Page 140 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm UTC
by dg61
Isn't that basically the French Foreign Legion, or used to be? Although now I think they vet you for any criminal past/being on the lam etc.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:08 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The french foreign legion is much smaller than most would think.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:17 pm UTC
by natraj
there have been so many stories recently about service members getting deported because they were enrolled in the program y'all are talking about, were doing everything the legitimate right way and were explicitly told by military recruiters that serving would be a path to citizenship, and were then deported.
ice has been deporting people without process or notice when they show up to their regularly scheduled standard immigration check ins.

folks, you can pretend this is about curbing illegal immigration all you want but it's a crock of bullshit. people who are in fact going about everything the "legitimate" way are being targeted in increasing numbers. you know what you DON'T do if you genuinely are concerned about people following the process? tear them away from their families and deport them while they are actively following the process.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:24 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The only story ive seen regarding a military person being deported was someone who didnt apply for citizenship at the time, went on drugs and committed crimes afterwards, then got deported.

But yes, ICE isnt about enforcing laws.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:48 pm UTC
by ucim
Tyndmyr wrote:It's largely a result of them making a lot less...

What kind of people do we, the people of the United States, want in our country? Rich people, or nice people? It's true this isn't an either/or choice, but by focusing on the economic benefit or cost of immigrants, legal or otherwise, we actively are making this a dichotomy. Do we really seek the likes of Trump and Shkreli to add to our country?

I have read in many places that immigrants (I'm focusing now on Mexicans because that's the current bugbear), legal and otherwise, are better citizens overall, - nicer, more law abiding, and more well liked in their communities. And this holds for the illegal ones too. The most recent meatpacking case is a case in point.

And they provide an uncounted economic benefit to the entire country by doing the work that nobody else wants to do (without a huge pay difference). The Congressional Budget Office totes up the taxes, but there's more to it than that.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:56 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Tyndmyr wrote: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.
Another reason they make less is because employers know they can get away with paying less to someone who has no legal recourse for wage theft.

And Wal-Mart and other corporations that underpay workers are also a cost to the safety net when they need to use things like food stamps to get by, but we let them get away with it and for some reason never place the blame where it actually belongs: on the capitalists not paying enough for labor.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:38 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
CorruptUser wrote:The only story ive seen regarding a military person being deported was someone who didnt apply for citizenship at the time, went on drugs and committed crimes afterwards, then got deported.

But yes, ICE isnt about enforcing laws.


lmgtfy: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unite ... -veterans/

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:39 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Yeah, I found that article too, though it doesn't give any indication that the situation has changed significantly since Trump took office, unlike the other 5 paths to citizenship that he has explicitly tried to cut down on.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:40 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, I found that article too, though it doesn't give any indication that the situation has changed significantly since Trump took office, unlike the other 5 paths to citizenship that he has explicitly tried to cut down on.



I was just responding to CU's claim that he'd only seen stories of vets with criminal convictions getting deported, and that's not the case.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:49 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
It says one of the vets got citizenship last April, so yay for him. But the fact that there are hundreds rather than, like, 2, shows that there is something fucked up there. The guys that literally put their neck on the line to fight for this country should at least automatically get permanent residency, and the military should give far more information on becoming citizenship.

As far as Walmart and wages go, it's complicated. Not all labor is equally important, but if your job is important enough that the other jobs wouldn't be possible without it, such as the middle school janitors versus the superintendent or the line cook versus the manager, then that company or society owes you at least enough to be part of society. Whether or not someone is willing to do it for less.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:55 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
From the "Honorably Discharged, Dishonorably Deported" website: ( https://www.deportedvets.org/ )

Every year, the United States deports an unknown number of veterans. We don’t know exactly how many because that the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t record the veteran status of deportees; however, advocates including the ACLU estimate the number to be in the thousands.

This isn’t right. A bipartisan coalition of veterans, elected officials, immigrant activists and others are coming together to demand change. Immigrants, after all, have honorably served in our nation’s military since its founding. As someone who spent a decade in the United States Marine Corps, I thought all who served honorably were automatically granted citizenship. I was wrong.

