Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:45 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote: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.

Haven't checked the source myself, but it's been said that the "catch and release" policy (which means you catch them, serve them a court date, then let them go until that date - maybe with an ankle bracelet, maybe with mandatory meetings, whatever) had a 99.6% success rate at getting those illegal immigrants back into court. At a fraction of the cost of detaining them, no child separation necessary.

trpmb6 wrote: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.

You can't fly in if you don't have a visa already.

Anyway, like you said, the law is the law, and they will have to go to court. In the case of those claiming asylum, they must show that there was a legitimate fear or something they were running from to get that protection. That does not necessarily mean they need to wait in jail until the court date. They could have tried to go through this process legally, but the system is backed up enough that it can take a very long time. Probably the better route, I agree, but obviously some think the risk is worth it if they can't afford to wait. The question is, what do we do with these people? Is it such a big deal that we need really harsh punishments for anyone who tries to cross the border without permission? (I think you would agree that sitting in jail for a couple months counts as a really harsh punishment).

All that said, the thing that bothers me most is that this was a conscious effort to deter people from crossing illegally. They could have increased the punishment after one was found guilty. They could have changed it from a misdemeanor to a felony. I don't think those are good ideas, but they're a hell of a lot less evil than intentionally separating parents from their children as a deterrent.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:54 pm UTC

"Just cross at a legitimate point of entry," they said. "You'll be fine," they said.

https://twitter.com/Nawazistan/status/1 ... 2544046080


US officials have repeatedly said anyone looking to enter the US should do so legally, at a port of entry, where they'll be processed in turn, and won't be subject to family separation. That's not what happened with Angelica and Sofi.

Friday afternoon we got a call from Angelica. That morning, she says, CBP officials told her she would be free to go -- in other words, no criminal prosecution, no fraud, no reason to suspect she is anything other than a legitimate asylum seeker - but they had to take Sofi.
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
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:55 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Haven't checked the source myself, but it's been said that the "catch and release" policy (which means you catch them, serve them a court date, then let them go until that date - maybe with an ankle bracelet, maybe with mandatory meetings, whatever) had a 99.6% success rate at getting those illegal immigrants back into court. At a fraction of the cost of detaining them, no child separation necessary.
Yes.
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
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:04 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:"Just cross at a legitimate point of entry," they said. "You'll be fine," they said.

https://twitter.com/Nawazistan/status/1 ... 2544046080

Ugh. CPS is the worst. Hopefully the mother can get it figured out on the US side.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

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 3:05 pm UTC

hey trmbpp how are you going to justify this one, i am curious exactly how far your fascism apologetics will go
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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:10 pm UTC

BUT OBAMA!
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:15 pm UTC

natraj wrote:hey trmbpp how are you going to justify this one, i am curious exactly how far your fascism apologetics will go

I'm guessing that he doesn't have to defend Trump on this one. I'd be surprised if any of the recent changes had a direct impact on this case since that policy was likely written a long time ago to try to protect children from traffickers. It's also possible that this was a special case because they determined the mother was already in the US (though if that's the case, they really screwed up any hand-off they'd been planning - sounds about right for child protection services, though). CPS has these policies, usually for good reason, but then the policy is followed to the letter and innocent people get hurt. Policy is fair, which is why we demand the government follow it, but it's too often cruel and slow to change. Hopefully this story can help speed up the process so this doesn't happen again.

PEDIT:
Thesh wrote:BUT OBAMA!
I tried hard to avoid this. Did I succeed? :P
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

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 3:18 pm UTC

if you think this kind of story is isolated or rare rather than just happening to have occurred in direct sight of someone tweeting about it, i have a bridge i want to sell you
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
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3721
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:26 pm UTC

It was (so the twitterthread says) a whole two days after the OE. I have no idea if (barring legal challenges, at leaat as in the case of Muslim Bans) it is supposed to be immediate or there's a period of transition to trickle-down¹ before the Order is truly binding.

Its hard to post-mortem the officials' thought processes in this (from afar, and courts of enquiry would be a better field to play that game in than myself or other remote observers of a singlemline of reportage) but I suspect some inertia, whether conscious or unconscious, played a part. Maybe a vital memo was still unread.



¹ Not pre-empted by "this will be signed shortly, and this is what will be applicable from that moment on" training, which is how I'd expect it to work normally. Not that such surelymwell-practiced normalcy is a key attribute of Rule By Trump.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:29 pm UTC

The line had always been that they'd be fine at a legal point of entry, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:30 pm UTC

SDK wrote:All that said, the thing that bothers me most is that this was a conscious effort to deter people from crossing illegally. They could have increased the punishment after one was found guilty. They could have changed it from a misdemeanor to a felony. I don't think those are good ideas, but they're a hell of a lot less evil than intentionally separating parents from their children as a deterrent.


The thing I 'd note, in complete agreement that this family separation policy is a degree of fuckwitted evil that has no place in the U.S., is that apparently (acording to an NPR piece I'd heard this morning, not sure if it's beeen transcribed yet to provide a reference) It did nothing as a deterrent.

Just to reiterate: The situations that these people are fleeing are so incredibly beyond tolerable that being shitfuckingly evil isn't actually worse than the situation they're fleeing.

I don't have an idea how to resolve the source problem (powerful cartels and corupt governments) short of horrific levels of military intervention, 'cause we're so good at militaristic nation re-building*...

*That was sarcasm for those who's sarcasm-detectors have exploded or been otherwise rendered inoperable on the internet.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:34 pm UTC

natraj wrote:if you think this kind of story is isolated or rare rather than just happening to have occurred in direct sight of someone tweeting about it, i have a bridge i want to sell you

I don't think it's rare at all. I was a foster parent for several years. I know how fucked the system can get when it relies on policy.

gmalivuk wrote:The line had always been that they'd be fine at a legal point of entry, though.

Yeah, this is a scary thing for sure.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:34 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:I don't have an idea how to resolve the source problem (powerful cartels and corupt governments) short of horrific levels of military intervention, 'cause we're so good at militaristic nation re-building*...


Solving the problem is not as difficult as it sounds. It just requires us to not see the world as a game in which the objective is for our country to be on top, and instead focus on providing EVERYONE with the opportunity to be the best that they can be. Politically, America does not support global equality, and that's why it has borders to begin with.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:35 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The thing I 'd note, in complete agreement that this family separation policy is a degree of fuckwitted evil that has no place in the U.S., is that apparently (acording to an NPR piece I'd heard this morning, not sure if it's beeen transcribed yet to provide a reference) It did nothing as a deterrent.

I shared a story here a few pages back that seemed to indicate that it was working, at least according to folks sitting on a bridge for days on end waiting to get in legally.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:37 pm UTC

You know what that bridge needs? Some Floridian wetlands to go with it! You seem like a socially conscious and smart fellow, you know how important wetlands are, so you can only imagine how valuable this deal is. I have this couple earlier that were really interested, but the owner is looking to make the sale quick; he has a sick mother and you would really be helping him out and if I could just get your signature here...

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:02 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Dauric wrote:I don't have an idea how to resolve the source problem (powerful cartels and corupt governments) short of horrific levels of military intervention, 'cause we're so good at militaristic nation re-building*...


Solving the problem is not as difficult as it sounds. It just requires us to not see the world as a game in which the objective is for our country to be on top, and instead focus on providing EVERYONE with the opportunity to be the best that they can be. Politically, America does not support global equality, and that's why it has borders to begin with.


This is lovely high-level stuff, I'm thinking more specificity.

The drug cartels gained their power in large part by being financed for something like three-quarters of a century by consumers of their products during the U.S. "War on Drugs". A few states are legalizing marijuana, which turns the black markets towards opium-derivitaves (which are harmful enough, even in medical use, that I don't see a reasonable path to legalization). The cartels have in turn used that wealth to exacerbate typical governance corruption.

Even if the U.S. was to throw vast quantities of wealth at these nations, the corrupt officials and criminal organizations re still effectvely in charge, and they'd be more than willing to use strong-man tactics to secure that wealth for themselves (they're already doing it, thus the people seeking asylum).

In an ideal circumstance you allow people to live and thrive in their own homes, not seek betterment through mass migrations (across formal borders or otherwise). At this point that requires undermining these criminal organizations and they government officials thy influence, either forcibly replacing them (not a good solution for reasons we've seen in recent history), or allowing a replacement organization/governance to take shape in the vacum left by the removal of the corrupt elements (which would require intrusive efforts to make sure those corrupt elements don't end up in those power vacumns anyway).
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

You aren't going to solve the problem with any one policy. My point is that our entire approach to economics and global politics prevents us from considering the solutions necessary. We need to focus on helping countries become self-sufficient if we want to improve the world, but our economic policy is about making the rest of the world more dependent on us, which benefits us only at the expense of the entire global economy. If we want countries to be self-sufficient, unrestricted migration as populations grow and climates change is going to be necessary.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:26 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:A few states are legalizing marijuana, which turns the black markets towards opium-derivitaves (which are harmful enough, even in medical use, that I don't see a reasonable path to legalization).

