All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Mister Mets]

Ultimately whether O’Bama’ admin did similar is a complete red herring.

People need to make a judgment call now if the Trump administrations actions are acceptable in the overall circumstances applying today.

The way the people trying to get into USA are being treated MIGHT be acceptable if USA was fighting a war, or desperately shortly of resources. Neither of those apply...what’s being done is cruel and unjustified, and IF O’Bama’s administration did do similar, it was wrong then as well.

( I do, of course, accept USA has right to decide who qualifies for permanent residency. But feel process of doing that could be done in a more humane way.)

This might get into how there are different priorities/ descriptions of the problem even if there is broad agreement that the migrants should be treated better, and that the US should secure the border.

One group identifies the main problem as the mistreatment of the migrants. They want this resolved immediately, and they don't want any larger deal because that would be taking advantage of the suffering of these poor people.

The other group identifies the main problem as a border security one. They want to resolve those problems, and believe that releasing all the migrants into the US comes with too much downside (IE- it will encourage more migrants to come through similar means in the future, it could be some time before the immigration hearings, many will disappear into the US.) When the opponents of the camps aren't willing to fix these problems, it suggests that they're not taking the suffering seriously.

This unfortunately is what we're seeing with Pelosi taking pot shots at AOC, etc...

AOC suggested that Pelosi was intentionally sidelining four women of color.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d0102c78116b

“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post. “But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

The four women are trying to figure out how to respond, texting one another and weighing whether to confront Pelosi to ask her to stop. But for now, they are focused on their congressional duties, even as they defend their votes in the House that have drawn Pelosi’s ire.

“Thank God my mother gave me broad shoulders and a strong back. I can handle it. I’m not worried about me,” said Pressley, who called Pelosi’s comments “demoralizing.” “I am worried about the signal that it sends to people I speak to and for, who sent me here with a mandate, and how it affects them.”

Pelosi's initial move was a closed-room meeting, where she suggested it's better to have concerns argued internally, rather than have elected Democrats bad-mouthing one another on social media.

[JackDaw]

What's with the O'Bama'?

Lol..was he not of Irish ancestry??

(Or..if you prefer the more “serious” answer...typo, most likely brought on by an extended pub session with a couple of mates not seen for a few months.)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I've noticed that too - you can't call for unity when you throw shade at every single opportunity. AOC and the rest of the squad may not have a lot of votes in the chamber, but lean too hard in public dismissal and you might de-energize the progressive voters just in time for the most important election in American history. I'd say that's a dubious place in the history books Pelosi is in danger of having, but let's face it, if Trump wins, Pelosi won't be in any history books.

And I consider this the most important election we may ever have in this country - Democracy itself is on the ballot this time around.

Couldn't agree more. Trump will NEVER be more powerful for the rest of his misbegotten life than he is right now, and being Leader of the Free World is the ultimate rush for an egomaniac like him. Anyone naïve enough to believe Trump will just give it all up and walk away next year, even if he loses are kidding themselves, he'll pull some scummy scheme out of his ass, maybe even start a war, ANYTHING to stay in office. And if, god forbid, Trump wins, don't think he won't move heaven and earth to find a way to get around, if not eliminate the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms, hell, he's probably had lawyers working on that ever since Inaguration Day in 2017. Plain and simple, Trump wants to be president for life, the GOP won't come close to standing in his way because keeping him in office keeps them in power, and his lemmings won't give a **** that Trump torches the Constitution as long as he continues "owning the libs". Yeah, democracy in this country literally IS at stake.

[aja_christopher]

The other group identifies the main problem as a border security one. They want to resolve those problems, and believe that releasing all the migrants into the US comes with too much downside (IE- it will encourage more migrants to come through similar means in the future, it could be some time before the immigration hearings, many will disappear into the US.) When the opponents of the camps aren't willing to fix these problems, it suggests that they're not taking the suffering seriously.

The Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass immigration bills only to be met by repeated obstruction by Republicans in Congress -- for you to insinuate that Democrats don't take the immigration issue seriously when the last Democratic president who tried to pass an immigration bill was also referred to as the "deporter in chief" by many is just as misleading and biased as most of your other canned arguments against the "left".

Explain to us exactly how Republicans intend to "fix" the problem of immigration "humanely" since they obstruct any attempts by the Democrats to address the issue directly, and while doing so, don't try to pretend that what they are doing right now isn't exactly what many Republicans see as a "solution" since Trump has unprecedented support from the Republican base.

Edit: Actually there's no need for you to explain anything -- the reality of the Republican party is playing out right now in real time under Trump.

[Kirby101]

Lol..was he not of Irish ancestry??

(Or..if you prefer the more “serious” answer...typo, most likely brought on by an extended pub session with a couple of mates not seen for a few months.)

Good enough.

[PaulBullion]

He did give some word salad statement about how he's signing an executive order to tell all federal agencies to tell him everything they know about the "citizen and non-citizen population of the country".

And he's going to pretend that's the same as what he wanted in the census question, declare he won, even though all those federal agencies are just going to point at the regular data gathered in the past cesnsus to comply with his request.

He is a moron, after all.

Actually a good tweet for a change.

[shooshoomanjoe]

There's so much infighting with the dems and no strong candidates for next year that I think it'll help trump get reelected.

[Kirby101]

There's so much infighting with the dems and no strong candidates for next year that I think it'll help trump get reelected.

I guess nothing hurts Trump.

Such a good week for him. Backing down on the Census, having his pedophile enabling Sec of Labor resign, bringing Neo-Nazis to the White House. And the Dems having primary elections with too many qualified candidates help him. Even though most voters start paying attention next year.

[PaulBullion]

There's so much infighting with the dems and no strong candidates for next year that I think it'll help trump get reelected.

The sky is falling because a sitting president is only behind 5 of the 22 people running for nomination of the Democratic party.

[Mister Mets]

The Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass immigration bills only to be met by repeated obstruction by Republicans in Congress -- for you to insinuate that Democrats don't take the immigration issue seriously when the last Democratic president who tried to pass an immigration bill was also referred to as the "deporter in chief" by many is just as misleading and biased as most of your other canned arguments against the "left".

Explain to us exactly how Republicans intend to "fix" the problem of immigration "humanely" since they obstruct any attempts by the Democrats to address the issue directly, and while doing so, don't try to pretend that what they are doing right now isn't exactly what many Republicans see as a "solution" since Trump has unprecedented support from the Republican base.

There's a difference between a sweeping immigration bill, and resolving a particular issue. You can address the migrant crisis without touching the third-rails of amnesty or employer restrictions.

I would think a humane bill for the migrant crisis would include the following...
- an increase in funding for immigration judges, so they can process claims faster.
- an increase in funding for Mexico to provide for asylum-seekers there.
- an investigation into wrongdoing and other problems.
- funding for higher standards in migrant centers.
- some kind of mechanism for emergency spending if there's an increase of asylum-seekers in the future.
- a higher standard than the "credible fear" standard for the first stage of asylum claims, since many of the people who meet that standard ultimately have their claims rejected.
- clear standards for judges on what merits asylum, so you don't have judges determining that any victim of domestic violence in Central America can gain asylum in the US.

As for what Republicans have currently done, there has been a sharp drop in migrant arrivals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/u...gtype=Homepage

While migrant arrivals typically decline as the hot, hazardous summer months set in, the Department of Homeland Security said the drop in June was much larger than the 11 percent drop in June of last year.

The difference suggested that the Trump administration’s long push to curtail the arrival of migrants at the southern border is finally showing results.

Since he took office, President Trump has made it a cornerstone of his administration to halt the flow of undocumented migrants, expanding security fencing, slowing processing at ports of entry and locking up record numbers of migrants.

The administration’s latest policies have gone a step further. The threat of tariffs helped push Mexico to deploy security forces on its own southern border, curtailing the flow of migrants from neighboring Guatemala.

A second initiative has forced many migrants to return to Mexico to await the outcome of their asylum or deportation cases in American immigration courts. More than 18,000 migrants, including asylum seekers, have been returned to Tijuana and other Mexican cities since the policy was put into place, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute.

Mexico’s own heightened border security is also having an effect. To make good on a deal struck with Mr. Trump last month to avert trade tariffs, more than 20,000 Mexican security forces, including members of the newly formed National Guard, have been deployed throughout the country’s southern and northern border states.

The Mexican authorities have been trying to plug well-known but illegal crossing points along their southern border, and have set up checkpoints along major highways to intercept vehicles carrying undocumented migrants. In Tijuana, officers have been stopping and arresting migrants who do not have papers.

[Mister Mets]

Rick Perry has a story about something nice Ross Perot did for a wounded soldier.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...can-tell-story

[aja_christopher]

There's a difference between a sweeping immigration bill, and resolving a particular issue. You can address the migrant crisis without touching the third-rails of amnesty or employer restrictions.

I would think a humane bill for the migrant crisis would include the following...
- an increase in funding for immigration judges, so they can process claims faster.
- an increase in funding for Mexico to provide for asylum-seekers there.
- an investigation into wrongdoing and other problems.
- funding for higher standards in migrant centers.
- some kind of mechanism for emergency spending if there's an increase of asylum-seekers in the future.
- a higher standard than the "credible fear" standard for the first stage of asylum claims, since many of the people who meet that standard ultimately have their claims rejected.
- clear standards for judges on what merits asylum, so you don't have judges determining that any victim of domestic violence in Central America can gain asylum in the US.

As for what Republicans have currently done, there has been a sharp drop in migrant arrivals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/u...gtype=Homepage

As usual, the problem with these "dialogues" is that you're saying what you think Republicans should do instead of directly addressing the inhumanity and outright lawlessness of what Republicans are actually doing -- likewise much of what you are suggesting has also been suggested by Democrats, not just Republicans, so that's a false "left/right" divide.

Regardless of the results, nothing justifies how the current Republican administration is treating immigrants, Mets -- treating asylum seekers worse than prisoners and separating children from their families is not a "solution" you should take any pride in as a Republican.

-----
"Obama Tripled Migrant Processing at Legal Ports — Trump Halved It"

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been turning away asylum seekers, families, and other migrants without paperwork as they attempt to apply for entry at legal ports along the U.S-Mexico border. Migrants are then forced to wait days, weeks, or months homeless in Mexico. The policy clearly violates U.S. asylum law, which has no limit on asylum applications, and according to the DHS Office of the Inspector General, the practice results in many choosing to enter illegally.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told Congress in December 2018 that the turnback policy — which she refers to as “metering” or “queuing” — was due to a lack of “capacity” at ports. She also denied that the agency had instituted any policies that would intentionally reduce processing migrants at ports. However, Jud Murdock, Customs and Border Protection’s acting assistant commissioner, told members of Congress in a closed meeting that same month that “the more we process, the more will come,” implying that the administration does not want to increase processing.

Murdock’s version is more plausible based on the data on port processing of “inadmissible aliens” along the southwest border — generally those without documents proving pre-approval to enter. Monthly arrivals of undocumented migrants at ports steadily rose under the Obama administration. The port arrivals more than tripled from a monthly average of 5,788 in fiscal year (FY) 2012 to a peak of 20,524 in October 2016 (Figure 1). However, since that peak, the numbers have fallen 51 percent to 10,029 in December 2018 — the month when Nielsen told Congress that ports could handle no more...

Congress needs to demand answers on why the Trump administration is processing half as many asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants at ports of entry than the Obama administration did in October 2018. The administration’s normal responses simply don’t explain it. The processing is far below what it was two years ago, but given that CBP has been turning back migrants since at least May 2016, it needs to explain how it has not found solutions to this problem in the meantime. The agency cannot simply suspend U.S. immigration law for years on end.

The anecdotal evidence and the statistics point in a single direction: that the government is intentionally inflating “capacity” issues in order to justify turning away asylum seekers. The culmination of this political stance is the “Remain in Mexico” policy that the administration has started to implement in San Diego, under which nearly all asylum seekers will be sent back to Mexico even after waiting under the turnback policy. This administration’s goal is what White House adviser Stephen Miller reportedly said, “I would be happy if not a single refugee foot ever again touched American soil.”

Its policies are moving America closer and closer to that goal."

[WestPhillyPunisher]

My mom fucking called it. "He's gone before the end of the week."

Can't say I'm surprised. My uneducated guess is that clusterfuck with Epstein hit too close to home for Trump who was chummy with that shitstain, oh, yeah, that conference Acosta held on Wednesday didn't help his cause either. So Trump ordered Acosta to fall on his sword and resign.

[BeastieRunner]

Can't say I'm surprised. My uneducated guess is that clusterfuck with Epstein hit too close to home for Trump who was chummy with that shitstain, oh, yeah, that conference Acosta held on Wednesday didn't help his cause either. So Trump ordered Acosta to fall on his sword and resign.

Apparently, he's being offered a job on the Trump re-election team.

[Jack Dracula]

What the heck. Normally I wouldn't add this since it's just an un-provable assertion about my past actions, but you asked, so I'll pick up the slack and answer: I absolutely DID speak out about this under the Obama administration. The same way I spoke out against his continuations of Bush-era policies, wars, escalation of drone strikes, his unforgivable domestic surveillance programs, and persecution of whistle-blowers. During the Bush years I was consistently against the war in Iraq (really anti-war in general) and I continued to be when Obama was elected and the anti-war left went into hibernation for 8 years. I spoke out against all of those things, including the detention of children at the border, as did many others, but nobody listened. None of my formerly anti-war left friends seemed to care because Obama was being treated like a saint when in reality he was just another establishment politician.

I spoke about these things and was met with a palpable wall of willful ignorance and silence.

Now I get to read a diatribe about how people like me never spoke up, written by the type of person who never LISTENED when others WERE speaking up and it's infuriating.

I mean, you know, since you asked.

I didn't ask, but whatever.
If you spoke out at the time, I'm glad. People need to speak up if their reasons are just.
I will point out that that doesn't counter aything Spike-X said in his post.