When enlisting in the military, recruits do not have to be U.S. citizens. While it’s often the case that recruiters use the prospects of becoming a citizen to attract new recruits in immigrant communities, joining the military doesn’t outright guarantee citizenship, though many service members are told that it does.

This leaves many discharged veterans without citizenship, meaning that a brush with the law, even for something minor, can lead to deportation. It’s true that military service does give you higher preference in immigration proceedings however, someone has to walk a young military member through the process and help them navigate a series of often complex bureaucratic hurdles.

Furthermore, when returning home from war and starting a civilian life, veterans have other things on their minds. They’re coming back to their families, trying to find employment, and going to school to pick up new skills. Going through an expensive and lengthy citizenship process isn’t exactly the first thing on their minds, particularly when many were either told or wrongly assumed citizenship came after an honorable discharge.

So people move on. They go about living their lives in the country they swore to protect. But as we know, while many service members leave the war, the war doesn’t always leave them. They struggle and sometimes travel down a dark path. Tragically, like many other veterans, they often battle with substance abuse and alcohol-related issues, sometimes getting in trouble with the law. To be clear, all veterans should be held accountable for their actions in a court of law, or a veteran’s focused court if they are lucky enough to have one available. But these veterans find a shocking reality once they served their time in the criminal justice system — they stare down an immigration judge and the prospects of deportation. And nearly 75% of the veterans interviewed in the a report stated they had no legal representation in their deportation proceedings.

Additionally, draconian laws Congress passed in the 1990s vastly expanded the crimes that could trigger automatic deportation to now include filing a false tax return, failing to appear in court and even perjury. All crimes people should be held accountable for, but not something that should trigger deportation for those who were honorably discharged from the military.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:22 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's largely a result of them making a lot less...

What kind of people do we, the people of the United States, want in our country? Rich people, or nice people? It's true this isn't an either/or choice, but by focusing on the economic benefit or cost of immigrants, legal or otherwise, we actively are making this a dichotomy. Do we really seek the likes of Trump and Shkreli to add to our country?


Well, judging by our immigration criteria, we want both. Generally speaking, lawbreaking makes it far harder to become a citizen.

Also, if in the US, and not a citizen, getting picked up for lawbreaking risks deportation. So, yeah, there's a strong incentive for folks to keep their heads down and not make waves. If you look at statistics, you'll note that immigrants are not exceedingly violent(whatever Trump claims)

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: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.
Another reason they make less is because employers know they can get away with paying less to someone who has no legal recourse for wage theft.


That's also a factor. The nature of not having any legal recourse is that the power imbalance is extreme. If an employer is picking an illegal hire over a legal one, it's probably because it's fiscally advantageous to them. There's more risk, so there is inevitably going to be some balance there.

Other sectors are net negative as well, including walmart workers(it's particularly common for low income workers because of how taxes work). It's sort of a different comparison, though. The likely alternative for no walmart is unemployment, not deportation. I mean, deporting the unemployed/low income employed *would* be profitable from a strict dollars and cents perspective, but that sort of viewpoint doesn't have a lot of public support.

I do agree that veterans are generally shamefully taken care of, and we really ought to do a better job of it. I don't think it's Trump specific, or even immigration specific...the VA's a dumpster fire in general. Still, it's a fair criticism. If one trusts an individual enough to allow them to serve, then one ought to extend a similar trust in other regards, including citizenship.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:45 pm UTC
by trpmb6
Justice Kennedy officially announces his retirement effective July 31st.

Trump apparently plans to submit a nominee by then.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:05 pm UTC
by sardia
Man fuck Kennedy. :(
The court now balances off Roberts and occasionally Thomas (when he gets offended by racism).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:22 pm UTC
by Zohar
The asshole doesn't have the integrity to wait until January.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:23 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
trpmb6 wrote:Justice Kennedy officially announces his retirement effective July 31st.

Trump apparently plans to submit a nominee by then.


Given it's an election year, I think he should have to wait til after the election for the nominee to even be considered.

/snark

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:32 pm UTC
by Chen
Zohar wrote:The asshole doesn't have the integrity to wait until January.


He's still a conservative despite sometimes swinging towards the left. A democratic majority in the senate post November would likely just stall like the republicans did with Garland until the next presidential election which could (hopefully) fall democratic. Presumably he'd be more upset with a strong left leaning choice compared to whoever Trump puts forward.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:33 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Not my favorite justice. For me its Sandra Day OConner. Shes still on the court, any other reports are fake news.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:38 pm UTC
by trpmb6
eran_rathan wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Justice Kennedy officially announces his retirement effective July 31st.

Trump apparently plans to submit a nominee by then.


Given it's an election year, I think he should have to wait til after the election for the nominee to even be considered.

/snark


I'd actually be ok with that. When I was talking with friends earlier today (before he announced) I was working off the assumption that this would be something that wouldn't happen until january. We were trying to decide which side would get more fired up about it - and thus impact turnout.

Doesn't really matter now. Looks like they're going to ram someone through.

Chen wrote:Presumably he'd be more upset with a strong left leaning choice compared to whoever Trump puts forward.

I tend to agree. Kennedy is right leaning but he has always been labeled a swing vote because he leans left on social issues.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:55 pm UTC
by sardia
trpmb6 wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Justice Kennedy officially announces his retirement effective July 31st.

Trump apparently plans to submit a nominee by then.


Given it's an election year, I think he should have to wait til after the election for the nominee to even be considered.

/snark


I'd actually be ok with that. When I was talking with friends earlier today (before he announced) I was working off the assumption that this would be something that wouldn't happen until january. We were trying to decide which side would get more fired up about it - and thus impact turnout.

Doesn't really matter now. Looks like they're going to ram someone through.

Chen wrote:Presumably he'd be more upset with a strong left leaning choice compared to whoever Trump puts forward.

I tend to agree. Kennedy is right leaning but he has always been labeled a swing vote because he leans left on social issues.

The GOP has always cared more about the court, which is a Democrat's mistake. Democrats end up confused as to why their laws are getting neutered. At some point, Democrats will get why courts are so important... I hope. Alternatively, you say fuck it, and force the courts into obedience with a strong Congress and executive control... Which isn't likely and hard to keep up.*

*Ie the voting rights act partially repealed by scotus meant that an updated law would be constitutional because it would be a fresh mandate. IANAL, but the gist was "ball is in Congress's court".

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:57 pm UTC
by Thesh
My expectation is that Democrats will respond by packing the court in 2020. Republicans are trying to destroy democracy, and that's one of the last hopes we'll have to save it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:22 pm UTC
by trpmb6
President Obama did have a fair amount of appointments. He lands right in the same area as his predecessors. Carter had the highest numbers per term at 262.


Carter - 262 (no SCOTUS) - one term
Reagan - 384 (4 SCOTUS) - two term
Bush 1 - 194 (2 SCOTUS) - one term
Clinton - 379 (2 SCOTUS) - two term
Bush 2 - 330 (2 SCOTUS) - two term
Obama - 333 (2 SCOTUS) - two term

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:43 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:The GOP has always cared more about the court, which is a Democrat's mistake. Democrats end up confused as to why their laws are getting neutered. At some point, Democrats will get why courts are so important... I hope. Alternatively, you say fuck it, and force the courts into obedience with a strong Congress and executive control... Which isn't likely and hard to keep up.*

*Ie the voting rights act partially repealed by scotus meant that an updated law would be constitutional because it would be a fresh mandate. IANAL, but the gist was "ball is in Congress's court".


SC is powerful, for sure. Some of their decisions have had more lasting repercussions than many presidents. SC composition is potentially the longest-lived consequence of Trump's election.

Here's hoping they get another chap like Thomas. Some of his decisions are fun to read. Obviously they're going to get a conservative, but not all conservatives are equal.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:30 pm UTC
by sardia
Thesh wrote:My expectation is that Democrats will respond by packing the court in 2020. Republicans are trying to destroy democracy, and that's one of the last hopes we'll have to save it.

... No. Just no.
Here's your best bet. McCain drops dead (because he wants conservative scotus picks Trump or not). That delays the nomination until after the replacement. Reasoning is gop wants a really conservative candidate instead of a moderate to make the two GOP female senators happy. That buys some time. Democrats try to stall and fail anyway. Barring any other old fogeys dropping dead, it's into 2020. You replace the old liberal justices with young ones. Then comes the waiting game. Start inviting Justice Thomas over for some southern cooking, and extra ice cream. Hope he croaks from bad health. Now your back to 5 liberals and 4 conservatives. Work on Roberts, and hope he slowly becomes more liberal. This is a real thing. Judges slowly become measurably more liberal over time.
Then send in the court cases and start crafting laws over and over again. If they strike it down, write it again and pass it. Worse case, just ignore the supreme Court ruling, and make the judges enforce the rules themselves. Precedent set by Indian hater president Jackson.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:32 pm UTC
by Thesh
When it comes to my freedom, I'd rather not risk it to an increasingly fascist Republican party.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:29 pm UTC
by ivnja
eran_rathan wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Justice Kennedy officially announces his retirement effective July 31st.

Trump apparently plans to submit a nominee by then.


Given it's an election year, I think he should have to wait til after the election for the nominee to even be considered.

/snark

"This is the most important Supreme Court vacancy for this country in at least a generation," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor, insisting Americans should have the chance to vote first in the midterms on the senators who will either confirm or deny the nominee.

"Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy," Schumer said.

McConnell apparently said in response that this time is different, because it's not a presidential election.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:36 pm UTC
by freezeblade
I'm 100% certain that Mitch is going to pounce on this as soon as he is possibly able. After all the nonsense with the last nominee, the fact that he holds party and power over country is pretty well established. And there will be no reprisal or meaningful backlash from the republicans, why would there be? Tribalism strikes again.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:54 pm UTC
by sardia
freezeblade wrote:I'm 100% certain that Mitch is going to pounce on this as soon as he is possibly able. After all the nonsense with the last nominee, the fact that he holds party and power over country is pretty well established. And there will be no reprisal or meaningful backlash from the republicans, why would there be? Tribalism strikes again.

The reprisal he's (unlikely) to be afraid of is from Democrats. It's somewhere between repealing filibuster, to lynching nazis. He doesn't want it to go that far, but McConnell is gonna risk it anyway. The risk reward ratio is too great in Mitch's favor.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:06 am UTC
by Yablo
Zohar wrote:The asshole doesn't have the integrity to wait until January.


Well, he has been sitting on that bench for 30 years already ... but yeah. Stepping aside this close to the election places too much emphasis on the "importance" of partisan politics. I mean, both sides want a majority anyway, but a Supreme Court vacancy ups the stakes enormously.

As far as Justices stepping aside, I would personally very much appreciate it if Ginsburg would follow Kennedy's lead.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:43 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Not Scalia's lead?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:52 am UTC
by gd1
My video reaction to Kennedy in 5 seconds.

The board is set. The pieces are moving.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:16 am UTC
by addams
yeah....
But, this is Real Life.
The Good Guys don't always win.

Even if they do in the end;
There has been and will be a lot of collateral damage from the Trump Presidency.
Spoiler:
What a fucking shit show!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:23 am UTC
by gd1
addams wrote:yeah....
But, this is Real Life.
The Good Guys don't always win.

Even if they do in the end;
There has been and will be a lot of collateral damage from the Trump Presidency.
Spoiler:
What a fucking shit show!


I know, I just meant that the pieces are moving and I liked the quote.

The context clip for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJODpzIjUE4

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:07 am UTC
by Sableagle
addams wrote:yeah....
But, this is Real Life.
The Good Guys don't always win.
We're taught that they do, though, aren't we? All that Disney bullshit.

If the good guys always win, whoever wins must be the good guy.

Dangerous opinion to hold.

Don't tell me nobody thinks so.

addams wrote:Even if they do in the end;
There has been and will be a lot of collateral damage from the Trump Presidency.
Spoiler:
What a fucking shit show!


"You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now," he said.

The latera where that collateral damage happens
Spoiler:
can spread awfully wide when people who conflate "free" with "owned by a US-based Corporation" call the one causing it "the leader of the free world."

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:17 am UTC
by Mutex
Sableagle wrote:
addams wrote:yeah....
But, this is Real Life.
The Good Guys don't always win.
We're taught that they do, though, aren't we? All that Disney bullshit.

If the good guys always win, whoever wins must be the good guy.

Dangerous opinion to hold.

Don't tell me nobody thinks so.

I think the whole notion that in each conflict there is a Good side and a Bad side has a lot to answer for.

Increasing political polarisation for a start. Obviously the party you vote for is the Good side, so the other side must be the cartoonishly evil monsters. No other motivation for their actions needs to exist. And since your side is the Good side, no need to think particularly hard about each policy to see if it really is a good idea that's going to have a positive outcome. You're the Good guys, all you need to do is fight the Bad guys.

And you see it crop up in things like the pharmaceutical giants VS alternative medicine like homeopathy. Obviously one side is Good and the other Bad. We can easily point to clearly evil things the pharmaceutical giants have done, so alternative medicine is the Good guys! Homeopathy for all!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:59 pm UTC
by trpmb6
CorruptUser wrote:Not Scalia's lead?


I know things can get a little partisan but that's uncalled for. Nobody here should be wishing death upon anyone because of politics.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:34 pm UTC
by gd1
Sableagle wrote:
addams wrote:yeah....
But, this is Real Life.
The Good Guys don't always win.
We're taught that they do, though, aren't we? All that Disney bullshit.

If the good guys always win, whoever wins must be the good guy.

Dangerous opinion to hold.

Don't tell me nobody thinks so.

addams wrote:Even if they do in the end;
There has been and will be a lot of collateral damage from the Trump Presidency.
Spoiler:
What a fucking shit show!


"You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I'll say it right now," he said.

The latera where that collateral damage happens
Spoiler:
can spread awfully wide when people who conflate "free" with "owned by a US-based Corporation" call the one causing it "the leader of the free world."

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


In most cases maybe. Trump has his supporters believing that all Muslims are evil. He doesn't even bother to differentiate. I'd say that alone pretty clearly speaks for itself regarding his character.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:58 pm UTC
by natraj
trpmb6 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Not Scalia's lead?


I know things can get a little partisan but that's uncalled for. Nobody here should be wishing death upon anyone because of politics.


yeah i mean it's totally fine that these people are CAUSING deaths en masse, we should anyway wish for long happy comfortable lives for them as they murder our friends and family

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:19 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
trpmb6 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Not Scalia's lead?


I know things can get a little partisan but that's uncalled for. Nobody here should be wishing death upon anyone because of politics.



their skin colour, or that they are 'illegals', on other hand, totally fair game, right?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:26 pm UTC
by SDK
sardia wrote:Judges slowly become measurably more liberal over time.

Was curious about this, so I looked it up. Decent article by 538 if anyone's interested.

natraj wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Not Scalia's lead?
I know things can get a little partisan but that's uncalled for. Nobody here should be wishing death upon anyone because of politics.
yeah i mean it's totally fine that these people are CAUSING deaths en masse, we should anyway wish for long happy comfortable lives for them as they murder our friends and family

You have a knife in hand and a one-time chance to kill a supreme court judge of your choice, scot-free, no repercussions, no one will catch you. Do you do it?

Spoiler:
I hope not... There are plenty of ways to fight someone without wishing death upon them.