There are countries in Europe which treat opioid addiction purely as a medical issue - to the extent that they freely prescribe addicts as much heroin as they feel they need.

There was not a flood of new addicts - in fact overall numbers dropped - and people voluntarily wean themselves off drugs even when allowed as much as they need. Guess what? People don't actually want to be addicts, especially when they are not trapped in a cycle of poverty and criminality.

(The US managed to get it wrong both ways round - both with the cruel war on drugs and with doctors carelessly dolling out opioid pills like candy...)

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby arbiteroftruth » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:02 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:"Just cross at a legitimate point of entry," they said. "You'll be fine," they said.

https://twitter.com/Nawazistan/status/1 ... 2544046080


US officials have repeatedly said anyone looking to enter the US should do so legally, at a port of entry, where they'll be processed in turn, and won't be subject to family separation. That's not what happened with Angelica and Sofi.

Friday afternoon we got a call from Angelica. That morning, she says, CBP officials told her she would be free to go -- in other words, no criminal prosecution, no fraud, no reason to suspect she is anything other than a legitimate asylum seeker - but they had to take Sofi.


This sounds like a case of a badly written regulation and the people on the ground stubbornly following the letter of the regulation over the spirit of it, regardless how shitty the result is.

They were in custody for the interview process, and from reading earlier in this thread it sounds like the law is written with a hierarchy of preferred people to give a child to when the child is released from custody, and biological parents are at the top of that list. If that law is written badly such that common-sense exceptions are not made, and the people on the ground have no regard for the spirit of the law over the letter, and are particularly shitty in general, I can see how this could happen. Combine that with an appallingly slow, opaque, and apparently disorganized process for getting the child to her parent, and we have a huge mess.

It that's what happened here, the thing to do is
A: Fix the badly written regulation to allow common sense exceptions to the hierarchy, such as letting a child leave with the same family member they arrived with.
B: Make a clear statement to people on the ground that they are generally expected to prioritize the spirit of the law in these matters, and will not be punished if that means violating the letter of the law.
C: Take steps to improve the transparency and efficiency of getting a child to their family whenever CBP still ends up having them in custody despite fixing A and B (for example, in a case where the adult accompanying a child turns out to be a trafficker).

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:33 pm UTC

It isn't the spirit of the law that things should be bad, to discourage future immigrants?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

You're assuming that ICE and CBP are staffed by people trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Alternatively
1. Evil orders from the top tell them to resist by interpreting everything in the worst possible manner.
2. The employees themselves hate brown people so they act in the worst possible manner without getting in immediate trouble.
3. Old fashion governmental incompetence. They got the interpretation wrong, but is going to take lots of media attention to fix that one person's problem.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:01 pm UTC

It seems to me this is a case of not recognizing the Mexican CPS document as official documentation. I wonder if they've had issues in the past verifying such documentation. Definitely doesn't make it right. Its ridiculous at how slow the reunification process is. 5 days for a case worker to reach out to the mother? Should have just been a simple conversation of "We have your daughter here with a woman named Angelica XXXXX; will you verbally consent to us releasing her into her custody."

That being said, I don't believe Trump's policy had anything to do with this separation.


Sardia wrote:2. The employees themselves hate brown people so they act in the worst possible manner without getting in immediate trouble.


You do realize that the border patrol is over 30% hispanic, about double the national average.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You're assuming that ICE and CBP are staffed by people trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Alternatively
1. Evil orders from the top tell them to resist by interpreting everything in the worst possible manner.
2. The employees themselves hate brown people so they act in the worst possible manner without getting in immediate trouble.
3. Old fashion governmental incompetence. They got the interpretation wrong, but is going to take lots of media attention to fix that one person's problem.


I'd say here its very similar to a work to rule approach. There's some list of documents that are acceptable "proof" that a child is under your guardianship and presumably what she had didn't exactly match that list and thus they decided they couldn't let the child go with the woman in the end. Now the reasoning for the work to rule could be any (or all) of the above 3 reasons or simply selfishly not wanting to even risk getting in trouble and thus doing exactly what the books says regardless of the consequences.

I'm not even sure, in this case, how they managed to find the mother but couldn't verify the grandmother was an acceptable guardian. If it was some random stranger bringing a child across the border with a letter saying it was ok, I'd be far more suspicious and it would be much harder to verify. But they somehow found this child's mother and they couldn't verify the grandmother was who they said they were? Definitely leans towards maliciousness rather than incompetence.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:59 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:That being said, I don't believe Trump's policy had anything to do with this separation.
And what are you basing that on, other than your continued willingness to bend over backwards to excuse everything this administration does?


Sardia wrote:2. The employees themselves hate brown people so they act in the worst possible manner without getting in immediate trouble.
You do realize that the border patrol is over 30% hispanic, about double the national average.

So what? Hispanics can't be racist? Or maybe 70% isn't enough of a majority to affect the overall culture of an organization?
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
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:42 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:They were in custody for the interview process, and from reading earlier in this thread it sounds like the law is written with a hierarchy of preferred people to give a child to when the child is released from custody, and biological parents are at the top of that list. If that law is written badly such that common-sense exceptions are not made, and the people on the ground have no regard for the spirit of the law over the letter, and are particularly shitty in general, I can see how this could happen.

...

Make a clear statement to people on the ground that they are generally expected to prioritize the spirit of the law in these matters, and will not be punished if that means violating the letter of the law.
How does one determine the 'spirit of the law'? Do you go ask the people who wrote the law every time you intend to enforce it?

No, of course not. You look to your leaders; you look to the people above. You look to the person who is literally in charge of executing the law. I'm sure they can provide us with some good, clear ideas in regards to what the 'spirit of the law' is here, right?
Donald Trump wrote:When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending they're best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us [sic]. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists, and some -- I assume are good people.
Donald Trump wrote:...a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.
Donald Trump on the Central Park Five (black/latino teens) wrote:Muggers and murderers should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.

...

BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY AND BRING BACK OUR POLICE!
Donald Trump on the Central Park Five over a decade after DNA evidence exonerated them wrote:The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.
Donald Trump on that judge who he thought was Mexican (but actually wasn't) wrote:I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.
Donald Trump's twitter account wrote:
2015-11-23 11_56_07-Donald J. Trump on Twitter_ __@SeanSean252_ @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @C.png

Huh. Whaddya know.

Guess they were actually enforcing the spirit of the law after all.

Sounds like we ought to give them medals and promotions. Or would that be too tacky? Yeah, that's too tacky. Maybe just the promotions.

iamspen
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:24 am UTC

States sues feds over family separations as Pence poorly hides a threat issued against immigrant children.

Let that sink in.

No matter how they have tried to drape the veil over it, the US government is threatening the lives of children.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby arbiteroftruth » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:How does one determine the 'spirit of the law'? Do you go ask the people who wrote the law every time you intend to enforce it?

No, of course not.


Of course not. You (generic 'you') operate under the assumption that the law isn't intentionally evil, because if you don't take that assumption then you shouldn't be working to enforce it in the first place.

Also, the law in question here, about procedures for releasing children in custody to their families, predates this administration, so Trump wouldn't be the person to look at to determine the spirit of that law anyway.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:35 am UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:Of course not. You (generic 'you') operate under the assumption that the law isn't intentionally evil, because if you don't take that assumption then you shouldn't be working to enforce it in the first place.
So you think the people who did this either 1) Care only about the letter of the law, 2) Were afraid of being punished for breaking the letter of the law?

Rather than imagining them as absurdly legalistic or just too afraid, isn't it more credible that they thought they were pursuing the spirit of the law? Here's another question: If they were too legalistic or too afraid to not separate a child from her grandmother, do you think it might have something to do with the example of 'leadership' that their boss has been setting?
arbiteroftruth wrote:Also, the law in question here, about procedures for releasing children in custody to their families, predates this administration, so Trump wouldn't be the person to look at to determine the spirit of that law anyway.
Funny how the law only started getting executed in this specific fashion when Trump came into office. It's almost like the President's language and behavior has an impact on how people execute the law!

Also: Of course Trump is the person to look to to determine how you execute the spirit of the law. If not Trump, then who? It doesn't matter which administration created the law; it only matters which administration is currently executing the law. Or what -- do you think every law ought to be tagged with which administration came up with it so officers can determine the politician responsible and adjust their enforcement of that law accordingly?

