Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:11 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
gd1 wrote:I just thought of where I've felt this sort of animosity before. People saying "Let me play carry or I throw." in multiplayer games.
Ha ha, that's so true! Hey, do you remember that one time in Overwatch when someone demanded to play Mercy, and then they forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents and sent them to internment camps, resulting in an international humanitarian crisis that will very likely end with some of those children never seeing their parents again?

Good times!


Scaled up obviously, but basically they didn't get what they wanted before and we are paying for it now. Though that doesn't describe everyone of course.
We have a President who's on-record for committing rape, with multiple allegations of sexual assault, who -- on tape -- has bragged about sexual assault. We have internment camps where we're shipping people's children. We have legal, naturalized, American-born citizens being deported from the country because they look and sound "a little Mexican-y". We have literal Nazis marching in protests while our President defends them.

Here's my point: Maybe lay off the whole "Guys, calm down, this isn't as bad as you're making it out to be" schtick.

Particularly considering some of this stuff either may or already has directly impacted people posting in this very thread.

gd1
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:50 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
gd1 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
gd1 wrote:I just thought of where I've felt this sort of animosity before. People saying "Let me play carry or I throw." in multiplayer games.
Ha ha, that's so true! Hey, do you remember that one time in Overwatch when someone demanded to play Mercy, and then they forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents and sent them to internment camps, resulting in an international humanitarian crisis that will very likely end with some of those children never seeing their parents again?

Good times!


Scaled up obviously, but basically they didn't get what they wanted before and we are paying for it now. Though that doesn't describe everyone of course.
We have a President who's on-record for committing rape, with multiple allegations of sexual assault, who -- on tape -- has bragged about sexual assault. We have internment camps where we're shipping people's children. We have legal, naturalized, American-born citizens being deported from the country because they look and sound "a little Mexican-y". We have literal Nazis marching in protests while our President defends them.

Here's my point: Maybe lay off the whole "Guys, calm down, this isn't as bad as you're making it out to be" schtick.

Particularly considering some of this stuff either may or already has directly impacted people posting in this very thread.


I am both calm and not.

“When authority is given to those who do not deserve it, then wait for the Hour.”

It doesn't get much more serious than that :p

Some translations say "look for the hour" instead.

So... what's the rule on link requirements? Are we okay for now?
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

idonno
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The origin of this particular comparison was in opposition to the idea that borders ought not exist. It's not really a strawman if that's explicitly what folks have been arguing.

Since everyone wanting in is never going to be a realistic scenario, that is not what someone who doesn't want borders is arguing for any more than someone arguing against rent controls is arguing for rents of 1 billion dollars a year. No government restriction does not equate to unrestricted by other factors.

I am not against governments restricting things but they need to have a clear ethical rational of what they are trying to accomplish, a good argument for how this accomplishes it, and a reasonable certainty that the action is not a massive over response. I don't think they have come close to meeting such requirements.

I still think houses are a bullshit analogy but I don't see this line of debate resolving itself by continued discussion.

ucim wrote:
idonno wrote:The question of immigration is about what those obligations are
No it isn't. Not by a long shot. Unless you mean something along the lines of using one's money to help others... and that's something that can definitely be taught to children, and their allowance is a good tool for doing that.

Sorry for the confusion, the only thing I'm arguing is that there are different obligation sets not that there is any similarity between the two almost completely unrelated scenarios. I'm not the one trying to argue that theses are good analogy's. There is very little that is comparable in what the actual differences in responsibility are between children vs adults and homeowners vs countries.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:34 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The origin of this particular comparison was in opposition to the idea that borders ought not exist. It's not really a strawman if that's explicitly what folks have been arguing.

Since everyone wanting in is never going to be a realistic scenario


Doesn't have to be everyone. Every a sudden influx of 50 million is going to cause problems. The US gets 3m a year now, and that's WITH deportations and underclass status and apparently child torture chambers. How many people do you think the US would get if it offered unlimited visas and no deportations at all? Sure, won't be everyone, but it will be a lot more than you seem to think.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:40 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The origin of this particular comparison was in opposition to the idea that borders ought not exist. It's not really a strawman if that's explicitly what folks have been arguing.

Since everyone wanting in is never going to be a realistic scenario, that is not what someone who doesn't want borders is arguing for any more than someone arguing against rent controls is arguing for rents of 1 billion dollars a year. No government restriction does not equate to unrestricted by other factors.


When we talk of letting everyone in, we mean letting in everyone who wants to get in.

