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

[Mister Mets]

Because you repeatedly refuse to address the failings of your party, even when called out directly for not doing so, despite claims of being "objective".

Your silence and feigned ignorance is complicity: whether you will openly admit to it or not, it's your (Republican) party that has been controlling legislation for years and is directly responsible for the current state of affairs, as they are the ones enacting family separation policies and denying children medical care as a "deterrent" while both intentionally and criminally slowing processing to a crawl.

You can't address it directly because you know it's indefensible, so instead you try to pivot to rhetoric about "open borders" and other vaporware legislation.

Worse, you try to argue it's wrong to "compromise" while your party openly breaks the law and treats people like animals.

You're exactly why I say the only real solution is to vote Republicans out of power, and to prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law, including your lying, corrupt, and bigoted Republican president.

You're quoting part of my comments and leaving out crucial elements. You left out the part where I agree with you "I agree that we should work to improve the conditions." and you don't address the disagreement I have with many critics of what's going on "I disagree that we should compromise on the border to do that."

[aja_christopher]

"Trump tells progressive freshman congresswomen to 'go back' to their 'broken and crime infested' countries"

"“So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” the president wrote on Twitter.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday morning asking the "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen" to "go back" to their "corrupt" and "broken and crime infested" countries. He claimed the congresswomen, most likely referring to the "Squad" of freshman progressives, were "loudly [...] and viciously telling the people of the United States [...] how our government is to be run."

Instead, Trump suggested that the congresswomen, who he tweeted "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all)," should "go back and help fix" the "places from which they came."

Of the four progressive freshmen congresswomen, only Omar was born outside the US, in Mogadishu, Somalia."

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...an-omar-2019-7

[aja_christopher]

You're quoting part of my comments and leaving out crucial elements. You left out the part where I agree with you "I agree that we should work to improve the conditions." and you don't address the disagreement I have with many critics of what's going on "I disagree that we should compromise on the border to do that."

You're the one leaving out "crucial elements" Mets -- like why you support a party that argues against the "compromise" of providing toothbrushes, soap, and medical care to children and forces them to sleep in cold rooms on the floor as a "deterrent" after separating them from their family.

You also gloss over the criminal aspect of the entire affair -- as stated in the link provided, Trump's policies violate law yet you refuse to address that directly.

Where is your "slippery slope" when it comes to Republicans and their inhumane treatment of immigrants and children and their blatant disregard for the law?

[Kirby101]

You're the one leaving out "crucial elements" Mets -- like why you support a party that argues against the "compromise" of providing toothbrushes, soap, and medical care to children and forces them to sleep in cold rooms on the floor as a "deterrent" after separating them from their family.

You also gloss over the criminal aspect of the entire affair -- as stated in the link provided, Trump's policies violate law yet you refuse to address that directly.

Where is your "slippery slope" when it comes to Republicans and their inhumane treatment of immigrants and children and their blatant disregard for the law?

Because ending immigration is the GOP priority, so there is no slippery slope in the service of that. The only slippery slope he sees is that any treatment of immigrants that could possibly lead to "open borders" can't be allowed.

[JCAll]

It does represent a problem that so much of the Democratic base is against the police.

That would be fear, yes. It certainly is a problem how many people fear the police. Wish more could be done about that.

[aja_christopher]

That would be fear, yes. It certainly is a problem how many people fear the police. Wish more could be done about that.

It's just another dishonest assertion regardless -- most people, including the Democratic "base" are against police corruption, not against police in general.

Introducing things like body cam legislation and community oversight is exactly what addresses those fears but that's exactly the kind of legislation the Republican party obstructs or eliminates.

[Mister Mets]

"Trump tells progressive freshman congresswomen to 'go back' to their 'broken and crime infested' countries"

"“So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” the president wrote on Twitter.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday morning asking the "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen" to "go back" to their "corrupt" and "broken and crime infested" countries. He claimed the congresswomen, most likely referring to the "Squad" of freshman progressives, were "loudly [...] and viciously telling the people of the United States [...] how our government is to be run."

Instead, Trump suggested that the congresswomen, who he tweeted "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all)," should "go back and help fix" the "places from which they came."

Of the four progressive freshmen congresswomen, only Omar was born outside the US, in Mogadishu, Somalia."

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...an-omar-2019-7

Since this was something that is stupid but not illegal, Pelosi should threaten to censure Trump here. There are nice ways to twist the knife, such as letting the White House know that there will be efforts to censure the President unless he makes a formal apology, but this gets around her views that someone shouldn't be censured if their actions merit impeachment.

You're the one leaving out "crucial elements" Mets -- like why you support a party that argues against the "compromise" of providing toothbrushes, soap, and medical care to children and forces them to sleep in cold rooms on the floor as a "deterrent" after separating them from their family.

You also gloss over the criminal aspect of the entire affair -- as stated in the link provided, Trump's policies violate law yet you refuse to address that directly.

Where is your "slippery slope" when it comes to Republicans and their inhumane treatment of immigrants and children and their blatant disregard for the law?

I agree that the conditions should be improved. Where I seem to disagree with the left is that I think it's at least just as important to keep the border secure.

Because ending immigration is the GOP priority, so there is no slippery slope in the service of that. The only slippery slope he sees is that any treatment of immigrants that could possibly lead to "open borders" can't be allowed.

There are multiple positions on immigration. Very few are for allowing nobody, and even plans that have been shut down for being too conservative allow for continued legal immigration.

Personally, I think we should have an increase in legal immigration, a position that puts me to the left of the median Democratic voter. But I would rather have no immigration than de facto open borders.

As long as there are limits on who should get to the country and how, we should be careful to make sure that loopholes are closed. Part of that is making sure that asylum claims are carefully adjudicated, and that those who don't qualify are identified nd sent back as quickly as possible.

It's just another dishonest assertion regardless -- most people, including the Democratic "base" are against police corruption, not against police in general.

Introducing things like body cam legislation and community oversight is exactly what addresses those fears but that's exactly the kind of legislation the Republican party obstructs or eliminates.

I was responding to someone who said it's a problem with Harris in the Democratic primary context that she was essentially a cop. Are they suggesting she was corrupt rather than that the system is implicated?

[aja_christopher]

I was responding to someone who said it's a problem with Harris in the Democratic primary context that she was essentially a cop.

And I'm responding by correcting your false assertion that the "left" is anti-police rather than anti-police corruption -- I also notice you again fail to comment on the problems with your party dismantling any efforts by Democrats to improve relations between police and the communities that they are sworn to protect.

Just like you won't discuss children and immigrants being mistreated by your party -- you just move on to the next topic and hope no one notices your retreat. No discussion of the illegality of their actions or the base inhumanity of separating children from their parents -- no holding your party accountable for it's actions.

Then you move on to the lie that Democrats don't want to keep borders safe when you Democrats have been suggesting more funding for border security for decades -- even under Clinton. I asked the other poster to name these "prominent Democrats" who are pushing for open borders and can get it passed through the House and the Senate and he never answered -- nor have you.

Why? Because it's a lie -- a fearmongering distraction from the crimes your party is committing as we speak.

It's one thing to have an opinion and another to be dishonest in promoting said opinion.

[shooshoomanjoe]

After today's trump tweets, I wonder if moderates and some on left will still say that trump isn't racist.

[kmeyers]

Personally, I think we should have an increase in legal immigration, a position that puts me to the left of the median Democratic voter. But I would rather have no immigration than de facto open borders.

Such a dishonest "argument." No one is calling for de facto open borders. It's such a deceitful fear mongering tactic from the right.

[kmeyers]

After today's trump tweets, I wonder if moderates and some on left will still say that trump isn't racist.

Fox News is already cheering him for it, and one of the hosts said that Trump must be in a comedic mood today, as they laughed and laughed about it.

[aja_christopher]

Such a dishonest "argument." No one is calling for de facto open borders. It's such a deceitful fear mongering tactic from the right.

There is literally no proof that the Democratic party is for "open borders" -- it's an outright lie that has no solid evidence to support it, especially given the previous administrations of both Clinton and "deporter in chief" Obama.

Just conjecture by a biased and fearful Republican "base" that seems to have no problem with a president who breaks laws so long as it serves their purpose.

Which makes sense given the fact that so many of their congressmen break laws as well.

[Mister Mets]

And I'm responding by correcting your false assertion that the "left" is anti-police rather than anti-police corruption -- I also notice you again fail to comment on the problems with your party dismantling any efforts by Democrats to improve relations between police and the communities that they are sworn to protect.

Just like you won't discuss children and immigrants being mistreated by your party -- you just move on to the next topic and hope no one notices your retreat. No discussion of the illegality of their actions or the base inhumanity of separating children from their parents -- no holding your party accountable for it's actions.

Then you move on to the lie that Democrats don't want to keep borders safe when you Democrats have been suggesting more funding for border security for decades -- even under Clinton. I asked the other poster to name these "prominent Democrats" who are pushing for open borders and can get it passed through the House and the Senate and he never answered -- nor have you.

Why? Because it's a lie -- a fearmongering distraction from the crimes your party is committing as we speak.

It's one thing to have an opinion and another to be dishonest in promoting said opinion.

I do discuss the problem with the children in the camps.

I suppose I don't have a lot of posts responding to solutions posed by Democratic lawmakers and policy experts, but that's because a lot of the discussion is complaining about the problem without providing solution (IE- Where should the kids go? Where should the parents go? For how long? What criteria should be used to determine the merits of an asylum claim?)

[aja_christopher]

I do discuss the problem with the children in the camps.

But you never discuss the accountability of your party for their actions and lack of accountability is exactly why it continues to happen.

[Mister Mets]

Such a dishonest "argument." No one is calling for de facto open borders. It's such a deceitful fear mongering tactic from the right.

First, numerous people are calling for Open Borders.

Here's a guy from Vox.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/904840...s-open-borders

Here's Farhad Manjoo, writing in the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

Democrats as elected officials don't offer any limiting principle on who should be an American. They've generally alluded to a preference to increasing limits on legal immigration, while being vague on what the new limit should be.

There would be two reasons for that. They would have reason to fear the political consequences. Right now, it's easy to bash the Trump administration and Republicans when there isn't a clear alternative. If there's a Democratic description, then it becomes an actual choice. The second potential reason is that they don't want to have public arguments between a party establishment taking a slightly unpopular position (there should be an increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted per year by up to X%) and the advocates who want them to go further.

Andrew Sullivan has written about this pretty well.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...migration.html

Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they should be allowed to become citizens.

How, I ask, is that not practically open borders? The answer I usually get is that all these millions will have to, at some point, go to court hearings and have their asylum cases adjudicated. The trouble with that argument is that only 44 percent actually turn up for their hearings; and those who do show up and whose claims nonetheless fail can simply walk out of the court and know they probably won’t be deported in the foreseeable future.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement forcibly removed 256,086 people in 2018, 57 percent of whom had committed crimes since they arrived in the U.S. So that’s an annual removal rate of 2 percent of the total undocumented population of around 12 million. That means that for 98 percent of undocumented aliens, in any given year, no consequences will follow for crossing the border without papers. At the debates this week, many Democratic candidates argued that the 43 percent of deportees who had no criminal record in America should not have been expelled at all and been put instead on a path to citizenship. So that would reduce the annual removal rate of illegal immigrants to a little more than 1 percent per year. In terms of enforcement of the immigration laws, this is a joke. It renders the distinction between a citizen and a noncitizen close to meaningless.

None of this reality was allowed to intervene in the Democratic debates this week. At one point, one moderator tellingly spoke about Obama’s record of deporting ” 3 million Americans.” In that bubble, there were no negatives to mass immigration at all, and no concern for existing American citizens’ interests in not having their wages suppressed through this competition. There was no concession that child separation and “metering” at the border to slow the crush were both innovated by Obama, trying to manage an overwhelmed system. Candidates vied with each other to speak in Spanish. Every single one proposed amnesty for all those currently undocumented in the U.S., except for criminals. Every single one opposes a wall. There was unanimous support for providing undocumented immigrants immediately with free health care. There was no admission that Congress needed to tighten asylum law. There was no concern that the Flores decision had massively incentivized bringing children to game the system, leaving so many vulnerable to untold horrors on a journey no child should ever be forced to make.

What emerged was their core message to the world: Get here without papers and you’ll receive humane treatment while you’re processed, you’ll never be detained, you’ll get work permits immediately, and you’ll have access to publicly funded health care and a path to citizenship if you don’t commit a crime. This amounts to an open invitation to anyone on the planet to just show up and cross the border. The worst that can happen is you get denied asylum by a judge, in which case you can just disappear and there’s a 1 percent chance that you’ll be caught in a given year. Who wouldn’t take those odds?

But you never discuss the accountability of your party for their actions and lack of accountability is exactly why it continues to happen.

I can't really discuss that until there's an idea of the alternatives, the solutions proposed by Democrats.