"Wait, wait, guys -- this is an Obama-era law. We need to enforce it like Obama would have wanted us to."

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby arbiteroftruth » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:57 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Funny how the law only started getting executed in this specific fashion when Trump came into office. It's almost like the President's language and behavior has an impact on how people execute the law!


It's almost like that's why I was talking about things that should change in order to fix the situation.

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:00 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:So you think the people who did this either 1) Care only about the letter of the law, 2) Were afraid of being punished for breaking the letter of the law?


More likely worried they’d be blamed if they gave children to traffickers however unlikely it was in this exact case. Shield themselves by saying the grandmother didnt have the sufficient level of proof their policy requires and thus they couldnt possibly risk letting this child be taken by a possible trafficker.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:05 am UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:It's almost like that's why I was talking about things that should change in order to fix the situation.
I mean, if you agree with me that the problem here is that the President is being racist as fuck and his employees are taking this as a cue to follow suit (either by actively applying the law to brown people in horrible ways -- or just being too indifferent to stop it from being applied to them in horrible ways), then yeah, we're on the same page -- and I beg your pardon for presuming otherwise.

The immediate short-term solution is to tell his employees to not apply the laws terribly, but the macro-solution is for him to strap-on his big-boy pants and stop acting like the nation's racist grandpa.
Chen wrote:More likely worried they’d be blamed if they gave children to traffickers however unlikely it was in this exact case. Shield themselves by saying the grandmother didnt have the sufficient level of proof their policy requires and thus they couldnt possibly risk letting this child be taken by a possible trafficker.
That's what I imagined #2 was, yeah.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:16 am UTC

HOUSTON—Maria and her 12-year-old daughter surrendered to Customs and Border Protection agents immediately after crossing the Rio Grande on a raft near McAllen, Texas, in the first week of June. It was the final step of their journey from Guatemala, where both of them had been subjected to years of physical abuse by Maria’s husband. They wanted asylum in the United States.

Because Maria had committed a misdemeanor offense by crossing the border, she and her daughter were sent to a processing center where a CBP officer allegedly gave Maria a stark choice. (Maria is a pseudonym to protect her identity.) If she gave up her asylum claim and returned to Guatemala, she and her daughter would remain together. If she applied for asylum, on the other hand, Maria would be thrown in jail for a year and her daughter would be put up for adoption. Maria would never see her daughter again.

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

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:28 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
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


No, as already established, that latter bit is enforcement, and is not properly their cost. It is, instead, what we ought to balance against their cost. Voting is mostly not relevant. Illegal immigrants do not often vote, and even if they did, the dollars and cents cost of that would be relatively small. That's ultimately irrelevant.

It's largely a result of them making a lot less(mostly due to lower education, wealth, etc compared to legal immigrants). Therefore, they pay relatively less in taxes, and are a net loss from a safety net perspective. This issue would largely not exist without safety nets, and isn't mostly a matter of them being morally horrible or anything, it's simply that our immigration system selects for those with higher education and wealth, so the legal population is of course going to be better off than the illegal.

"the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to them" but "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." -Congressional Budget Office, 2007

Note that you get different results depending on if you include legal immigrants vs considering just illegal immigrants. The former are definitely valuable in an economic sense.

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?[/quote]

Depending on specific source, you end up somewhere in the 11-12 million range. DHS's last estimate is around 11.4, and the population has essentially been stable since 2009(Pew was 11.1, I think, but there are methodology disputes. In any case, it's around there). Long term increase, short term pretty stable, but it's a stability range that's pretty close to the record amount. The change from growing to stable coincides with the recession, so that's the most probable cause.

ucim wrote:
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?


"Mexican" isn't particularly relevant here. Illegal immigration has been steadily decreasing from Mexico, and increasing from other countries. Also, a lot of data isn't separated out by source nationality. If you want to make the case that a particular nation is problematic, eh, go nuts I guess, but if you're concerned about illegal immigration as a whole, you probably shouldn't focus on Mexico.

I think it's reasonable to have immigration laws, and for enforcement to include detention, but a rational immigration policy would include reducing bureaucracy for legal immigration, I think. All sticks and no carrots is far less effective. This is a 100% fair criticism of the Trump admin. I'm not upset that detention is being used in an attempt to curb illegal immigration, but it's reasonable to make it a lot smoother to handle the legal side of things, and Trump's largely unconcerned with that.

Thesh wrote:
Dauric wrote:I don't have an idea how to resolve the source problem (powerful cartels and corupt governments) short of horrific levels of military intervention, 'cause we're so good at militaristic nation re-building*...


Solving the problem is not as difficult as it sounds. It just requires us to not see the world as a game in which the objective is for our country to be on top, and instead focus on providing EVERYONE with the opportunity to be the best that they can be. Politically, America does not support global equality, and that's why it has borders to begin with.


Are there any countries without borders?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3721
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:07 pm UTC

What is meant by "without borders"? Is this place a particularly borderless place, or actually far more borderful than an equivalent US-Mexico barrier-divided settlement?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:26 pm UTC

Trump is not "largely unconcerned" with making legal immigration easier, he is actively trying to make it harder.

Your focus on "illegals" is convenient if you have a hard-on for "law and order", especially if it means more brown and black people in jail, but that's not the only thing Trump is doing.

There are basically five paths to legal residency and citizenship, and Trump intends to eliminate or drastically reduce all of them.
1) Asylum, aka the currently newsworthy clusterfuck.
2) Refugee status, which has an unprecedentedly low ceiling this year and we're on course to settle only half that many.
3) Family reunification, aka the "chain migration" Trump hopes to eliminate.
4) Through employment, aka the H-1B program that has been limited by Trump in multiple ways.
5) The diversity lottery, which Trump has explicitly stated he wants to end.
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: 675
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If she gave up her asylum claim and returned to Guatemala, she and her daughter would remain together. If she applied for asylum, on the other hand, Maria would be thrown in jail for a year and her daughter would be put up for adoption. Maria would never see her daughter again.

I think the thing that makes me most angry in this world is government officials lying to people. I don't know how you can sleep at night knowing that you intentionally misinformed someone so they would be forced to make a choice against their own best interest. Especially when that lie is as something as awful as this.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

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 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Trump is not just unconcerned with making legal immigration easier, he is actively trying to make it harder.

Your focus on "illegals" is convenient if you have a hard-on for "law and order", especially if it means more brown and black people in jail, but that's not the only thing Trump is doing.

There are basically five paths to legal residency and citizenship, and Trump intends to eliminate or drastically reduce all of them.
1) Asylum, aka the currently newsworthy clusterfuck.
2) Refugee status, which has an unprecedentedly low ceiling this year and we're on course to settle only half that many.
3) Family reunification, aka the "chain migration" Trump hopes to eliminate.
4) Through employment, aka the H-1B program that has been limited by Trump in multiple ways.
5) The diversity lottery, which Trump has explicitly stated he wants to end.


bolded by me, because this is how the First Lady's family came across. Fucking hypocrite.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Trump is not just unconcerned with making legal immigration easier, he is actively trying to make it harder.

Your focus on "illegals" is convenient if you have a hard-on for "law and order", especially if it means more brown and black people in jail, but that's not the only thing Trump is doing.

There are basically five paths to legal residency and citizenship, and Trump intends to eliminate or drastically reduce all of them.
1) Asylum, aka the currently newsworthy clusterfuck.
2) Refugee status, which has an unprecedentedly low ceiling this year and we're on course to settle only half that many.
3) Family reunification, aka the "chain migration" Trump hopes to eliminate.
4) Through employment, aka the H-1B program that has been limited by Trump in multiple ways.
5) The diversity lottery, which Trump has explicitly stated he wants to end.


What happened to the military enrollment pathway? Didnt we used to have a process where foreigners could enlist in the military and become citizens at the end with a bit of paperwork?

Also marriage...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm UTC

I don't know anything about that, so it may still exist and I just missed it.

SDK wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:If she gave up her asylum claim and returned to Guatemala, she and her daughter would remain together. If she applied for asylum, on the other hand, Maria would be thrown in jail for a year and her daughter would be put up for adoption. Maria would never see her daughter again.

I think the thing that makes me most angry in this world is government officials lying to people. I don't know how you can sleep at night knowing that you intentionally misinformed someone so they would be forced to make a choice against their own best interest. Especially when that lie is as something as awful as this.

Do you know it was a lie?
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
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1934
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:25 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Didnt we used to have a process where foreigners could enlist in the military and become citizens at the end with a bit of paperwork?

Image
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests