Immigration Policy

[LawBeefaroni]

Let's start by incarcerating immigrants in private prisons that do not have to conform to basic laws of human treatment required of our government-run prisons. And those private prisons are by and large owned and operated by the sort who you might find hanging out a Mar-a-lago.

"I support this proposal!"

[Zarathud]

The trick is leadership to get a grand bargain -- the expertise Trump pretended to bring from the private sector.

Republicans want to change asylum rules, narrow the numbers coming in, and arrest the rest. Democrats want people living here not to be deported, preserve asylum and immigration, and be humane. There is a middle ground to be claimed. But Trump is lighting one end on fire to stick the liberals and threatening the other end with emergency to motivate the base. The Trumpster fire on immigration is counterproductive in almost every way.

[Holman]

Even more, the Trump strategy is to treat immigration--nearly all immigration--as foreign invasion. Notice how smoothly they've elided illegal immigration with asylum seeking and now even with legal immigration. "Our Country Is Full!!"

The goal is a walled militarized state where a privileged religious/racial upper class treats Others as undesirables or even outright enemies. Imagine every cartoon caricature of "apartheid Israel" by its worst critics, and that's what Trump actually wants for America.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.
...
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”

After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.

[Kraken]

No? What do you mean, crisis? Like 80's style war on drugs crisis?

Crisis as in: This system is overwhelmed to the point where it can never catch up. (Numbers from memory) It takes 700 days to process an asylum request because there is a backlog of 800,000 cases, with thousands more added every day. Oh, and our president* throws gasoline on the fire by cutting aid and threatening to close the border.

But...that's not a crisis, that's a backlog. When there's a lot of work you do more work. You hire more workers. There weren't enough judges or processors during Obama's tenure. What systems have been proposed to deal with this "crisis" in the past? How is this different from 2016? 2012?

You have a LOT of people trying to get in. You can't actually stop that. So what's the solution to this "ill-conceived" and "shitty" system? Or at least what changes are being looked at that help deal with that backlog? Why didn't Obama deal with this? Or did he? What's special now, aside from Drumpf pulling funding from the system (it's too early for his reducing aid to actually have any tangible effect yet. Hell, has he actually pulled the aid yet? How much has not gone out that was going out prior to this drumpf's tantrum?)

A backlog is just a backlog if it's a surge that will end, and that you can clean up after. Maybe it is. The next time the economy goes south America will look less rewarding. Or maybe it's not. Climate migration is just going to keep accelerating. In case you didn't read it the first time I linked it, "In every situation, it has something to do with climate change."

Either way, migration isn't an existential crisis, it's a political one. The US birthrate is way below replacement level. Labor shortages abound, especially in low-skilled positions. We need immigrants, and we need a LOT of immigrants. That doesn't mean open borders; we do need to control who gets in. We just need to select a lot more people, and we have to do it efficiently.

Anyway: Yes, 10,000 new refugees a day constitutes a crisis at the border, and we're making no headway on it.

[GreenGoo]

You would think Fox news would have it's hands full if more than 1 caravan filled with rapists, drug mules and murderers was arriving at the border every day.

My point isn't that there isn't a lot of people at the southern border, nor that they aren't piling up. It's that it's not unique to this time period or suddenly, a few months later, a crisis where there wasn't one before. 2000 was worse than today, for example. More importantly, tasking a bureaucracy with a monumental task then criminally underfunding it is only a budgetary crisis.

Secondly, while the "crisis" you've identified does have the word "immigration" in it although refugee might be more appropriate, it is not the same "crisis" the GOP are discussing when talking about immigration, nor is it the same one that drumpf is trying to "solve".

To be clear, I'm not dismissing or denying that the volume of refugees at the southern border is a serious challenge and one that needs additional problem solving. You have a LOT of people looking to better their lives and see America as the key. Efficiently handling those trying to start a new life (including turning many away, if they don't qualify) is imperative. Even with (significant) increased border apprehensions, refugee status applications and other demand increases over last year, it's not suddenly a crisis where there wasn't any a few months, or even a few years before.

I guess my problem is with the word crisis, which implies immediate attention or everyone dies sort of emergency. Again, many (most?) refugee families at the border are in crisis, but that's not the crisis being discussed. Too many refugees for a woefully underfunded system is the crisis being discussed. I'm suggesting hiring more judges and processors and border guards, having too few of which have been identified as a problem for years (decades?) now. You're suggesting...what, exactly? That we acknowledge it's a problem? Immigration is a near constant in the news cycle and during election cycles. I think it's acknowledged.

In fairness to Pyperkub, his suggestion would help with processing. The issue I took with it was in the context of walls and tear gas, the issues that both the left and right wing media focus on when discussing immigration at the southern border. That's me being influenced by the media. fair enough, that's on me.

How about this. I'll just get out of the way if you want to use the word crisis. I won't take exception to it even though I feel like it's needlessly rhetorical. It's your border and it is under strain. If you want to call it a crisis, have at it. You did ask if the forum was ready to call it a crisis a few months after it not being a crisis. My answer is no. Others are free to have their own opinion on that.

[Jaymann]

The crisis isn't the refugees at the border seeking asylum. It's that we have a sitting POTUS who want to open fire on them.

[Remus West]

The crisis isn't the refugees at the border seeking asylum. It's that we have a sitting POTUS who want to open fire on them.

This. It was being handled, if not perfectly, before he got there and brought his own level of organization to the process.

[LawBeefaroni]

WaPo

White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.
...
The White House told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space but also served to send a message to Democrats. The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with a top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns, and noting that “there are PR risks as well.”

After the White House pressed again in February, ICE’s legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration.

Pure vindictive bullshit.

If he dumps people (these are people right, or are they animals yet?) here as a retaliatory action, we can use the riverwalk outside Trump Hotel as staging ground. Maybe even as a permanent solution.

[GreenGoo]

The crisis isn't the refugees at the border seeking asylum. It's that we have a sitting POTUS who want to open fire on them.

That's not the conversation Kraken is trying to have, assuming that Drumpf isn't directly responsible for climate change (admittedly he's not helping. ), as an example.

[Kraken]

How about this. I'll just get out of the way if you want to use the word crisis. I won't take exception to it even though I feel like it's needlessly rhetorical. It's your border and it is under strain. If you want to call it a crisis, have at it. You did ask if the forum was ready to call it a crisis a few months after it not being a crisis. My answer is no. Others are free to have their own opinion on that.

Fair enough. I understand and respect your POV.

I posed the question because we all tend to get painted into partisan corners. A few months ago, when Trump was sending troops to deal with a nonexistent crisis, his opponents took the position that there was no crisis. And there wasn't. Things have changed, and now (IMO) there is. So I wondered if liberals can change their stand, or if denial is still their official position. Is it ever possible to cede any ground whatsoever to Trump -- even just agreeing on the C word -- while still disagreeing with his assessment and response?

[GreenGoo]

Things haven't changed, imo. At least not enough to move it from no crisis to crisis.

What's your threshold for it's a problem to it's a crisis?

[ImLawBoy]

I think you could make an argument that the numbers of people trying to migrate to the US constitutes a type of crisis, but it's not the type of crisis that merits a declaration of emergency and the building of a wall or deployment of troops. It's getting into a bit of false equivalency to declare the administrative "crisis" of too many people applying for asylum as the same as or similar to the purported safety crisis of caravans overwhelming the border.

[Isgrimnur]

Independent

Donald Trump called a US talk show studio to berate presenters for criticising his adviser Stephen Miller, according to the programme’s hosts.

Joe Scarborough, who fronts MSNBC’s Morning Joe, said the president was “yelling” at him for “not being nice to this poor young kid”.

The clash came in February 2017 after Mr Miller denounced federal judges for blocking Mr Trump’s Muslim travel ban and warned “the whole world will soon see” the president’s executive powers “will not be questioned”.

“I found that to be illiberal, undemocratic and frightening,” said Mr Scarborough. Speaking co-host Mika Brzezinski on Tuesday’s programme, he added: “We raked him over the coals for two days, Stephen Miller, for saying that the president’s authority was not to be questioned.

“It’s the only time I’ve heard Donald Trump call and yell in defence of somebody else.

“He actually said, ‘You’re hurting this poor young kid … you’re not being nice to this poor young kid, you’re killing him every day.’ It was the first time actually I’d ever heard him talk about any staff member that way.”

[Remus West]

I think you could make an argument that the numbers of people trying to migrate to the US constitutes a type of crisis, but it's not the type of crisis that merits a declaration of emergency and the building of a wall or deployment of troops. It's getting into a bit of false equivalency to declare the administrative "crisis" of too many people applying for asylum as the same as or similar to the purported safety crisis of caravans overwhelming the border.

I'd be open the the argument that it is a humanitarian crisis but not, as the administration tries to present, a security one.

[Grifman]

The goal is a walled militarized state where a privileged religious/racial upper class treats Others as undesirables or even outright enemies. Imagine every cartoon caricature of "apartheid Israel" by its worst critics, and that's what Trump actually wants for America.

That's as silly as some of the stuff Trumpers say but from the left.

[Grifman]

Things haven't changed, imo. At least not enough to move it from no crisis to crisis.

What's your threshold for it's a problem to it's a crisis?

But things have changed - the issue is more and more families coming to the border. It started at some point during Obama and it's just gotten worse. It used to be single males from Mexico, who were easy to quickly deport because it was pretty clear they were coming for economic purposes. Now you have families claiming refugee status in large numbers - that presents an entirely different and more complicated issue.

You may not think it is a crisis but a quick search will reveal articles from NPR, WaPOm, NYT, ABC, etc all saying there is a crisis in those exact words or similar words. When the more liberal media is agreeing the admin that there is a problem (thought not the solution), something is happening.

[ImLawBoy]

You may not think it is a crisis but a quick search will reveal articles from NPR, WaPOm, NYT, ABC, etc all saying there is a crisis in those exact words or similar words. When the more liberal media is agreeing the admin on the problem (thought not the solution), something is happening.

I don't think they're really agreeing on the problem, though. As I hit on before, those on the left may think there is an administrative crisis (or humanitarian, as Remus suggests), but the right is pegging the crisis as safety and security.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

President Trump said Friday that his administration is giving “strong considerations” to a plan to release immigrant detainees exclusively into “sanctuary cities,” reviving a proposal that White House officials insisted had been rejected months ago after only informal consideration.
...
His tweets suggested that the plan, which immigration officials had rejected in November and February, was again viable and that the administration is now considering sending all detainees to sanctuary cities to the exclusion of other communities.

But following Trump’s tweets, a Department of Homeland Security official said DHS is not drawing up plans to implement the proposal. The official requested anonymity to contradict the president.

[Holman]

The goal is a walled militarized state where a privileged religious/racial upper class treats Others as undesirables or even outright enemies. Imagine every cartoon caricature of "apartheid Israel" by its worst critics, and that's what Trump actually wants for America.

That's as silly as some of the stuff Trumpers say but from the left.

Sorry, I should correct it: that's what the hard-core right-wing base to which Trump panders actually wants for America.

[hepcat]

WaPo

President Trump said Friday that his administration is giving “strong considerations” to a plan to release immigrant detainees exclusively into “sanctuary cities,” reviving a proposal that White House officials insisted had been rejected months ago after only informal consideration.
...
His tweets suggested that the plan, which immigration officials had rejected in November and February, was again viable and that the administration is now considering sending all detainees to sanctuary cities to the exclusion of other communities.

But following Trump’s tweets, a Department of Homeland Security official said DHS is not drawing up plans to implement the proposal. The official requested anonymity to contradict the president.

Trump is 4Chan in a suit and toupee.

[Holman]

Dangling a pardon to encourage security forces in illegal behavior. Huh.

[Jeff V]

And what happens to that promise in his pocket if he is not charged until after the Orange Monkey God is no longer on the throne?

[Jaymann]

Meh, just another contractor that didn't get paid.

[Holman]

And, sure, it's worth noting this followup, as skeptics have done:



But a "joke" like this (if that's even what it is) still carries the message.

We're in a week where Trump complained that our military troops at the border weren't able to act "tough" enough. And this is a president who just fired his reviled DHS boss because she pushed back even lightly against his policy of imposing intentional suffering on asylum-seekers.

[em2nought]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

[Kraken]

Asylum-seekers aren't illegal.

[em2nought]

Asylum-seekers aren't illegal.

"Legitimate" asylum seekers aren't illegal. Asylum seekers should be held in Mexico to await determination. If border jumpers "don't" request asylum then ship them to sanctuary cities after taking fingerprints and DNA swab. Send some folks to explain the new rules just like some "folks" are currently being sent to coach them in how to game the system and provide "support" for their trip.

Only if all that can be done legally of course, we know conservative policy must be done legally, unlike mainstream media supported policy.

Of course it goes without saying, don't get caught outside your "sanctuary" of choice.

[Holman]

So a free ticket to San Francisco/NYC/Denver/etc is supposed to *discourage* immigration from Caracas or Guatemala City?

[Alefroth]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

We get it. You don't have to explain Trump's motivation to us, bigot

[Kraken]

Mayors of several sanctuary cities (including Somerville MA, locally) have said "Bring 'em." They'd help with our labor shortages, and we'd appreciate their headcount for next year's census. We hope they'll decide to stay, although most will naturally go wherever they have relatives or friends. But this would add more chaos and expense to an overwhelmed system. Also, if you want to find and deport those whose claims are denied, aren't sanctuary cities the last place you'd want to send them?

It's an empty threat even if it were possible.

[GreenGoo]

Do the shit goblin followers not understand that they are cartoon villains? There are literally fables that describe this behaviour as something to guard against.

Who listened to Hansel and Gretel as a child and thought "you know, that witch has got it going on. I want to eat children when I grow up."?

[em2nought]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

We get it. You don't have to explain Trump's motivation to us, bigot

For the record, not wanting large numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into the country does not make me a bigot. Trying to make it sound like it does makes you a liar though.

[Kraken]

...which brings us back to, People applying for asylum are not illegal immigrants unless their petitions are denied and they refuse to leave.

[Zarathud]

If only there was a President who could persuade people to stop. Or countries where they live to stop them for us. Or countries in between them to help us out. Or even come up with a plan that Congress could vote on.

Instead we have Trump who will pretend to be tough, and sell fear without delivering anything but a dumpster fire.

[YellowKing]

Trump had a chance to spend a fortune on border security WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT but he refused to do so because it called for common sense security and not some asinine dumb-fuck wall that wouldn't work.

[hepcat]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

We get it. You don't have to explain Trump's motivation to us, bigot

For the record, not wanting large numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into the country does not make me a bigot. Trying to make it sound like it does makes you a liar though.

No...posting a doctored picture of them getting killed and thinking it's funny is what makes us believe you're racist.

Here's how to make us think otherwise:

1) Stop posting borderline to overtly racist crap.

2) see step 1.

[ImLawBoy]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

You mean send more people who tend to commit fewer crimes than the general population? We could actually use that here in Chicago. The economy could use the labor, too. Heck, we're in danger of losing a representative due to population drain, so maybe having more people would get us better representation in Congress, too!

[Kurth]

So I'm guessing all the sanctuary cities are looking forward to their new illegal residents?

You mean send more people who tend to commit fewer crimes than the general population? We could actually use that here in Chicago. The economy could use the labor, too. Heck, we're in danger of losing a representative due to population drain, so maybe having more people would get us better representation in Congress, too!

Wait, the economy needs the labor? I thought we were at full employment. That means the employment is full, right? So, like, no more jobs for people. Which is why the President says the country is full, no? Makes complete sense to me. #MAGA

[Jaymann]

Whatever happened to:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Did Trump scrawl "unless they have brown skin" on it?