People who do not want to come to the US are not part of the immigration discussion.

The point is that there are people who want to get in that any reasonable government would rather not. At a bare minimum, invading armies, folks bent on terrorism, or criminals. This ought to be fairly obvious, and is universal and fairly non-controversial. Economic discrimination is also pretty universal. Even the most liberal countries have barriers to immigration to prevent the poor from overcrowding their safety nets. The rich typically face far less difficulty in international travel or immigration. Again, this is justified. The more costly the immigration, the greater the need to limit it. Now, you can approach this from the other end and reduce safety nets, and reduce the problem that way, but the problem does need to be addressed somehow.

Of course, there are also the culture issues, and somewhere along the line, motives blur into outright racism, but as we pretty much all agree that this is bad, not really a lot to discuss there.

If you discount the house analogy, and the derivation of national rights from individual rights, from where do national rights come? If people generally don't want immigrants/housemates, what moral basis is there for insisting upon the unwilling being forced to take folks in?

idonno
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:09 pm UTC

I'm not the one that set the number at everyone.

It is difficult to say how many people we would get but you can perform a controlled increase over time to determine this and let the economy adjust to handle this. Things that should change don't have to occur all at once in a massive shock to the system.

Tyndmyr wrote:When we talk of letting everyone in, we mean letting in everyone who wants to get in.
But that is a much smaller number and I don't think you have any more idea of what it is than anyone else so how do you know that it is a problem?

Tyndmyr wrote:At a bare minimum, invading armies, folks bent on terrorism, or criminals.

These all involve other actions than just entering the country.
Fight them, can already enter illegally prosecute them, and can already enter illegally prosecute them.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:When we talk of letting everyone in, we mean letting in everyone who wants to get in.
But that is a much smaller number and I don't think you have any more idea of what it is than anyone else so how do you know that it is a problem?


That's fairly easy. We can look at the existing illegal immigrant population for starters. Obviously, they wanted in, right? They're part of the immigration issue. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/24/yale-study-finds-us-illegal-immigrant-population-s/

As an aside, if anyone would like to apologize for earlier insisting that the illegal immigrant population was not growing, now'd be the time.

In additional to the illegal immigrant population, we have the legal immigrant/guest worker/etc population. About 36 million, if we're going by DHS estimates*.

To this number, we can add the number of attempted immigration that were unsuccessful, as clearly these individuals want to get in, yes? This provides us with a lower floor for the number of people who want to immigrate. The actual number may be higher if the risk of failure is perceived as non-existent, but it will be at least this large of an issue. Border control caught half a million(2016 numbers) at the border, roughly. Add in interior apprehensions, and we're sitting at around 640k arrests yearly. This number's actually way down from a decade ago, which probably explains the increasing illegal population. Deportations are a similar number, but we can't count them in addition to arrests, as that'd be double counting. Still, half a million people or so a year is a substantial number.

I am not counting children born in the US to foreigner parents as immigrants. This is somewhat divisive, with "anchor babies" being considered as outsiders by some. It also vastly inflates the already large numbers.

*Foreign born population is currently estimated at about 47 million as of 2015, with about 11 million being illegal. The increased illegal immigrant population shown in the Yale study would mean we're undercounting the total at present. Taking the conservative end of the Yale estimate at about 22 mil, we're looking at roughly 58 million foreign born individuals living in the US at present, and at least another half million or so being stopped every year. If these additional entrants were allowed in, we could expect the foreign born population to increase more rapidly than it is at present. Right now, it's a bit like one visitor to a house of six. I think a significant increase to that would matter quite a lot indeed.

Tyndmyr wrote:At a bare minimum, invading armies, folks bent on terrorism, or criminals.

These all involve other actions than just entering the country.
Fight them, can already enter illegally prosecute them, and can already enter illegally prosecute them.


Yes, but the point is that you don't want to wait until they're inside the country doing those things. If you take that approach, there is more potential for harm.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:41 pm UTC

Here's a good estimate; 142 million

Note that that's the people that want to move to the US specifically, not wanting to leave the country or would prefer to move to France but would move to the US if available.

So tell me, are you going to let in 142 million people? The US simply couldn't absorb that many people in even 20 years.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:50 pm UTC

I'm sorry but that is such a failure of logic (disregarding that the survey says 138 million as the estimate, not 142). But anyway, just because someone says they'd like to, does not mean they would. The question asked in the survey is:
Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country? To which country would you like to move?


Note the use of "ideally". What are "ideal conditions"? For one person it might be having a visa. For another it's having a visa, a job, a house, family and friends there, financial security to move there, etc. I suspect most people fall closer to the latter edge of the spectrum, though there's no hint of that in the article. To assume that all 138 million would actually move given the opportunity is ridiculous. My guess is less than 5% actually would, though I have nothing to base this on other than common sense.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Here's a good estimate; 142 million

Note that that's the people that want to move to the US specifically, not wanting to leave the country or would prefer to move to France but would move to the US if available.

So tell me, are you going to let in 142 million people? The US simply couldn't absorb that many people in even 20 years.


142mil's probably on the higher side. Someone saying they want to do something doesn't guarantee they actually will. 'sa problem with surveys. It might be useful for determining where folks most want to go to the US relative to others, but we can't count on everyone following through on their desires.

After all, if that were true, Canada would have gotten a whole lot of US immigrants after the election.

We have been the #1 immigration destination since the 1960's, though, based on actual attempts.

idonno
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:When we talk of letting everyone in, we mean letting in everyone who wants to get in.
But that is a much smaller number and I don't think you have any more idea of what it is than anyone else so how do you know that it is a problem?


That's fairly easy. We can look at the existing illegal immigrant population for starters. Obviously, they wanted in, right? They're part of the immigration issue. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/24/yale-study-finds-us-illegal-immigrant-population-s/

As an aside, if anyone would like to apologize for earlier insisting that the illegal immigrant population was not growing, now'd be the time.

In additional to the illegal immigrant population, we have the legal immigrant/guest worker/etc population. About 36 million, if we're going by DHS estimates*.
I'm pretty sure that all of the existing immigrant population is already absorbed into the economy and a sudden drastic reduction in that would also be a shock to the system.

Tyndmyr wrote:To this number, we can add the number of attempted immigration that were unsuccessful, as clearly these individuals want to get in, yes? This provides us with a lower floor for the number of people who want to immigrate. The actual number may be higher if the risk of failure is perceived as non-existent, but it will be at least this large of an issue. Border control caught half a million(2016 numbers) at the border, roughly. Add in interior apprehensions, and we're sitting at around 640k arrests yearly. This number's actually way down from a decade ago, which probably explains the increasing illegal population. Deportations are a similar number, but we can't count them in addition to arrests, as that'd be double counting. Still, half a million people or so a year is a substantial number.


You realize that you build a backlog when you limit access. How many of those people are repeats that would only immigrate once if given the opportunity? Like I said, a controlled increase is the easiest way to answer these questions and if a problem actually starts to occur, well you just got justification for a level of restriction.


Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:At a bare minimum, invading armies, folks bent on terrorism, or criminals.

These all involve other actions than just entering the country.
Fight them, can already enter illegally prosecute them, and can already enter illegally prosecute them.


Yes, but the point is that you don't want to wait until they're inside the country doing those things. If you take that approach, there is more potential for harm.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I think there shouldn't be any data checking on entry whatsoever. Someone who wants to enter the country is different than someone who wants to enter the country and kill people and the person who wants to kill people should be denied because they want to kill people not because they want to enter the country. There is an additional action they intend to engage in and that is what they should be judged on.

CorruptUser wrote:So tell me, are you going to let in 142 million people? The US simply couldn't absorb that many people in even 20 years.
We can get a lot more accurate of an idea by actually testing the demand rather than relying on a poll of peoples ideal scenarios.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5008
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:55 pm UTC

You guys do get that by even having this discussion of how many is too many and who should be turned away for what reason, you're already conceding the point the house analogy was meant to defend, which is that we the people already living here get to decide on things like that? The point wasn't "it's our country, everyone else should fuck off", but "it's our country, so we get to decide who and how many we can afford to take in". The point was just that we're not obligated to let absolutely anyone who wants in, in; we can be selective, and it's not wrong to be.

Arguing about whether we can afford to let in more people than we currently are is a different debate that already presumes that point.

To illustrate with the house analogy again: if the owners of an enormous estate who have a history of running a homeless shelter out of one part of it are having a debate about how many people they can afford to take in to their homeless shelter, they've already conceded the point that it's their property and they can decide who they let stay there. Saying that it's their property and they get to make that decision isn't saying the shelter should be shut down, or even reduced in capacity, or just not expanded; just that any of that is their decision to make.

Or, for a personal anecdote: my mom's been on the verge of homelessness for a while now, and recently she had nowhere else to go but a small Salvation Army shelter, who could only let her stay there for a limited time because of their limited resources, and who then asked her to leave when she broke some of their rules. The whole purpose of the Salvation Army is charity, but even they acknowledge that their property is their property and they get to say who can stay there for how long under what conditions. Of course they're going to try to help as many people as they can, but it's their call what "as many as they can" means.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:08 pm UTC

idonno wrote: I'm pretty sure that all of the existing immigrant population is already absorbed into the economy and a sudden drastic reduction in that would also be a shock to the system.


We're actually deporting fewer people right now than in the fairly recent past, so we're not really reducing our existing immigrant population. Even our existing illegal immigrant population appears to be increasing, not decreasing. So, while I suppose it's theoretically possible to get a shock if one made a drastic change in that direction, that does not appear probable. It'd require a far more successful anti-immigration program than the current administration has.

You realize that you build a backlog when you limit access. How many of those people are repeats that would only immigrate once if given the opportunity? Like I said, a controlled increase is the easiest way to answer these questions and if a problem actually starts to occur, well you just got justification for a level of restriction.


Depends on how big the backlog is. However, the number of immigrants compared to the number turned away indicates that most people are in fact immigrating once. The US isn't actually very good at preventing immigration. The wall probably won't significantly change this, given that a lot of people just get a visa here and overstay that. We're better at stopping people at the border already than we are at internal enforcement, so this is kind of...improving the part of the plane that didn't break. It's not very efficient.

So, we're probably not building a larger backlog because of Trump. I'm not sure what that backlog is, or even how you would define it, but I'd lean towards it being relatively modest.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I think there shouldn't be any data checking on entry whatsoever. Someone who wants to enter the country is different than someone who wants to enter the country and kill people and the person who wants to kill people should be denied because they want to kill people not because they want to enter the country. There is an additional action they intend to engage in and that is what they should be judged on.


Yeah, and if you're detaining them at the border and doing background checks, it's not an open border system.

We're basically using the house analogy, and you're accepting that the owner has a right to keep folks out if they dislike their intentions. Don't get me wrong, this is reasonable. You can't really do anything else. But it does mean discarding open borders right off.

Leovan
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:41 pm UTC

To give some reference to the backlog, here's a link to the October 2018 Visa Bulletin:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2019/visa-bulletin-for-october-2018.html

It contains charts showing different visa categories and what dates the US is currently handling cases from. The first one is for family based immigration that is not spouse of US citizen and unmarried children of US citizens. Those have no quotas and the case is handled ASAP. This is adult children, brothers, spouses of permanent residents, etc, but they are still considered 'preference'. There are a total of 226,000 Green Cards available for these categories, with the Philippines, China, India and Mexico having a separate category because of the large number of applicants.

End result, if you're a married child of a US citizen from the Philippines, they are currently handling cases from 23 years ago. That's a quarter century backlog for children of US citizens. If you're a spouse of a permanent resident, you're in luck, the wait to have your case handled is just over two years. Not that that's all it will take. I'm married to a US citizen so I have zero wait, but my case took 18 months. When I submitted my case, Obama was still president.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

Most versions of the backlog means the wait to become documented.

Is there a difference between open borders, and increasing immigration limits (along with the accompanying resources) to increase immigration until supply meets demand?
Does the pre9/11 us Canadian border count as open borders?

I feel like other than a few groups, open borders sounds more like a right wing pejorative instead of a legitimate position of those in power.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:09 pm UTC

The delay to process requests is a different sort of backlog, but still relevant. It's comparatively small, though. A quarter million is a fraction of the yearly deportations. Now, yes, we probably should process these in a more expedited fashion because a 23 year waiting list is dumb, but doing so could be done without an increase of immigration overall by reprioritizing who gets in. The entire population of the waiting list is small relative to the illegal immigrants already here.

sardia wrote:Most versions of the backlog means the wait to become documented.

Is there a difference between open borders, and increasing immigration limits (along with the accompanying resources) to increase immigration until supply meets demand?
Does the pre9/11 us Canadian border count as open borders?

I feel like other than a few groups, open borders sounds more like a right wing pejorative instead of a legitimate position of those in power.


I think there's a significant difference between them. It's relatively more open, but it's not a wholly open border*. I do think that open borders are not the position of those in power, but rather, an idea advanced primarily by those not in power. After all, Obama did not pursue an open borders strategy. In practice, there is likely to be no difference in ideology so great as that, even if the two parties do have different priorities.

*There's two contexts here for open borders which I think get confused. Wartime/embargo/etc can result in closed borders, with any other system referred to as open borders. This does not seem to be the usage traditionally evoked when talking about immigration. Instead, open borders are intended to refer to people being allowed to pass unhindered. Travel between US states, for instance. A border exists there, but it's wholly open, without so much as a checkpoint. Much of the EU is also similar, with fairly unhindered travel. If there's no border checkpoint, I'd say it's open.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:16 pm UTC

Wait, are we still talking about the pejorative 'open borders' here? I.e. anyone who wants to work/live in the US can sign up and get green cards.
Because you somehow ended up as countries that travel Visa free, like Canada, is open borders.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:07 pm UTC

You've got to go through border controls to get to Canada from the US. Well, barring way off in the woods, because hey, nobody's gonna bother with all that. And there are still restrictions on immigration and stuff.

There's a bit of a difference between immigrating and visiting, I suppose, but it's sort of a continuum. Places that you can travel back and forth to without a visa are, in practice, more open than those that are not. Yes, it might not be full on immigration, but it means that if someone wants to cross that border, they can.

US states are particularly open, because there's no border control whatsoever. If you want to move from New York to New Jersey, the only obstacle in your way is the prospect of living in Jersey. In the EU, I believe there's some internal distinction between schengen/non-schengen countries, and I don't have those memorized offhand. But if you can travel through multiple countries without needing to re-enter customs/immigration control, you have relatively free movement, and the border is relatively open. In this way, portions of the EU are a bit like the US. I'm not really sure how Brexit will complicate this, but I would presume the relevant borders might become less open as a result.

Immigration isn't just a border problem, though. There's been a lot of focus on that aspect of it, but it's definitely not the only aspect.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:38 pm UTC

idonno wrote:[Referring back what you said here:] Sorry for the confusion, the only thing I'm arguing is that there are different obligation sets not that there is any similarity between the two almost completely unrelated scenarios. I'm not the one trying to argue that theses are good analogy's. There is very little that is comparable in what the actual differences in responsibility are between children vs adults and homeowners vs countries.
Nobody is arguing that {thing 2} is just {thing 1} scaled up. However, there are (in both cases) enough parallels that the analogy is instructive, so long as it's not pushed too far.

What kids learn with their allowance can be very instructive to the adult they will become, because of these parallels. And how we treat our actual neighbors is instructive in terms of how we (should) treat our national neighbors. Scale (in many dimensions) needs to be borne in mind; as you say it's not "the same, scaled up". But the fundamental issues are remarkably similar once scale is taken into account.

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
Grop
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:47 pm UTC

Moving between UE countries is super easy (although French cops are currently making pedestrian movement between Italy and France very complicated). However if you aren't allowed to work somewhere, life will be difficult.

(And this is also why it sounds funny when Americans claim they will massively move to Canada if unhappy about whatever; I suspect Canada wouldn't welcome them, and while it's easy to go somewhere as a tourist, it is much harder to get a job and a home as a foreigner).

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:23 am UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/p ... -case.html
Kavanaugh lose's his first case on SCOTUS, but not for lack of trying.
At Immigration Argument, Justice Kavanaugh Takes Hard Line. The question in the case was whether federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody. Justice Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.

“What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.

But Justice Gorsuch suggested that mandatory detentions of immigrants long after they completed their sentences could be problematic. “Is there any limit on the government’s power?” he asked.
Kav said that harshness was on Congress's mind when they passed that law, and any immigrant that commits any crime no matter how minor,"“If you’re an alien, you come here, you commit one of these crimes, you’ve effectively forfeited whatever right you have to remain at large in the community."
If you're hoping for Chief Roberts to be the new swing justice, this was a 5-4 decision, meaning Roberts wanted to jail all the immigrants. Case was decided 5-4 favoring immigrants/liberals.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:09 am UTC

New York Times wrote:Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed the point, asking a lawyer for the federal government whether it could detain “a person 50 years later, who is on his death bed, after stealing some bus transfers” without a bail hearing “even though in this country a triple ax murderer is given a bail hearing.”
The answer to this question is "Yes", by the way.

Does the government have the right to detain you without recourse just because you're 1) An immigrant (documented or otherwise) and 2) Were once convicted of a crime (regardless of the crime's severity, and regardless of whether or not you've already served your sentence for that crime)? You were convicted of being drunk in public over a decade ago -- which means you are now going to jail until we sort out whether or not we want to deport you. And no, we don't have to justify it. You were convicted of a crime, so now we're allowed to detain you at our leisure.

I'm glad Gorusch had enough sense to oppose this. I'm deeply dismayed it was a 5-4 decision. Not surprised, but certainly dismayed.
sardia wrote:Kav said that harshness was on Congress's mind when they passed that law, and any immigrant that commits any crime no matter how minor,"“If you’re an alien, you come here, you commit one of these crimes, you’ve effectively forfeited whatever right you have to remain at large in the community."
Man, I really wish we had something on the books about 'cruel and unusual punishments'!

But yeah -- it's great to have a Supreme Court Justice who thinks that being convicted of any crime whatsoever automatically forfeits your right to be part of a community.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:32 am UTC

Nielsen v. Preap just heard oral arguments, so we don't know how he's going to vote just yet. To me as someone who is very pro-immigration, it seems like a pretty cut and dried due process problem with the law.

idonno
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:42 am UTC

I agree with Kav that the harshness is what that specific law calls for and was probably intentional but it certainly seems to me like this violates cruel and unusual punishment and possibly equal protection under the law. Also, it probably gets around it on some stupid contrived legal technicality like civil forfeiture but it certainly violates the spirit of double jeopardy. If a law violates the constitution, it doesn't matter what was intended by it because the law itself is invalid.



Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote: I'm pretty sure that all of the existing immigrant population is already absorbed into the economy and a sudden drastic reduction in that would also be a shock to the system.


We're actually deporting fewer people right now than in the fairly recent past, so we're not really reducing our existing immigrant population. Even our existing illegal immigrant population appears to be increasing, not decreasing. So, while I suppose it's theoretically possible to get a shock if one made a drastic change in that direction, that does not appear probable. It'd require a far more successful anti-immigration program than the current administration has.

My point has nothing to do with the rates of change. You can't count the amount of people currently here to measure the impact of reducing/removing border controls. Those people are here in both scenarios.

Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote:You realize that you build a backlog when you limit access. How many of those people are repeats that would only immigrate once if given the opportunity? Like I said, a controlled increase is the easiest way to answer these questions and if a problem actually starts to occur, well you just got justification for a level of restriction.


Depends on how big the backlog is. However, the number of immigrants compared to the number turned away indicates that most people are in fact immigrating once. The US isn't actually very good at preventing immigration. The wall probably won't significantly change this, given that a lot of people just get a visa here and overstay that. We're better at stopping people at the border already than we are at internal enforcement, so this is kind of...improving the part of the plane that didn't break. It's not very efficient.

So, we're probably not building a larger backlog because of Trump. I'm not sure what that backlog is, or even how you would define it, but I'd lean towards it being relatively modest.


I'm talking about the people caught crossing the border. You think people stop trying to cross the border after getting caught once? It seems highly unlikely that a lot of the deportations aren't repeats that would only immigrate once if allowed and thus are being double counted.

Tyndmyr wrote:We're basically using the house analogy, and you're accepting that the owner has a right to keep folks out if they dislike their intentions. Don't get me wrong, this is reasonable. You can't really do anything else. But it does mean discarding open borders right off.


My objection to the houses analogy has nothing to do with what I think the right way to handle borders is and everything to do with the fact that I think they are unrelated and that it serves absolutely no purpose and provides no useful insight. I'm perfectly fine with someone that has NO rights over a house denying entry to the OWNER of the house if the owner is intending to enter the house and murder someone else that lives there. This has nothing to do with home ownership? Just as a general rule we should try to keep people who want to murder away from those they want to murder.

We have to control the border because there are people who want to cross it that intend to kill our citizens, is an argument with a point that we can debate about options and their consequences. It doesn't need an analogy to explain it. We can control the border for the same reason you can control who comes into your house is an argument that can only be debated based on the absurdity of the analogy. One of these is beneficial and the other is not. Private property owners can generally do whatever the hell they want with their property as long as it isn't harming others without any justification. Governments need to be held accountable and required to justify what they do. The two are completely different.

ijuin
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:49 am UTC

Doesn’t this essentially constitute double jeopardy, to punish them after they have served their sentences?

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:52 am UTC

Far as I can tell, there are two crimes. One being the original charge, the second is that they are an illegal immigrant.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:02 am UTC

With respect to the housing analogy, it should also be said that everyone can have their own private space on this planet, without it coming into conflict with anyone else. When you have billions of people, but only hundreds of countries, restricting movement only puts people into conflict over our habitable spaces. Not to mention that the US is a major reason that people are fleeing their countries to begin with.

The idea that there is a simple set of rules that can be applied universally to determine right and wrong is such complete bullshit. The idea that anyone who claims land gets to decide what to do with it as long as they can defend that claim with violence should be the rule that serves as the basis for right and wrong is fucking insane.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:18 am UTC

idonno wrote:If a law violates the constitution, it doesn't matter what was intended by it because the law itself is invalid.
And that is exactly what Kavanaugh (and the other judges) will decide. They decide whether or not a law violates the constitution.

idonno wrote:and provides no useful insight. I'm perfectly fine with someone that has NO rights over a house denying entry to the OWNER of the house if the owner is intending to enter the house and murder someone else that lives there. This has nothing to do with home ownership?
Yes, this has nothing to do with home ownership, unless you would not deny entry to a non-owner who intendes to commit the same crime. Again, the house analogy is an analogy, not an identity.

asoban wrote:Far as I can tell, there are two crimes. One being the original charge ["stealing some bus transfers”, in Justice Breyer's example], the second is that they are an illegal immigrant.
And how serious would you rate each charge? If you were to set a jail term as punishment, how long would it be for each charge? And what jail term would you propose for copying a few CDs? And do you support a statute of limitations?

And while I have you, what's your answer to my prior question: About your friend's assailant - you would not be able to convict him; I get that. But would you hire him as your daughter's babysitter? Would you do so if he behaved as Kavanaugh did when asked about it?

Thesh wrote:...everyone can have their own private space on this planet, without it coming into conflict with anyone else.
No, that is not the case at all. At the very least, it will come into conflict with the person who decided that your space is in the middle of the Gobi desert.

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.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:31 am UTC

And how serious would you rate each charge?


Me? I believe in completely open borders. The fact of the matter is that having open borders within the US is a huge part of our economic success. I think that open borders in Europe has helped them as well. I personally don't have a problem with immigration legal or illegal. There is something to be said for keeping criminals out, but most immigrants aren't criminals. Perhaps a felony committed here in the US might be worth the boot? But with that, you've got a few years to work everything out. I think the statute of limitations is probably a good idea most of the time.

But would you hire him as your daughter's babysitter?


He's a lying asshole who I wanted to warn my friend away from before everything went down. I've got plenty of non-friend-rape reasons to keep him from being my daughter's babysitter. So that specific situation isn't analogous.

Would you do so if he behaved as Kavanaugh did when asked about it?


People behave in a lot of different ways when they are accused of something they didn't do. His reaction seemed to fall in line with one of those ways.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:44 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:...everyone can have their own private space on this planet, without it coming into conflict with anyone else.
No, that is not the case at all. At the very least, it will come into conflict with the person who decided that your space is in the middle of the Gobi desert.


Is that an attempt at humor, or are you actually trying to make a point? Because if you are trying to make a point, there isn't anything about what you are saying that isn't completely stupid.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:56 am UTC

Thesh wrote:there isn't anything about what you are saying that isn't completely stupid.
Everyone on the board already knows that I'm completely stupid. But that doesn't stop me from flapping my yap when I meet my match.

No, not everyone can have their own private space on this planet, without it coming into conflict with anyone else. How could that even possibly be, except by fiat? It's not about some number of square feet per person, it's about being where one wants to be, near the people one wants to be near, close to the jobs one wants to do... and lots of other things. And that by itself will put people into conflict with each other.

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
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:04 am UTC

ucim wrote:No, not everyone can have their own private space on this planet, without it coming into conflict with anyone else. How could that even possibly be, except by fiat? It's not about some number of square feet per person, it's about being where one wants to be, near the people one wants to be near, close to the jobs one wants to do... and lots of other things. And that by itself will put people into conflict with each other.

Jose
Thesh didn't say everyone can have the private space they want to have. Thesh said that everyone can have private space. And to extrapolate a little -- what Thesh probably means is that everyone can have the private space they need to have (IE, a private space that provides sufficient access to the basic requirements of human life and prosperity).

Or, to put it in the words of the immortal bard: No, you can't give everyone what they want. But if you try sometimes, you can give everyone what they need.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:17 am UTC

...and who is Thesh to say what other people need?

Also he said that everyone could have this space without conflict. I said that could only be done by fiat (which you seem to also be saying) if it could be done at all.

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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:57 am UTC

Ah, so it's back to your old shtick where when you can't find an actual argument against something, you look for the worst possible scenario imaginable and act like it's the only possible option. Like, literally, the only thing you can do to come up with a way that everyone can have a home is that you have a single global authority dictate where everyone lives. But even I can't believe you think that scenario even makes sense on any level.

Not only that, but YOU are the one who is arguing that we should have the right to dictate where people are allowed to live, even when it results in more death and suffering, purely because YOU have decided that it's not good for you to allow everyone to have freedom. That scenario is literally just the house analogy turned around - treating homes like we do countries today.

And fuck, you didn't even address the argument made. You have to try to fuck up an argument that badly. Like, there is no way that you can write that if your objective isn't just to troll - there is just nothing reasonable at all in that argument.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:21 pm UTC

asoban wrote:Far as I can tell, there are two crimes. One being the original charge, the second is that they are an illegal immigrant.


simply being in this country unauthorized is not a crime, though, and also this case was explicitly talking about all immigrants, documented and undocumented.

the article that was already linked a scant few posts before asoban's wrote:The plaintiffs include people who entered the country illegally, tourists or students who overstayed their visas and lawful permanent residents.
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

ijuin
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:37 pm UTC

Exactly—why are LEGAL immigrants being subjected to being kept in detention even after having been verified as being legal?

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:40 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:Exactly—why are LEGAL immigrants being subjected to being kept in detention even after having been verified as being legal?

The legal argument is to say immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens, and immigrants don't have these rights in particular. Could this set precedent to deny immigrants other rights and privileges? Well I know an alt right faction that would love to do that. Like I said, I'm glad kav lost, but chief justice fucking Roberts couldn't join in? What the hell is he thinking making this 5-4?

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:35 pm UTC

Grop wrote:(And this is also why it sounds funny when Americans claim they will massively move to Canada if unhappy about whatever; I suspect Canada wouldn't welcome them, and while it's easy to go somewhere as a tourist, it is much harder to get a job and a home as a foreigner).


Canada definitely does not welcome them. I knew a chap that tried it, and he moved up for a month, then had to move back. He's still not a fan of Trump, of course, but he ain't becoming Canadian. Though props to him for at least trying to back up his threat. Lotta people say it and never follow through.

idonno wrote:I agree with Kav that the harshness is what that specific law calls for and was probably intentional but it certainly seems to me like this violates cruel and unusual punishment and possibly equal protection under the law. Also, it probably gets around it on some stupid contrived legal technicality like civil forfeiture but it certainly violates the spirit of double jeopardy. If a law violates the constitution, it doesn't matter what was intended by it because the law itself is invalid.


I'd take a similar interpretation. Sure, the law may be harsh, but all laws are subordinate to the constitution. Can't go beyond the cruel and unusual punishment barrier. And of course, there's the right to a speedy trial, which ought to put some limitations on detainments without trial. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe most of those protections are traditionally granted to the broader class of US Persons, not merely citizens.

idonno wrote:My point has nothing to do with the rates of change. You can't count the amount of people currently here to measure the impact of reducing/removing border controls. Those people are here in both scenarios.


With regards to illegal immigrants already here, enforcement actions can remove them. Now, yeah, building a wall won't do shit to affect that population, but if we look at immigration more comprehensively, those people are definitely affected, and "they all stay here" is not guaranteed to be a shared perspective for everyone.

idonno wrote:I'm talking about the people caught crossing the border. You think people stop trying to cross the border after getting caught once? It seems highly unlikely that a lot of the deportations aren't repeats that would only immigrate once if allowed and thus are being double counted.


It's also likely that people don't attempt crossing for fear of being caught. These are rough estimates. A few double crossing people isn't a huge problem for the estimates.

idonno wrote: Private property owners can generally do whatever the hell they want with their property as long as it isn't harming others without any justification. Governments need to be held accountable and required to justify what they do. The two are completely different.


Whoever lives on that property, if it is not a sole owner, probably needs to justify themselves to some degree. If you have six roommates in a house, you can't very well decide to turn a bedroom into a garage without bringing it up with the other roommates, particularly any who live in that bedroom. Yeah, the owners ought not need to justify themselves to third parties who do not live on the property, but they need to work things out among themselves.

The same is true for members of a country. It shouldn't matter how the citizens of another country want us to vote(insert obligatory russian joke), but we've got to work things out among those who are here. The government is merely how we do that at present. It's not so very different in terms of moral responsibility, though scale introduces certain problems.

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 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:49 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
ijuin wrote:Exactly—why are LEGAL immigrants being subjected to being kept in detention even after having been verified as being legal?

The legal argument is to say immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens, and immigrants don't have these rights in particular.


Which isn't true, per the 14th Amendment.

Sec. 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:16 pm UTC

Well good thing we got a Justice that believes in the 14th amendment applying to immigrants... Oh wait.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests