border. Part of this is an ongoing trend away from illegal immigrants being Mexican, so old stereotypes that the media plays on may not be as frequently accurate.

The number in the US is rising to stable consistently for most of post WW2 history. Sure, Pew made a big deal about 2015 not actually being a record year for illegal immigrants in the country for a change, but the graph still looks a lot more like a hockey stick than any accurate measurement of global warming does. Ultimately, it's become a major problem in recent years, and hasn't yet reversed.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:it's only illegals who are costly.
In what ways, and to what significance, are the illegals more costly than the legals? Do illegal Mexican immigrants commit more crimes than legal Mexican immigrants? Do they use more social services? Do they vote more often? Or is it just that we've decided to spend more money hunting them down like dogs? (Hmmmm.... I think we can make a profitable business out of this!) I get it that we want control of the borders, but I'm not sure about this particular claim.

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

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:45 pm UTC

Legal immigrants such as H1B earm relatively large incomes and pay income/payroll tax. Illegal immigrants generally dont do either, though they still pay sales tax and such. Everyone, absolutely everyone in the US, costs the government some money to support whether it's in the form of extra sewer costs, police protection, schools, etc, and not everyone pays enough in tax to be a positive.

It's not a completely solid argument though; illegal immigrants would not remain a net negative if they had legal status and could actually get decent jobs...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:00 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:

This whole policy is about cracking down on illegals.
No, that's the talking point you've bought hook line and sinker, right down to calling them "illegals", but seeking asylum isn't illegal and Trump has also been strongly against accepting refugees (which is also a legal process to enter the country) and is trying to significantly reduce the number of legal options to immigrate.

Already covered earlier. This whole thing is about folks illegally coming here before requesting asylum. You don't end up detained if you do it legally.
You can legally request asylum regardless of how you entered the country. There's no need to throw you in jail while doing it, and indeed that wasn't the policy prior to this year.

Trump is more anti-illegal immigration.
No, Trump is more anti-all-immigration (of the wrong kind of people). The kids in cages thing has gotten the most media attention and has been generally conflated with illegal entry, but if you've been paying any attention to all of the other things Trump has said about immigration, and the actual changes that have happened, you'd see that it's all part of an overall drive to discourage and decrease immigration.


Trump says a lot of stuff. But what actually has traction is the anti-illegal immigration. That's why it's happening, and why he has support for it. I agree that Trump might do some other wild shit if he had public support for that, but this is what he actually has support for.
There have already been changes made to other avenues of immigration. I already mentioned taking in record-low numbers of refugees. H1-B visas were also discussed earlier. Trump has cut TPS from hundreds of thousands of people. The travel ban never referred to illegal entry as part of its terms. "Chain migration" is an invented term for a non-problem with legal immigration that he wants to severely reduce.

How far does it have to go before you stop using "well he's probably lying about that" to dismiss the things Trump promotes that you don't agree with, so you can more easily excuse the things you do?

Again, you should take a look at early coverage of Hitler.

Apprehensions at the border are down. This isn't the same as number of illegal immants.
Okay, so do you have legitimate information on the total number of illegal immigrants?

CorruptUser wrote:
Everyone, absolutely everyone in the US, costs the government some money to support whether it's in the form of extra sewer costs, police protection, schools, etc, and not everyone pays enough in tax to be a positive.
Yeah, as I recall from prior research I did, there are quite a few states that cost the federal government more than illegal immigrants.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:07 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Legal immigrants such as H1B earm relatively large incomes
What fraction of legal Mexican immigrants are H1B? And does the country benefit or lose by having illegal immigrants pick our fruit* for next to nothing, when there is a ready pool of Americans willing to do this back-breaking labor for $50/hr - maybe?

Jose
*figuratively - I suspect that migrant workers aren't all illegals.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 am UTC

This may sound kind of basic but I am just trying to figure out something here.

Crossing the border outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense. A felony for the second.

We can all agree that is in fact the law. You may not like that, but it is.

So the outrage is that people are being held awaiting a court appearance.

I really dont understand what the big deal is. If I committed a misdemeanor (perhaps stole a car) I would be jailed over night, brought before a judge and if I was deemed not a flight risk I would be released in bond. Why is this ok in my case? Because my whereabouts are well documented. I have a permanent residence with known aliases and associates.

An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.

We have discussed ankle bracelets and other options. ICE does use ankle bracelets to some degree. I dont know how effective they are. If they are quite successful let's go that route.

The law is the law, break it and pay the consequences. Every single person crossing may have a legitimate claim to asylum, and that's great, let them in. But you dont get a free pass if you crossed illegally. Wait in like all the other people did at the port of entry. Or if you're going to pay 5000 dollars for a coyote just fucking fly in and claim asylum at the airport. I suspect that's where a lot of Visa overstays come from anyways.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:00 am UTC

some of us are opposed to our system of detention on a more widespread level than just jailing immigrants

that's just where the focus is at the moment since they're changing up rules and trying to make sweeping new fascist policies and also literally torturing children
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10013
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:20 am UTC

Damn it! trpmb6!
Crossing the border outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense.
You have Not been paying attention!
These people have been turned away from Ports of Entry!

After days and days, they cross wherever they can.
Then turn themselves in, hoping for Justice.

That's the Truth.
Sealing a Car is not a misdemeanor.
Although YOU may be treated as if it were.

oh...And; I am still very pissed off about Tax money going to For Profit Prisons.
Trump has really increased the contracts for that bunch of Criminal Businesses.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:27 am UTC

addams wrote:Damn it! trpmb6!
Crossing the border outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense.
You have Not been paying attention!
These people have been turned away from Ports of Entry!
.


Still doesn't make it legal. A lot of people wait double digit YEARS for legal immigration. I know of many. Not going to bother telling their stories here because noone will believe me anyways.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:40 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Crossing the border outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense. A felony for the second.

We can all agree that is in fact the law. You may not like that, but it is.
Yes, that's the law, just like like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Final Solution were laws.

So the outrage is that people are being held awaiting a court appearance.
Held indefinitely, initially without their children, possibly without their children again if the courts uphold the 20-day rule.

I really dont understand what the big deal is. If I committed a misdemeanor (perhaps stole a car) I would be jailed over night, brought before a judge and if I was deemed not a flight risk I would be released in bond. Why is this ok in my case? Because my whereabouts are well documented. I have a permanent residence with known aliases and associates.
If the car you stole was valuable enough, you committed a felony. And yet you're right that you'd still probably spend a pretty short time in jail.

An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
Some may be, but historically families are not. The overwhelming majority appeared in court when required, under the previous non-imprisonment policy.

We have discussed ankle bracelets and other options. ICE does use ankle bracelets to some degree. I dont know how effective they are. If they are quite successful let's go that route.
The Family Case Management Program had 99% compliance rates even without using ankle bracelets.

The thing we're specifically criticizing Trump for is ending programs like that in favor of throwing everyone into detention centers regardless of actual flight risk or any of the other things they'd consider if you or I broke a law as white US citizens. Some people do want completely or mostly open borders, but even if you don't want the laws themselves to change, that doesn't justify the new policy of criminally prosecuting and detaining 100% of arrivals.

The law is the law, break it and pay the consequences.

1) Not all laws should be laws.
2) Not all consequences should be indefinite detention.

Or if you're going to pay 5000 dollars for a coyote just fucking fly in and claim asylum at the airport.
Are you sure that's a thing you can do? Earlier you thought people could apply for asylum at embassies, which they can't. I'm also not sure how you think coyotes or air travel work.

I suspect that's where a lot of Visa overstays come from anyways.
Visa overstays come from getting a visa and then not leaving when it's up. Do you have some reason to believe coyotes would be involved in this process in any way, or is that also something you pulled out of your ass?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3730
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:51 am UTC

(@trpmb6's last message.)

As more people have to wait for years, a more significant proportion of those may decide that the system they are waiting for isn't actually going to get round to them this side of the next life-and-limb-threatening misery to befall them during this wait.

The legal immigration system is actually creating an overspill of illegal immigration by its over-engineered severity and go-slow. Over-engineering the severity of the response to the resulting illegal (in desperation) entry is only going to select against the kind of immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding (assuming you even believe that anyone trying to get away from south-of-border gang-culture is going to suddenly decide, on their own, that they like it after all) and give far too much leverage for resident gang cultures to draw the 'illegals' into their web against the background of threats that they'd be fed to the Feds.


Don't agree with my extrapolation? Well, I find your understanding of what 'works' to be bunkum.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:56 am UTC

Where did you get coyotes being involved in visas from?

Visa overstays happen when someone is let in on a temporary Visa (tourism related or otherwise) and then they just dont leave.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... s.amp.html
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:02 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Where did you get coyotes being involved in visas from?
Your post, where you also talked about claiming asylum at the airport.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:11 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:This may sound kind of basic but I am just trying to figure out something here.
Crossing the border outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense. A felony for the second.
We can all agree that is in fact the law. You may not like that, but it is.
So the outrage is that people are being held awaiting a court appearance.
I really dont understand what the big deal is. If I committed a misdemeanor (perhaps stole a car) I would be jailed over night, brought before a judge and if I was deemed not a flight risk I would be released in bond. Why is this ok in my case? Because my whereabouts are well documented. I have a permanent residence with known aliases and associates.
An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
We have discussed ankle bracelets and other options. ICE does use ankle bracelets to some degree. I dont know how effective they are. If they are quite successful let's go that route.
The law is the law, break it and pay the consequences. Every single person crossing may have a legitimate claim to asylum, and that's great, let them in. But you dont get a free pass if you crossed illegally. Wait in like all the other people did at the port of entry. Or if you're going to pay 5000 dollars for a coyote just fucking fly in and claim asylum at the airport. I suspect that's where a lot of Visa overstays come from anyways.

You keep saying the law is the law, except you don't see any marshaling of resources to, for example, assign more judges and staff to process people waiting at a port of entry for an asylum claim. The Executive branch does have discretion, b/c of limited resources, to determine what it's priorities are. i.e. Prosecute murders before speeding tickets. Or in this case, prioritizing detaining border crossers over smuggling cases.
PS You have no proof that asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are a huge flight risk. The numbers don't show that to be true. Thanks.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:12 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
Yanno, just because Trump said it doesn't make it true. What is the actual historical rate of Mexican illegal immigration no-shows? This would show whether or not they are an actual flight risk.

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

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:15 am UTC

So sardia you are in favor of a bill that would get us more judges to process asylum seekers? Expediting the asylum process to less than 20 days so as to not run afoil of the flores agreement?
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:16 am UTC

Saying, "Here's a thing the administration would be doing if they actually cared about what they pretend to care about," isn't the same as saying, "Here's a thing I think we should be doing."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:17 am UTC

ucim wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
Yanno, just because Trump said it doesn't make it true. What is the actual historical rate of Mexican illegal immigration no-shows? This would show whether or not they are an actual flight risk.

Jose


90 percent of deportation hearings are no shows. To be clear this is not asylum hearings. I have no numbers on that, so I will defer there. The research I've done says, those who get legal representation are more likely to show up to their deportation hearings. Those who dont, usually skip.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:18 am UTC

It sounds like we should pass the Cruz legislation then so we can get more judges in the works.

Beats me where they will come from though.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:19 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
ucim wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
Yanno, just because Trump said it doesn't make it true. What is the actual historical rate of Mexican illegal immigration no-shows? This would show whether or not they are an actual flight risk.

Jose


90 percent of deportation hearings are no shows. To be clear this is not asylum hearings. I have no numbers on that, so I will defer there. The research I've done says, those who get legal representation are more likely to show up to their deportation hearings. Those who dont, usually skip.
"I don't have any numbers that would support the claim I just made, but here's a number related to something completely different from the thing we've been discussing for the past several pages."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:21 am UTC

You quoted me and then paraphrased what I said, congratulations!
Basically a journalist now.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:23 am UTC

Point is you may as well have just stopped at the point where you acknowledged you didn't have any evidence, instead of also throwing in an unrelated statistic with the intent that people mistakenly believe it somehow supports your claim.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:29 am UTC

The problem is noone has reported on that. I am making an anecdotal observation based on the facts at hand.
1) already entered the country illegally and shown disregard for the law
2) several negative risk factors already listed
3) existing numbers for deportation hearings are poor

Any one of those by themselves may not be damning but combine all three and it starts to paint a picture to suggest they are a high flight risk.

Also, I just found this flow chart. Quite interesting.
Spoiler:
Image
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:36 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
The problem is noone has reported on that.

Less than an hour ago, gmalivuk wrote:
The Family Case Management Program had 99% compliance rates even without using ankle bracelets.


I am making an anecdotal observation based on the facts at hand.
You are engaging in out of your own ass wild speculation based on fuckall.

trpmb6 wrote:
It sounds like we should pass the Cruz legislation


Slate wrote:What’s most disturbing about Cruz’s proposal is that he’s using outrage about family separation to attempt to further dismantle our asylum system. His proposed bill would require that asylum cases be heard within 14 days. While Cruz frames this expedited timetable as a way to limit the amount of time families spend detained in the new “temporary detention facilities” his bill would authorize, the imposition of such a time frame would be an incredibly sinister move. Even the most competent attorney needs weeks to prepare a robust asylum case. The court filings alone regularly number in the thousands of pages, and attorneys need time to gather evidence and documents from the client’s country of origin. And that is only once an attorney has been retained. Clients who are held in detention centers regularly fight their asylum cases pro se, with only the help of often-outdated legal materials that are available only in English.

The practical effect of Cruz’s bill would be a system where families are detained, held in deplorable conditions that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year to maintain, and deported after they are unable to develop robust asylum cases in a mere 14 days. Of course, his 14-day processing deadline doesn’t account for the nearly 300,000 pending asylum cases that have yet to be adjudicated. Cruz’s bill does propose doubling the number of immigration judges to 750 but fails to explain how these new positions would be filled. If the administration were able to find hundreds of new judges, they likely wouldn’t be impartial; the Department of Justice has been accused of discriminating on the basis of political or ideological affiliation in hiring new immigration judges.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:46 am UTC

Propose a solution that meets in the middle. I am against an open border, as is the majority of Americans. I'll respond in the morning. Goodnight, thanks for the debate.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:51 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
ucim wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:An illegal immigrant is a huge flight risk. No known history, very little background, no permenant residence or known associates.
Yanno, just because Trump said it doesn't make it true. What is the actual historical rate of Mexican illegal immigration no-shows? This would show whether or not they are an actual flight risk.

Jose


90 percent of deportation hearings are no shows. To be clear this is not asylum hearings. I have no numbers on that, so I will defer there. The research I've done says, those who get legal representation are more likely to show up to their deportation hearings. Those who dont, usually skip.

Not according to DOJ statistics. On my phone, but there's a pdf that shows no shows for deportation hearings is around 4%, not 90.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:56 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:90 percent of deportation hearings are no shows. To be clear this is not asylum hearings. I have no numbers on that, so I will defer there.
Got a source for that? Is that a number pertaining to people caught at the Mexican border, or illegal immigrants overall from all sources everywhere? I'd expect the numbers to differ quite a bit, based on the reason for the deportation hearing.

And to be fair, gmal, I did ask about "illegal Mexican immigrants", not just asylum seekers, so he didn't may not have "just give me an unrelated number". Nonetheless, breaking out asylum seekers would be important here.

And yes, I'm sure some asylum claims are bogus; that's something for the courts to determine, presuming that they actually are making a real determination and not just finding an excuse to get rid of the bugger. So, year by year numbers would be enlightening.

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

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:46 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Propose a solution that meets in the middle. I am against an open border, as is the majority of Americans. I'll respond in the morning. Goodnight, thanks for the debate.

Yeah it's always a good time to debate with people who get to treat politics as a fun intellectual exercise rather than something that could get them or loved ones killed.

We *already had* something in the middle. It was still shitty, but it wasn't as bad as this zero-tolerance, throw-them-all-in-jail atrocity Trump decided to start.

There was also the Dem-sponsored bill linked back the first time you started promoting Cruz's attempt to get in on the action.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:03 am UTC

Can we just acknowledge that at this point trpmb6 is a troll rather than just a dumbass?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:29 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Propose a solution that meets in the middle. I am against an open border, as is the majority of Americans. I'll respond in the morning. Goodnight, thanks for the debate.

Hold on there a second. What happened to "The law is the law, break it and pay the consequences." This applies to nonimmigrants too. Especially to say, immigration enforcement employees who are breaking the law because they are desperately trying to solve a problem.The law says (according to the flowchart at least )that anybody who crosses the border gets a chance to apply for asylum either through a Credible Fear Interview or the regular asylum interview.
The Cruz amendment sounds like we're granting amnesty to a bunch of lawbreakers who break the law if the workload increases too much. And I won't stand for lawbreakers, even if it is good people in the Executive branch just trying to deport illegal immigrants.

I propose that Republicans change the highest prosecutorial priority away from Illegal immigration. In exchange, Democrats won't run as many ads showing Republicans terrorizing children. Btw, the majority of Americans want more immigration than you think.

https://medium.com/@allegralove1/a-very ... 9db3fe947a
Link to Trpmb6 flowchart, which is an explanation from a "friend" of Allegralove1. It's kinda cool if it wasn't so terribly sourced.

Lol, ninja'ed by CU.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3730
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:31 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:90 percent of deportation hearings are no shows. To be clear this is not asylum hearings. I have no numbers on that, so I will defer there. The research I've done says, those who get legal representation are more likely to show up to their deportation hearings. Those who dont, usually skip.

Does this look like your research (first thing on a trivial Google)…?: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resour ... tion-court

My take-home is that giving legal counsel opportunities to everyone, to maybe at least remind the clients when and where they are expected to show, expedites the rule of law. I am speculating, somewhat, and I'd have to read the source (and alternate sources) to understand which ones (and which methodologies) hold proper water, but that it's the top result, says the opposite of what your claim appears to be and credibly explains how you might have picked up the 'alternate fact' which your claim appears to be ups the chance that I'm not wronger than you are.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3730
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:37 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Also, I just found this flow chart. Quite interesting.
Spoiler:
Image

Somebody is allergic to using the standard and classic diamonds for "choice" float-chart elements, I see. And lacking "what each of the optional outputs are for" labels, requiring some degree of guesswork based upon following presumed lines.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:10 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Pew made a big deal about 2015 not actually being a record year for illegal immigrants in the country for a change, but the graph still looks a lot more like a hockey stick than any accurate measurement of global warming does. Ultimately, it's become a major problem in recent years, and hasn't yet reversed.


Image

That the "hockey stick" you mean?

Is that the thing that's "become a major problem in recent years" right there? That graph shows something growing up until 2006 and then gradually decreasing since then.

A website called XKCD recently published an annotated Earth temperature "hockey stick" graph which does not show a levelling off or gradual decrease. The temperature has, according to NASA, been rising at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. NASA are US-based and have "National" in their name, so it's alright to take their word for it. Compared to rising 2.7°C in about 18000 years, cooling 0.3°C in 700 years and warming 2.2°C in 2700 years, recent warming of 0.5°C in 45 years is a really fucking scary change.

That Pew graph, though? That downward trend is not a global disaster unfolding before our eyes. It's a slight downward trend.

If you're going to look at the last two years on the graph Freezeblade posted and call them an alarming new upward trend, you're one of the guys still going "There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years!"

cooling_trends.png


"Look, see? 2008 wasn't any warmer than 1998, so there's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years! There's been no global warming in ten years!"
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:39 am UTC

To be fair to Tyndmyr, though, that really does look quite a lot like a hockey stick. Sure it's turned the wrong way and doesn't support anything else about his argument, but it *is* pretty hockey-stick-like.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:25 pm UTC

Ok the 90% number was a bogus number Senator Goodlate pulled out his ass - or at least according to his staff was sourced to a questionable news site that pulled it out there ass. Per politifact the average is between 20 and 40 percent, with the year that they published this article being at 46%. This was for children at least.

A more recent estimate for children specifically, made by the director of the office responsible for handling such cases, is that the current no-show rate for children is 46 percent.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:45 pm UTC

Yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Goodlate, author of the most draconian immigration bill in decades, is not a reliable source for any immigration information.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:18 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
SDK wrote:It boggles my mind that talk about how effective certain approaches to dealing with any social issue are tends to get shut down so hard around here.
If you don't like how quickly I try to shut down discussions about how "effective" camps are in dealing with a problem Trump's policy invented/created in the first place, you're welcome to find another place for that opinion as well.

Did I say that? Did ucim say that, or anything even close to that?
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:23 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Ok the 90% number was a bogus number Senator Goodlate pulled out his ass
Now let's be fair. The proper term is a "completed gut reaction".

In any case, given this, would you reconsider your position on Trump's immigration policies?

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


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests