President Donald Trump escalated the debate over immigration this weekend in calling for the deportation of people who “invade our Country”, without hearings or judges. The call would raise serious questions under both U.S. and international law. It would be a denial of the most basic protections of due process for those with credible claims for asylum. The position is both extreme and untenable if he is referring to any and all cases. It also undermines otherwise strong arguments being asserted for expedited procedures for dealing with the influx of undocumented persons.
This weekend, Trump tweeted “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”
The shift of Trump from a civil to a criminal emphasis in enforcement is well within his authority. Moreover, it is true that the Obama Administration also separated families in this fashion, though the numbers were smaller. Indeed this weekend Obama Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that they did separate children from their families and that “catch and release” was not an option — a position ostensibly close to the current policy but one that did not produce the same protests from Democratic politicians. He called for family detention centers to avoid the release of undocumented persons.
However, the refusal of any hearing or judge could raise some serious constitutional and international law concerns. We are a party to the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol in dealing with refugees — obligating us to take in those with a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” There is also the Refugee Act of 1980. Someone asserting asylum is entitled to a hearing to present their case and not simply a perfunctory dismissal.
There continues to be a good-faith debate over the procedures, that must be afforded at our borders. Specifically, there has been a long debate over the full extent of constitutional claims that can be raised by undocumented individuals in our country unlawfully. The due process protections under the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment are often raised in support of basic hearings and reviews. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) the Supreme Court held that legal immigrants such as Chinese immigrant Yick Wo afforded basic rights and stressed a territorial standard: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens…. These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”
The Supreme Court in Yamataya v. Fisher (1903) considered a case involving an undocumented immigrant and, while ruling against him, did apply due process standards to his case.
Under current procedures, undocumented persons are dealt with under either §1225(b)(1) or §1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) allows for deportations for those who enter through fraud, misrepresentation, or without valid documentation. Under the first provision, deportation can be ordered by ICE officials “without further hearing or review” under an expedited removal process. §1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If Trump were speaking of that group, he would be correct so long as there is not an asylum claim. There can be a return without a hearing or judge. Only about 15 percent of undocumented persons have hearings and the Obama Administration aggressively pursued expedited deportations without hearings. However, if an alien “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution,” the ICE officials must make a threshold determination if the claims is credible, and, if it is credible, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Other federal law mandate specific protections. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 it is mandated that “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government,” and “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Government …”
The government recently won an important decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court that found that federal law barred the holding of immigrants indefinitely and requires bond hearings after six months to evaluate if detention remains justified. Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously “rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) (citing Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950)). Whatever due process claims are viable for undocumented persons accrue only “within the territorial jurisdiction.” See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).
The case law in this area is still in flux as reflected in the Jennings case. There is clearly an ability for the Trump Administration to both shift to a criminal enforcement policy and to expedite deportations. To that end, Congress is moving to add judges and resources to the border. However, the blanket call for deportations without due process would be difficult to square with this prior authority. It is also difficult to square with our values as a nation for those with a legitimate fear for their lives and a history of persecution in their nations of origin.
Juan Cole this morning uses Turkey example as a path that Trump could take as well
Warning to US: Erdogan has used same techniques as Trump to de-Democratize Turkey
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, began his legitimate political career at the turn of this century with a push for more political pluralism in a Turkey that had long been dominated by an elite, secular military.
Now that he has won another term, Erdogan’s rise as an authoritarian strong man is a key lesson to America about how Trump could move the US in a similar direction. Trump’s antics on racism and immigration have distracted the American public from the massive numbers of federal judgeships Mitch McConnell is allowing Trump to fill with far right ideologues, after having blocked or run the clock out on Obama appointees. Trump is in a position to shape the officer corps, ensuring that fellow travelers of John Kelly and Jim Mattis take control. Trump is attempting to create public distrust of the print and broadcast media, substituting what is virtually Trump Administration t.v. over at Fox as well as far, far right kooks on the internet like the Breitbar crew and Alex Jones. Trump strongly allied with the Christian religious Right, who are his most reliable constituency. All of these steps were taken by Erdogan, as well, and over time they created an elective dictatorship where civil society is often just banned and there is no free press.”
If you remove all the incendiary adjectives what you claim appears to be true.
And is true of every president ever.
Presidents nominate judges. They are free to make those nominations based on the preferences of their choice. The senate confirms those appoints and is also free to do so based on its independent preferences.
Obama nominated judges, Trump nominated judges.
The senate approved some Obama nominations and did not others.
The senate approved most Trump nominations but refused a few.
Trump is attacking the media.
His has not however enlisted the powers of the executive branch to do so.
As is typical of the left you confuse emotion with fact, and spray us with false equivalances.
While missing the obvious and transparent ones that deflate your argument.
If you wish to terrify me of Trump – show where he has actually ACTED authoritarian ?
Where has he increased the power of the federal government, or increased his own personal powers ?
The fact that Trump is pursuing policies that you do not like (or even occasionally I do not like) does not make him authoritarian. It makes him president.
There has never been a president I fully agreed with.
That does not make them all tyrants.
Authoriatainism is the unilateral excercise of power, particularly power ones does not actually have.
That is epitomized by Pres. Obama not Trump.
Well, if Trump does that, I do hope he’ll see to it that a large fraction of our college and university faculties are stripped of their citizenship and expelled from this country. They’re gangrene.
Under what laws would such an expulsion be possible? Or are you arguing for an extra-legal detention? Maybe into concentration camps as a first step?
Under what laws would such an expulsion be possible?
No one who assents to Roe v. Wade or Romer v. Evans Obergefell should be able to ask that question without being greeted with gales of laughter.
My original remark was sarcastic. Should I footnote these?
I have no issue with due process. Rent some land in Mexico. Set up a tent city and bring them to the border for hearings limited to two hours each. Put the judges on shift work and run’em 24/7. If the NGOs keep telling the migrants to lie about persecution then prosecute both of them for fraud.
Due process? Sure. Catch them, determine their home country and immediately transport them to one of the many US consulates between their home country and the United States border.
Rent even more land in Mexico. Build housing units. Police vigorously to keep out gangs. Put some factories there.
About 85% of Mexico’s workforce is employed in industry or services. There’s an ample supply of factories there. Employment-to-population ratios are only mildly depressed. Life expectancy at birth is about that of the United States 15 years ago. Only a single-digit share of the population is illiterate (and almost none of the young adult population is). Per capita product is similar to that of the United States in 1950 even after accounting for the skew distribution of Mexican household incomes. The main quality of life problem in Mexico is street crime and the incompetence of the civil administration which attends it. Mass migration to the United States does nothing to address those problems.
Your new handle speaks volumes, Nii. What a piece of work you are.
Mespo, Though you may have said that tongue in cheek, I think it is an excellent idea. Most of the illegals we are talking about are already outside of the boundaries of those from whom they need to seek asylum from. Therefore, they are no longer in jeopardy and we do not need to worry about their safety and the determination can be made outside of the US.
No, dead serious. I see that as a viable alternative to housing them here.
Good because I thought it was a great idea.
A lot of these socalled nonprofits and NGOs are criminal conspiracies and could be sued as such by civil plaintiffs such as those that have been defrauded for donations to false causes
Mr Kurtz:
They’re mostly dunder-headed do-gooders who think their sincere feelings of compassion for others trump the law. That never works out well for their “clients” or them.
Oops, sorry about the double post. That’s what happens when you are on an internet free island off of Maine trying to peck a message off on a phone. 🙄
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Repudiate the UN Treaty! Why are we “party” to such nonsense?
Rumor has it that we were trying to win the super-power conflict known as the cold war by persuading the rest of the world that we would welcome asylum seekers whilst the communists imprisoned their own people behind an iron curtain.
I fully support increasing immigration to the US. But all choices have consequences, increasing immigration has consequences too. If you want open borders – then be honest about that, and lets have a debate about what that would look like. Lets honestly look at the consequences and determine whether they are acceptable and what changes might be needed.
Reagan purportedly asked what he thought of illegal immigrants responded “willing workers” and I agree.
Is the left prepared to see millions of additional low wage low skill workers flood the US ?
I am. I think that would be good for the country. But it would NOT be good for absolutely everyone.
It would be pretty bad for the low wage, low skill workers that are already here.
Nor is there a fix for that.
Dhlii, There is no honesty in the left at this time. They refuse to debate the logical end of their talking points. Instead, they create images of shame hoping the American public will buy the images even though the result of their talking points would be a lot worse.
At this time in history, neither complete open borders or complete borders would satisfy America’s needs. Therefore a hybrid is required but even a hybrid requires legality and legality requires positions to be taken, some of which are a bit uncomfortable.
Whenever you refer to a ‘need’ you have an implicit purpose in mind.
The principal utility of immigration at this point is to make up for our fertility deficit. That could be accomplished with as few as 400,000 immigrants per year.
DSS, you keep changing your name so I will go back to referring to you by your first name, DSS.
There is more to the word “need” than replacement.
No, there really isn’t. We have ample population and institutional presence to train technical personnel. The whole H1-B scam is to allow tech companies to save a few quid on programmers.
Actually, DSS was the third or fourth handle I’ve used. I’ve had to change it multiple times because my comments get sent to the spam filter and I get locked out. Then the moderator banned me for months for no apparent reason. (He tolerates neo-Nazis, ghastly shrews, palaeotrash defamation artists, sockpuppeteer extraoridaire Diane, &c. but could not tolerate me. Go figure). Prior to the last year or so, I used one handle for all of my commenting activity. Didn’t need more than one. This is the only site which has these technical glitches and perverse moderation.
“Then the moderator banned me for months for no apparent reason.” – (T)STD
Too bad so sad.
“This is the only site which has these technical glitches and perverse moderation.” – (T)STD
I doubt it. (Someone has your number…)
DSS, you have an opinion that is reasonable but not one that supersedes other opinions.
“The whole H1-B scam ” That is a scam, however, there are some people that can benefit this country tremendously even though we could if we desired train our own people better than we do. Since we don’t, the need is enhanced. Will we do better in the future? That remains to be seen and since we don’t know we are unable to determine such firm conclusions that you rely on. Can you read the future?
As far as the spam filter locking you out I don’t think that is a long-term problem. I have experimented with it considerably over the time period I have been here. The lockouts are almost all temporary and sometimes only apply to a single area where the response is to be made. I have had the same problem a dozen or so times yet when that problem happened I was able to post on a brand new thread and sometimes the same thread but in a different area.
The automatic lockout appears to be keyed to one’s email address and frequently has nothing to do with content. That one might also be locked out because of other reasons such as specific words, too many HTTP’s, etc. is also true. There are likely manual lockouts that probably only affect a very small number of people where the reason for the lockout is clear. Sometimes there is a lockout and then you might receive a duplicate posting remark. That can be managed by reposting with xxxxx or text on top and quoting what was originally posted. It might even post without the “”.
I have two email addresses and one name, Allan, though at one time I also used the name Al because I wasn’t sure how the computer functioned. Lately, when I am locked out I simply use a secondary email address with the same name and later go back to the primary address. I have yet to be locked out permanently using this method. It is quick and easy though having to rewrite a posting is a pain in the neck.
Try my method and go Back to DSS which is easier to see and write along with having a smoother and more elegant name, Desperately Seeking Susan.
there are some people that can benefit this country tremendously even though we could if we desired train our own people better than we do. Since we don’t, the need is enhanced.
Over 90,000 baccalaureate degrees in engineering are issued in this country every year, even though replenishing the engineering profession could be accomplished with roughly 60,000 or so new entrants. Over 60,000 engineering degrees are issued to blacks and non-Hispanic whites each year, very few of whom are settler immigrants (much less students imported from abroad). And, of course, many of the 18,000 or so Hispanics, Orientals, and East Indians issued engineering degrees were born in this country or settled here as ordinary immigrants. (In general, ‘international students’ account for < 4% of those enrolled in tertiary institutions in this country). We have an ample supply of trained engineers.
You're not going to find spot imports who 'benefit this country tremendously'. You'll find some innovators you can write about (e.g. Werner von Braun). Elon Musk has founded some interesting companies, but they're a small fraction of our total output. If you're concerned about irreplaceable people for military research, you can have a national-security exception.
OMG, a person who actually knows what he is talking about comments. Thank you!
I don’t know the answer to a question that is filled with holes. Metaphorically speaking, one Steve Jobs might be worth more than 400,000 immigrants here solely to replace the numbers of people lost. The answer is a lot more complex than your numbers might suggest.
What your numbers are really telling us is how many degrees are provided devoid of quality. I have loads of degrees but where I have been most productive in many cases has no relationship to any of my degrees. How many degrees did Lincoln have? We know he had a law degree but as we have learned from a certain group of people on this blog that has a law degree, the degree by itself hasn’t taught them how to think. I’ve seen unschooled people that have better minds than some of the lawyers on this list. Same with engineers. Awhile back a walking bridge just built over a busy roadway tumbled to the ground killing a bunch of people. I saw pictures of it along with a typical news article and realized that this should never have happened and it couldn’t have happened with just one or even several persons making a mistake. There were too many errors that had to be made by different people and a number of them were likely licensed engineers.
All of which is irrelevant, Allen. You’d have to contrive a policy which could reliably identify engineers who were more capable than domestically-trained engineers. You can’t do it. Even if you could do it, the additional increment to value-added might turn out to be contextually trivial.
DSS, and please revert back to that name, what you say isn’t exactly true. We do a pretty good job training engineers though I am not sure about the present. Do we do a good enough job training future entrepreneurs? I don’t know that we are continuing to do so. How about engineers that are entrepreneurs? How about the same in all other endeavors?
A lot of our problems don’t revolve around the immigration debate rather revolve more around our PC culture and the infiltration of know-nothings into leadership positions on the college campuses. We need to take some steps back and recognize that we are offering too much security to our young which dullens their brains and reduces their desires to take risks.
In any event, let’s look at one number. How many American Nobel Prize winners were immigrants? You know the numbers better than I but I have heard it is almost 40% since the turn of the century.
I’m not sure how many were, and I don’t care. Nobel Prizes are awarded for science, not for technology. It’s not as if we can’t read the literature.
DSS, I know you may not care, but that is an example that demonstrates that perhaps what you said wasn’t totally accurate.
Allan
+10
I should have added that other sites have the same glitches. This site is one of the least moderated that I have come across. If I were asked I would not moderate a single posting rather I would leave the posting there so the content could not be seen. I would permit the content to be seen by the reader if he wishes with a simple click.
That way everyone gets to know what others are writing and such content that doesn’t belong becomes a matter of personal choice.
I don’t read various commentators on this blog because what they say is generally worthless. When I am not otherwise occupied I will sometimes read their useless thoughts and comment. I generally get the gist from other comments.
Tada said, “(He tolerates neo-Nazis, ghastly shrews, palaeotrash defamation artists, sockpuppeteer extraoridaire Diane, &c. but could not tolerate me. Go figure).”
Does this mean that I’m not a ghastly shrew? Or does it mean that one of my supposed sockpuppets is a ghastly shrew? I missed you so terribly the whole time you were gone. I was so happy when you finally returned. “Tada! There it is,” I said to myself. “Yay!”
P. S. I thought you were on sabbatical. Because, Judge Roy Moore. And then I thought maybe Tada does this every year during the holidays. And then Paul got sick and I thought OMG. What if Tada got sick, too. And then you returned to the blawg. Tada! Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta da Tada!
STOP WITH THE FACTS! You’re driving them crazy. They will be spastic soon with frustration
To be clear – my critiques of the left are NOT a call to government action.
If those on the left wish to rage and foam – I say let them.
I am no big fan of Phillips/Master cake (the person, not the decision), but Phillips looks positively restained civil and tolerant compared to those going after Nielsen, Bondi, and Sanders.
And MOSTLY, I say let them.
MOSTLY – because the left is crossing some lines.
Each of us – whether buyer or seller should be free to buy or sell to whoever we please.
Even if our reasons are bad.
But I have more problems with some customers in a restaurant or other business disrupting not merely the order of someone who has come to dinner – but of all diners.
But I think deciding what behavior is acceptable (short of violence) is up to the owners.
If they wish to support one group of customers protesting another – that is their right.
And the consequences to their business are theirs.
Further Protestors have come to Nielsen’s home with bullhorn’s and the expressed intention of disrupting her sleep and private life.
You can protest as you wish in public – but you should not be free from public space to significantly disrupt the private lives of others.
Protest Nielsen at work, and actually in public.
Further I want the greatest possible freedom.
Let the left march and speak.
The rest of us can judge whether that is conduct we endorse or not.
We have just had a public spat over things at the Mexico/US border.
To be clear – I do not have the answers, and if I did, no one is doing what I recommend.
But I am capable of seeing that there is a big problem and that incentives matter.
That those crossing the border illegally may not read our laws and policies, but they hear about them
and they will make choices that increase their odds of remaining in the US.
At the moment the left seems to have won that fight. Further I share the lefts distaste for family separation.
But I do not accept ignoring the law. If it is wrong change it.
Regardless, this appears to be likely a phyric victory. This are getting much worse in Mexico.
Violence is escalating, Mexico is moving towards being a failed state, and it appears prepared to elect a new leader who intends to actively push mexicans into the US.
The same people in tears with a 3yr old today may find themselves supporting more draconian measures than Trump has engaged in if violence, drugs, and the numbers at the borders increase dramatically.
I fully support a free press – even a biased press, whether it is Brietbart of MSNBC.
Let the media wear their politics on their sleeves. I would rather know where they stand.
We live in an era where there is no shortage of news sources.
We are free to make up our own minds who is credible and who is not.
Let the left(and the right and …) be who it is, and let us judge them based on their words and actions.
I do not want the left reigned in. I want them to be exactly who they are, and the rest of us to choose accordingly.
I think a major factor in Trump’s election was that the left has called half the country “hateful, hating haters”. Clinton’s deplorables remark did NOT change alot of voters minds – all she did was said out loud what most of us already know that the left thinks of much of the US electorate.
Let the left, be the left, let each of us persuade others however we please.
And people can make their own choices.
“To be clear – my critiques of the left are NOT a call to government action.
If those on the left wish to rage and foam – I say let them.”
You define issues (with one line of thought following another) as black and white as if there was a unified theory to manage all problems. The world is not that way. Rights conflict with one another and conflicts develop among unpredictable human beings and then are settled (or thought to be settled) by other unpredictable human beings.
“If those on the left” [or right] “wish to rage and foam – I say let them.” They must do so with their own property and have no right to interfere with my private life or the life of a community. “NOT a call to government action.”? Most certainly there is, however, there is also a call for common sense something not seemingly appreciated by the left of today. When common sense disappears so do the ideas behind libertarianism and the ideas behind our Republic.
Allan;
I am sorry that you are offended by my style of argument.
Your response is an over generalization.
Epistemological discussion of what is truth follows
First, Read Orwell. Statements are facts, arguments or opinions.
There is no need to and it is counter productive to add “Ithink” or “I beleive” or “In my oppinion” to everything I write.
If I state something as a fact – it is, or it is not.
If I state and argument – it is valid or not.
If I state and opinion – it is an opinion regardless or whether I label it as such.
Next – I do not have the answers to everything, I am not even trying to. If you actually read what write then you would grasp that the “black and white” region is very small.
To the greatest extent possible we MUST make those things involving the use of force BLACK AND WHITE. There is no room for ambiguity in the use of force.
That requirement that those things involving the use of force are as black and white as possible,
is also a requirement that the scope of the legitimate use of force is as narrow as possible.
While “I beleive” that most things involving the use of force are black and white or very close to it.
It actually does not matter whether that is true or not.
We can not make a functional world where we have no clear rules for the use of force.
I would hope most everyone could accept the above.
If not – then lets have that debate.
Accepting the above
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Everyone – left, right, is free short of the use of force to do as they please within their own lives.
I can hold an opinion on the conduct of lefties or others, but I have no right no legitimate power to alter their non-violent conduct confined to their own lives.
Contention arises – as well as the requirement that things are black and white, when the use of force – aka government enters the discussion.
In that narrow realm – things both are and need to be as black and white as possible.
The alternative is chaos.
Last, with most every system we start with a few postulates, axioms, principles.
The foundations of everything that follows. These are things that we know to be true, but can not prove.
Logic has these, Math has these, Science has these.
In the realm of human behavior I start with the first principle that free will is an intrinsic and fundimental human attribute. That we must constrain our interference in the free will of others as much as possible.
That is my first principle. Maybe you have not consciously thought about that, but alot of philosophers have. There are alternatives to free will as a foundational principle, but those alternatives have logical consequences that most humans reject.
The fact that you have not thought about something does not mean it is not still foundational even for you.
From axioms we can build everything else. Again logic, math science all work that way.
I would note that science does not answer all questions (nor does math or logic).
Those it does it typically does with high degrees of certainty.
Given 100,000 propositions – nearly all contradict our axioms.
Either the axiom is wrong, or the proposition is false.
More simply – most views, propositions, assertions are false.
All ideas. all viewpoints, are just not equal.
You do not need black and white to be able to reason to dividing assertions into 2 catagories:
Those that appear to be consistent with our axioms and those other things we accept as true, because they can be derived from our axioms.
Those things that are demonstrably inconsistent with our axioms or what is derived from those axioms.
with this being by far the largest catagory.
Most assertions are false. That is not black and white, it is just reality.
If I spout 1000 truly random assertions about the sun – nearly all will be false.
Of those things that are not obviously in contradiction with our axioms. each has a probability of being true. That probability is based on the distance between that assertion and our axioms.
So no, things are not black and white. But that does not preclude rejecting lots of propositions as flat our false, nor does it mean that the probable truth of what is left can not be established.
Dhlii, I am NOT offended at all by your style of argument. I find it counterproductive and lacking a bit of reality. Nothing wrong with most of the principles involved. Sometimes a little common sense is a good substitute for the tons of theory that most never bother to read.
There is only one actual natural right that conflicts with the others.
That is the right to initiate force against others.
It is that right that we surrender as part of the social contract that is the basis for government.
The remainder of our natural rights do not conflict.
If you think you have found a conflict, one of the things you found in conflict is not a right, or is not defined correctly.
Individual humans are not predictable. But aggregate human behavior distributes within bell curves.
Our behavior, our thoughts, ideas, values may occasionally conflict
If they do they are not rights.
Normally when Americans refer to rights they refer to the Constitution that we live under. Whether your theory tells you that you are right or not, if what you do is against the law you can up in jail. You have to be careful that you are talking about the same rights everyone else is talking about.
“Individual humans are not predictable. But aggregate human behavior distributes within bell curves.”
Your averages tell us little about reality. A man can drown in a lake whose average depth is 4 inches. The bell curve is very broad. Average lies is in the center and the outliers lie at either end.
“Normally when Americans refer to rights they refer to the Constitution that we live under. ”
Our founders certainly did not. The constitution was not written in 1776. The declaration refers to inalienable rights. Even the constitution makes clear that the enumerated rights are not the only rights.
“Whether your theory tells you that you are right or not, if what you do is against the law you can up in jail.”
Never said otherwise. In fact I have argued here repeated that the law MUST be imposed exactly as written with as little discretion as possible.
That is ONE of the important means of getting rid of bad law – enforce them.
“You have to be careful that you are talking about the same rights everyone else is talking about.”
No, I do not. Just because “everyone else” is confused about what a right is, does not mean I have to buy into the confusion.
Where such issues are discussed seriously and thoughtfully there are more precise definitions of rights.
Regardless there are some facets of rights that are “common sense”
A right can not impose a positive duty on another – that is unsustainable.
Rights create negative duties – i.e. you will not use force to impede another’s “rights”
A right is something that can not be taken away by the whim of the majority – to be clear, that does nto mean the majority does not often try.
Finally, Exactly what a right is, is not all that important.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Define and limit the role of government and it does not matter whether you call something else a right, liberty or just freedom that is outside the scope of government.
“Your averages tell us little about reality.”
Not talking about “averages” I specifically refered to normal curve distributions.
Specify the median and the std dev and you have pretty while described the complete rannge of human behavior on some attribute.
“A man can drown in a lake whose average depth is 4 inches.”
I am not sure that drowning is a “human behavior”.
Regardless, we likely know exactly what proportion of all drownings occur in 4 inches of water. as well as the total drownings as a proportion of population.
We can know if we want whether this is a real problem that should have enormous resources directed to it, or if it is an emotional response that is wasteful. ‘
Though again I would note – you have taking my remarks and applied them to a different domain.
Actual human behavior distributes on a bell curve, and it is very difficult – nearly impossible to shift that curve, it does happen but it usually takes a long time, and government has little or nothing to do with it.
Drownings as an example or lightning strikes or many other things that are less directly tied to human behavior MAY distribute on a bell curve, but their actual distribution is determined by the laws of science.
I know of many phenomena that distribute asymptotically – that ramp rapidly up to a cliff where they abruptly stop completely. Time of Flight measures – whether airplanes or sub atomic particles would be an example.
“The bell curve is very broad. Average lies is in the center and the outliers lie at either end.”
The breadth of the curve on a given attribute is determined by the std dev for that data set.
Like the attributes of a sub atomic particle we can not predict the behavior of any specific partcal accurately. But we can define a probabalistic distribution that tells is that no partical will ever do certain things, and very few will do others.
Dhlii, we are talking about today. The founders attempted to create laws based on our natural rights. Not everything was done correctly but the Constitution created the law under which we live and that law extends to state constitutions and all sorts of other law. They didn’t intend for you to break the law unless things were so bad that a new revolution was necessary. That is why Americans today try and live within the laws of society not the laws of the various libertarians that frequently do not agree with one another. You have to learn to separate theory from reality.
The “reality” allan, is that the “theory” works.
You can arrive at fairly extreme libertarianism purely pragmatically without the slightest theory.
Here are just the first couple of several “10 things economists agree on ” lists.
I have some minor quibbles with 2 or 3 of maybe 40 things that the vast majority of economists agree on.
I am not a big proponent of “experts”. I prefer to get educated myself – today the resources available allow us to become expert in most anything quickly.
But economists for the most part are pretty good at statistics and data.
You will hear alot on the news about economists making claims that are not in any of these lists.
But that is because if you are an economist and you want to appear on the news and be feted by the left and the media, you need like Thomas Picketty to claim something the left and the media wish to hear, not somehting that is true.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutecon.html
forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/06/05/10-essential-economic-truths-liberals-need-to-learn/#472ca7954e73
https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html
Allan;
You keep coming back to this – theory is fine but reality argument.
As if the only arguments I ever make are ivory tower theoretical ones.
I have given you theoretical arguments.
Deductive argments
inductive arguments
pragmantic arguments.
Your “theory is fine but” response ignores the fact that I have made the same argument many many different ways.
The fact that I can do so, pretty much means that theory, philosophy, facts and reality are all consistent with each other.
There is no other ideology that can say that.
It takes very little time to find an irresolvable contradiction in anything any leftist beleives if you can get them to broadly discuss their beliefs.
In the end I am highly pragmatic. I am pushing something that works.
I think you know that.
I am not interested in any argument that has “common sense” in it.
Much of what is sold as “common sense” is neither common nor sense.
The philosophical foundation of libertarianism is free will.
You do not have to know that to be libertarian.
But the two are still inseparable.
Common sense involves a lot of human actions. People don’t generally refer to a book on libertarian thinking to determine what they will do next. I have no problem discussing libertarian principles when such a discussion applies. After all, the founders were to a great extent classical liberals/libertarians.
“Common sense involves a lot of human actions. ”
You criticise my use of rights as something without a common accepted reference and then expound on “common sense”
The term “common sense” has no accepted meaning. It is like “fair” we all use it but if you asked 10 people to define it you get 11 answers.
“People don’t generally refer to a book on libertarian thinking to determine what they will do next.”
Most animal behavior is heuristic, a combination of trial and error learning and successive approximation.
The fact that we do not think about it does not mean that it does not follow strong patterns.
BTW while I have asserted that human behavior is had to change, Thinking and reading about it is one of the ways that we change our behavior.
“I have no problem discussing libertarian principles when such a discussion applies. After all, the founders were to a great extent classical liberals/libertarians.”
The ultimate objective of all thought and principles and philosophy is to be useful – either to guide or to explain the real world.
We can as example compare and contrast libertarianism and socialism – or any other ideology.
We can debate them theoretically. Depending on your values, classical liberalism or libertarianism may prove to be the worst possible ideology. Socialism and communism are in theory incredibly appealing.
The fundimental appeal of libertarianism is that it actually works.
Socialism and communism work WORSE the more fully they are implimented.
Libertarianism to the extent it has been tried works BETTER the more fully it is implimented.
We do not have some perfect socialist society or perfect libertarian one to study – though I would note the relationship of nations to each other is actually pure anarcho-capitalism and has been for thousands of years.
Regardless, we have more and less libertarian govenrments, we have more and less socialist governments.
We know that atleast in the domain from government at 20% of GDP through 80% of GDP, that less government means more rapidly rising standard of living.
To be clear we KNOW these things.
““Common sense involves a lot of human actions. ”
You criticise my use of rights as something without a common accepted reference and then expound on “common sense”
The libertarian world relies on common sense and common decency.
“Most animal behavior is heuristic”
Yes but many animals especially humans can bypass legs of the tree that bureaucrats work through at a much slower pace. Think experienced firefighters where time is of the essence.
“The libertarian world relies on common sense and common decency.”
No. Libertarians rely on actual sense – what does and does not work.
I have used this before, but I think you may have raised it before I did in JT.org.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
I would suggest that common decency has the same problems as common sense.
Those on the left think it is not merely common decency but should be the law to require people who view homosexuality as a sin to sell wedding cakes to gay couples,
The same people think it is OK to hound people who disagree with them politically out of restaurants and out of bed.
I would not use “common” standards as the gold standard for anything.
Allan:”“The libertarian world relies on common sense and common decency.”
Dhlii: No. Libertarians rely on actual sense – what does and does not work.”
In a test tube.
In a test tube.
With a radius of over 6000Km
“In a test tube. With a radius of over 6000Km”
I guess (based on the test tube’s size) you have decided that the earth is God’s test tube and you are nothing more than his experiment.
I said nothing about god.
All I am noting is that the “test tube” is the world.
If the test tube is the world (earth), then God must be doing the testing.
God, random chance, the laws of physics. I do not much care.
Further I am libertarian. I accept that much occurs from the bottom up.
There does not need to be some top down direction.
Did god separate the land from the water ?
“Did god separate the land from the water ?”
Dhlii, what makes you think the land and water were mixed together in the first place?
“Dhlii, what makes you think the land and water were mixed together in the first place?”
Not the point.
You seem to think that my argument requires god.
My point is that it works regardless of whether you beleive in a god or not.
“Not the point.
You seem to think that my argument requires god.”
Dhlii, when you ask if God separated the land and water and that the earth constitutes a giant test tube one starts thinking in that fashion.
“Dhlii, when you ask if God separated the land and water and that the earth constitutes a giant test tube one starts thinking in that fashion.”
You brought test tubes into this – I didn’t
You brought god into it. I didn’t.
I responded to meaningless or irrelevant remarks obviously facetiously, and you are chastizing me because you are taking them litterally.
Nothing I have argued is effected by “god” in any way.
What I have argued is real world – if you wish to consider the real world a test tube that is your problem.
“You brought test tubes into this – I didn’t”
Dhlii, In essence, I stated that your rules of a perfect world work in a test tube, not in reality even though I approve of most of them and think them beneficial. You expanded the analogy: ““In a test tube. With a radius of over 6000Km” which implies a very large test tube, earth. Only God can do such a large experiment or someone much greater than mere humans. It’s your lack of direct response and overthinking of a discussion that gets you so confused.
The remarks contrasting theory and reality were pertinent remarks but you sidestepped them. If you want to call your remark facetious you can but my remark about reality was very much on target.
No overthinking involved.
Unless you feel compelled to distinguish between work perfectly and work better than anything else,
I do not know what there is to debate.
Greater freedom, reduced govenrment (outside the absurd) result in higher standard of living – IN THE REAL WORLD.
God, no god – the “experiment” exists – it is called earth and the data indicates it works as I have argued.
No, Allan, you missed the target completely, and that is why it is so easy to poke fun at your replies.
You want off on a tangent about test tubes and god, and I chose to have fun and follow you.
And then you decide to draw conclusions about my arguments based on your dive into the absurd.
“No, Allan, you missed the target completely”
Dhlii, you make me laugh. You use a shotgun of ideas at 10 feet and your target is as good as new.😀
The fact that there are multiple valid arguments, in itself means the target is weak
Dhlii, bad argument for a lack of good marksmanship.
You do understand that most experience is just improved heuristics ?
Regardless the point was that fundimentals of the way humans function while not allowing predictability on an individual basis, do allow us parameterize human behavior.
Why don’t you two cretins find yourselves a chat room.
“Why don’t you two cretins find yourselves a chat room.”
I think anonymous wants to join us. No way. Ughhhh.
“I think anonymous wants to join us.” So says the nutter Allan.
Another leap, taking us in to the realm of Allanonsense.
Join you?? Yeah: in your dreams.
Anonymous, you weren’t invited so now you are throwing a hissy fit.
He was not invited,
joined anyway,
and is arguing that he does not want to do what he has already done.
Does not speak highly of his ability to make any argument.
I think it (anonymous) is a she, but it could be any of the 67 pronouns presently in use that seems to expand by the day.
Everything is an it, or a they/them.
I am really tired of people actively seeking out offense.
Except that you may not burden otherwise with the requirement to remember whatever it is that you want to be called, you can be called whatever the F you please.
I do not give a damn what you are and I do not wish to give a damn.
If you wish to procreate with starfish or unicorns more power to you. So long as you leave me alone and stay away from children I do not care.
You are free to whatever identity you want – so long as you create no obligations in others.
If you chose to present as a man and are offended if I call you “he”, that problem can be solved by calling you stupid.
It is reasonable to conclude from the fact that you have joined, that you wanted to join.
I know that logic is taxing for some, but it is still immutable.
Okay, this is not a reply to Alan, and sorry to say it again, but as I was reading this ridiculous one word and one letter comment column I can’t help but think how much I don’t like this new comment section. Bring back the wide open spaces of the old comment section. I’m feeling cramped and claustrophic here. To borrow Alan’s word: Ughhh.
TBob – send your remarks directly to JT by email. I am sure he will take them into consideration. I work off my computer, so I do not have your problem and I don’t think Ben took your problem into consideration.
It is a free world.
What I dislike the most about debating you is that our positions are sufficiently close together that any debate is inherently over nitts.
You are obviously intelligent and knowledgeable, and would be a pleasure to debate something of substance.
But we do not disagree over much of substance.
I would suggest that is because actually intelligent people with “common sense” and meaningful knowledge tend to reach much the same conclusions.
Probably because they live int he real world rather than an bubble and tend not to beleive long things that contradict reality.
anonymous – this is a chat room.
I have expounded on the legitimate scope of government – the use of force, repeatedly.
Simplisticly there are three facets.
The punishiment of the initiation of force against others – criminal law.
The enforcement of agreements – civil law
Compelling us to make whole those we harm – torts.
All other uses of force are illegitimate.
Demanding that you conform your conduct to those constraints is not “a call to action”.
It is the minimum and maximum fo govenrment.
In all else you are free.
“I have expounded on the legitimate scope of government – the use of force, repeatedly.”
Nothing wrong with defining libertarian principles when discussing how government ought to act and advocating such principles. They just don’t completely hold in our society where much of our liberty doesn’t exist.
I should have added that human beings will always act in their perceived self-interest and that leads to actions that don’t follow the libertarian viewpoint.
“I should have added that human beings will always act in their perceived self-interest”
Mostly – not always. People do on rare occasions deliberately choose to act against their interests.
“and that leads to actions that don’t follow the libertarian viewpoint.”
BZZT, wrong – like absolutely wrong. No other ideology no other scheme of political economy allows the breadth of freedom for individuals to act as they wish.
Again “the maximum of individual liberty consistent with public order”.
““I should have added that human beings will always act in their perceived self-interest”
Mostly – not always. People do on rare occasions deliberately choose to act against their interests.”
Take note of my use of the word “perceived” self-interest.
I did note “perceived”
I am talking about instances where people will deliberately make either self destructive or alruist choices that are not in their own self interests – perceived or otherwise.
I would note that while you can crush my counter by construing perceived broadly.
you concurrently ruin your argument.
“I am talking about instances where people will deliberately make either self destructive or alruist choices that are not in their own self interests – perceived or otherwise.”
There is always a rational (good or bad) that precedes an action when thinking occurs. It might be only momentary but the rational exists.
“There is always a rational (good or bad) that precedes an action when thinking occurs. It might be only momentary but the rational exists.”
This is not an important debate.
You can beleive what you want.
But you still have many problems with your conclusion.
Every decisions that involves conscious though is not inherently in ones perceived self interest.
The overwhelming majority are.
Every choice that involves thought does not involve conscious thought.
Much of human behavior does not involve cognition in the normal sense.
Most choices we make do not involve explicitly weighing all or even most options.
“But you still have many problems with your conclusion.”
No, it is a truism even if only momentary.
“There is always a rational (good or bad) that precedes an action when thinking occurs. It might be only momentary but the rational exists.”
That you feel “This is not an important debate.” is because it is true and requires no debate, certainly not the type of debate you are offering.
Now you are telling my why I have specific feelings ?
Wow!
That this debate is unimportant is self evident.
Mostly you are I agree.
But you are fully prepared to get into an extended debate over small issues that you are usually wrong about.
The issue we are currently debating is so inconsequential I do not recall what it is.
Of what you need is to declare victory over some small things that I do not even recall – more power too you.
I would be happy to debate you over something of substance that we actually disagree on.
You are more of a challenge than most of the left wing nuts here.
But there is not much of substance we disagree on,
You might not recognize it but basically, one can say we disagree over the cause of altruism.
“You might not recognize it but basically, one can say we disagree over the cause of altruism.”
Given that I do not have an important view on that, I am not sure how we disagree.
What I know is:
It is individual, not the role of government.
Positive moral obligations are outside the domain of government
““and that leads to actions that don’t follow the libertarian viewpoint.”
BZZT, wrong ”
You are splitting hairs and are absolutely wrong. It might be in my best interest economically to kill the farmer next door and things of that nature have happened. Morality has a lot to do with a well-functioning society. Certain elements of the left and a much smaller segment of the right do not have that morality and that is why we see significant dysfunction in today’s society.
Sorry Allan, but you are splitting hairs – or more accurately over generalizing.
If you expand “self interests” infinitely you win the argument, but you have no longer said anything meaningful.
Humans always act in their perceived self interests – if you define their perceived self interests as anything.
“Morality has a lot to do with a well-functioning society. ”
Absolutely – and you can not have morality without “free will”
The foundation of morality is freedom to choose.
I would further note there are atleast two domains for morality – positive and negative.
Negative morality – the foundation of law.
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
TJ
Postive morality
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Matthew 7:12
“Sorry Allan, but you are splitting hairs – or more accurately over generalizing.”
No. I am simply stating that you are working in a test tube where the environment is completely controlled. Even then you are wrong, at least Heisenberg thinks so.
“No. I am simply stating that you are working in a test tube where the environment is completely controlled. Even then you are wrong, at least Heisenberg thinks so.”
Absolutely wrong on all points.
Everything I am dealing with – the entire ideology of libertarianism is about the LACK of a controlled environment. That is a fundimental reason it works, because it depends on very minimal “control”.
Limited government is about minimizing to the greatest extent possible top down control – because that is inefficient, expensive, static, and inherently overly restrictive.
Everything I am arguing is about maintaining order with the LEAST POSSIBLE control.
You are the one on the wrong side of heisenberger.
As I noted before individual human behavior is not predictable – just as that of subatomic particles.
But aggregate behavior fits into a probabilistic pattern – humans, sub atomic particles, the same.
This same pattern is found all over.
We had a debate about the nature of truth – epistemology.
Truth is probablistic too. The absence of absolute truth does nto mean all viewpoints are equally valid – one of the fundimental errors of postmoderism.
As I noted before out of all possible assertions – nearly all are false.
Just like the electron – there are a number of places it can be.
But nearly all places it can not be.
Of what is not obviously false some things are more certain to be true than others.
Nor is truth dependent on our beleif. The structure of the atom was what it is when the greeks beleived it was different, and our model of it will certainly look equally bad to those 10,000 years from now.
You and I can disagree on fundimental issues. We can have completely different viewpoints.
We are near certainly both wrong to some extent.
But what is right is still right regardless of your or my view of it.
You do not have to understand, to have whatever the truth is as part of your cognitive framework for it to be true.
“Absolutely wrong on all points.”
OK. In a world where you pretend to make all the rules and create all the definitions you will invariably turn out right even when you are totally wrong.
I do not make the rules. The rules of logic and reason are fairly well set.
I do not create the definitions. I use normal definitions for normal words, and deliberately try to use words where the meanings is clear and commonly agreed on.
I try to avoid in argument the use of highly ambiguous and multiply defined words and phrases – like “common sense”.
“I do not make the rules. The rules of logic and reason are fairly well set.”
I have to laugh for those “well set” rules are yours.
When I state the legitimate scope of government, I am doing more than defining libertarian principles.
I am discussing fundimental human principles.
I would be surprised if there is a person here who thinks that conduct that violates those “libertarian principles” is acceptable.
I am not defining “libertarian principles” I am defining “human principles”.
I am also explicitly inviting debate over whether those principles are merely the core, or the limits to the justifiable use of force.
Absolutely there are people who beleive that other uses of force are justified.
My argument is that what you are calling “libertarian principles”
are the super normative standards that nearly all humans accept, either consciously or otherwise.
That YOU or anyone else is obligated to demonstrate that any additional uses of force are justified.
All law, is ultimately imposed by force.
Just as behavior is a bell curve – law is a curve too.
Whether it is a square edge – zero discretion, or more of the rising side of a sine wave – large discretion, it is still a curve that is imposed on the bell curve of behavior,
Good law has sharp edges and only a tiny portion of people are not under the curve when imposed on behavior.
Many – left and right choose to use the law to “nudge” behavior – they deliberately craft the law such that a larger portion of people are NOT under the curve in the expectation of moving the curve.
Regardless, whether law is super normative or engaged in nudging the larger the proportion of people not under the curve the greater the resistance to the law, and the more frequently force will have to be used.
No matter what law we make – of those not under the curve some are going to comply anyway without the use of force – though they may not like it and you undermine support for the law is you “nudge” too many people, and some are going to resist, of those resisting some will compel you to take their life, their liberty or their property to get them to comply.
This is true whether we we are considering laws against murder, or selling loose cigarettes.
Everyone left or right should consider that every law that is made will ultimately result in someone losing their life, liberty or property because they will not comply.
We have no qualms when that is a kidnapper. But what of those like Eric Garner ?
Should selling loose cigarettes result in death ?
We should consider the nature and importance of the law as well as the proportion of people we have chosen to define as lawless. Support for the law diminishes the more we are killing Eric Garner’s rather than John Wayne Gacies.
“All law, is ultimately imposed by force.”
That is a truism and the law is dependent on circumstances that are determined by fallible minds. Nonetheless, without the law there is anarchy.
That SHOULD be a truism.
My point is that it is not.
We the right and even more so the left act as if law is magical. That declare it and all will conform.
That we can even legislate the laws of nature.
Most longstanding laws are not created by government entities. These entities have codified social conduct that develops over centuries or millennia.
Absolutely, but not magically.
Nor is this some amorphous concept of “social conduct”.
We spent milenia slowly getting to the enlightenment.
We went from Hamurabi, to the Pentateuch, to roman law, to the Magna Carte to developments in Germany, to british common law to the scottish enlightenment to the US constitution.
The entire process is a intellectual and philosophical evolution to – classical liberalism.
The process is trial and error, with the concurrent evolution of philosophy.
While we did not arrive here by plan, we also did not arrive here by accident.
As I said before there is a reason that facts support libertarianism.
It is an ideology that is the product of both intellect and evolution.
“Nothing wrong with defining libertarian principles when discussing how government ought to act and advocating such principles. They just don’t completely hold in our society where much of our liberty doesn’t exist.”
While libertarianism tends to define the limits of government.
It concurrently defines the CORE – that 99.99% of us agree on.
You are absolutely correct that outside that core there is varrying degrees of public support for further use of force.
I am asking – demanding that those of you who have not thought of what is outside that core – do so.
We constantly craft laws – “there ought to be a law against that” without much thought for the fact that laws are NOT universally obeyed. For the fact that whenever we create a new law we define another portion of the population as lawless criminals.
Whether we think about it or not, the more laws we pass the fewer people who are completely law abiding.
We saw a variation of this with PPACA.
There has almost always been a majority supporting healthcare reform.
But there is not a single independently doable change in healthcare that has majority support.
Aggreement that there is something wrong is NOT agreement on doing something specific, nor support of whatever “fix” is imposed.
Congress constantly crafts laws by including provisions to attract a few more votes to get a majority behind something that many of those voting for do not support substantial portions of.
That process is perfectly fine in voluntary arrangements.
It is immoral in involuntary ones.
Trump has already indicated (re Iran treaty, etc.) that he views any and all international agreements and treaties that we have signed in the past, as just so much inconvenient paper. Of course, if he then tries to get any new arrangements with any foreign powers, it is very unlikely he would have much success.
PS, whatever happened to that central European country, that repudiated the Versailles Treaty long ago ?
IIRC, Jay S, that particular central European country decided to invade Russia without any cold-weather gear because Der Fuhrer expected them to be through with The Slavs before The Winter set in.
P. S. They had the negative example of Napoleon before them and chose to ignore it.
The Obama-Kerry nuke deal with Iran would have been far more binding and durable as a Senate-ratified treaty.
As things stood, the Obama “agreement” with Iran could be withdrawn by a subsequent president.
Like just about everyone else, Obama probably thought Hillary would win and that she would maintain the deal.
I don’t see the U.S. invading Russia, especially over repudiation of any particular treaty.
Unless Hillary somehow ran again and became president; she might add “Putin must go” 😄to her list of things to do.
She completed the “Saddam must go, Mubarek must go” list…..I don’t know if she’d resume her “Assad must go” line, or go after Putin first.
You truly excel at refuting arguments that were not made, Gnash.
Jay S specifically referred to the Treaty of Versailles (which was a truly horrendous historical blunder on a par with the war the preceded it) that Germany first abrogated with the great bicycle invasion of The Rhineland in 1937 (Germany’s rearmament program had not gotten too far along by then). In any case, Jay S asked what happened to Germany after that and I gave but one possible answer to that question. Then Ptom said, “I don’t see the U.S. invading Russia, especially over repudiation of any particular treaty.”
FTR, I don’t see anyone at all, not even The US, ever invading Russia again for any reason at all.
L4D,…
– If you even read the relevent parts of the thread, you failed to understand it.
A. The question was posed, what country abrogated a treaty,then invaded Russia?
B. It was clearly tied in with the scraping the U.S./ Iran nuke deal ( mistakenly referred to as a treaty).
C. So a far-fetched analogy was put forward,as if scraping the nuke agreement would have dire consequences for the U.S., in the same way that Germany scraping the Versailles Treaty was followed by the disasterous invasion of Russia.
D. I jokenly wrote that we were not likely to invade Russia….that joke was actually motivated by a very weak, faulty analogy.
So I carried it one step further.
I don’t actually have time to review and explain parts of the thread when fail to understand the words, or play your game where you pretend not to understand.
If in fact you need help with reading comprehension, take a remedial course or get a tutor.
Jay S, There is no Iran Treaty. It was Obama that made a sham of the Iran agreement. It wasn’t even signed by the Iranians. Obama lied to Congress and probably illegally sent money to the Iranian leaders. We got nothing of substance from the Iranians, except the agreement permitted them nuclear arms in a short period of time.
As we get closer to that date more nations in the area will become intimidated enough by Iran that they too will quickly develop nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons will rapidly spread. Some of the people that invariably may gain access to such nuclear weapons have no compunction against using them even if their own and their own families lives are sacrificed.
When a few nations controlled nuclear weapons we managed to have more favorable odds of not having a nuclear war. As the number of nations owning such weapons increases so do the odds.
Directing hate towards Trump or Obama doesn’t solve any problems. Providing an argument that doesn’t recognize reality such as what a treaty actually means doesn’t solve problems either.
You have to be more careful with your facts and logic. It would be good for you to practice using only those two things and dispensing with all the crazy thoughts so many frequently utilize when making their arguments.
Presidents have constitutional powers to renegotiate issues with foreign powers especially ones not ratified. Read up buddy before you talk too much
Like Allan before you, you refute the argument that wasn’t made while studiously ignoring the argument that was made. Here’s a reminder for you:
Jay S said, “Of course, if he [Trump] then tries to get any new arrangements with any foreign powers [e.g. North Korea], it is very unlikely he would have much success.”
“Like Allan before you, you refute the argument that wasn’t made while studiously ignoring the argument that was made.”
Diane, I don’t know about Kurtz, but in our prior arguments, I proved you to be a fool.
In your present discussion that involves an agreement by the President with Iran left unsigned by Iran, that is not a treaty. There was a reason for treaties to have to be approved by the Senate to make them binding but the President you love went rogue.
How Mexico treats illegal aliens. Is Trump getting ideas from Mexico?
Mexico’s practices are discriminatory, corrupt, and abusive.
What’s going on at Mexico’s southern boarder with Central America?
Today the Mexican government is hunting migrants without sympathy, even though the exact same thing is happening to migrants at the U.S. border. The border security measures here in Mexico are even harsher than on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Is Mexico “party” to stupid UN Treaties? All nonsense aimed at destroying nations in the name of world government delusions!
Llyoyd Miller,…
-According to VOX, the Mexican government has detained and deported nearly 1,000,000 Central Americans since 2014.
I didn’t see a breakdown as far as an estimate of how many were in route to the U.S.; there is evidently a degree of cooperation and coordination between U.S. immigration authorities and their Mexican counterparts.
Today? they have always been tough. they are less tough now than the used to be, in part because the toll the war on drugs and liberal propaganda has taken on the once-strong Mexican state, now a shade of its former self.
Actually I agree. Mexican police & military have been infiltrated by drug cartels. This reminds of the Chinese Triad warlords. Operating on China mainland, Hong Kong & Philippines.
great
Turley wrote, “The shift of Trump from a civil to a criminal emphasis in enforcement is well within his authority.”
Yes. AG Sessions has prosecutorial discretion. But that’s really not the point.
Turley also wrote, “However, the refusal of any hearing or judge could raise some serious constitutional and international law concerns.”
Yes. What Trump wants to do tomorrow is a bit closer to the mark of what Trump is doing today. Remember that Trump wants to end the so-called “chain migration.” When immigrants are granted asylum, they become potential sponsors for their own family members who immigrate at a later date. Trump’s zero-tolerance, family-separation policy effectively prevents recent immigrants from applying for asylum until they’ve served their sentence for the misdemeanor offense of crossing the border illegally. Once those immigrants are released for time served so that they can apply for asylum, they have a misdemeanor conviction on their criminal record that can and probably will lead to deportation proceedings, instead. Whence Trump’s EO giving The Secretary of Defense responsibility for operating family detention centers on military bases.
IOW, Trump’s current policy aims at engineering a future crisis that Trump will exploit for the express purpose of reneging on the responsibilities of The United States of America to welcome and accommodate asylum seekers. And that is a fundamental “transformation” of American principles and America’s role as the leader of the free world. Putin will be so proud.
I doubt that Trump will be able to bypass hearings for asylum seekers.
It seems likely that an attempt to do that would be shot down by the courts.
As far as guessing at Trump’s objective re asylum seekers, very few are granted asylum statue.
In the last year of the Obama Administration, just under 15% of the c.65,000 applications for asylum were accepted.
So this is not a substantial number that would somehow “whittle down” the influx of immigrants.
As far as the issue of making sponsorship more difficult for asylum seekers, I don’t think sponsorship is
required for asylum seekers
At least that’s my understanding in asylum cases.
But the low numbers of those granted asylum alone would indicate that Trump is not “trying to engineer some future crisis” to stem the flow of immigrants.
should be “asylum STATUS”, not “statue”
Sponsors are needed for the children Trump has placed in the custody of ORR. Unaccompanied minors are far likelier to be granted asylum if they can show that a family member has already been granted asylum. Even adults stand a better chance of avoiding deportation if they have family members already in The US. That is the system that Trump is trying to sabotage with his current policy. Trump’s future policy will likely be to end asylum altogether.
L4D,…
What you say may be true.
But if the VOX numbers are accurate, and only c.13-14% of the c.65,000 asylum requests were granted under Obama’s last year in office, then a change in asylum policy/ procedure would not significantly reduce immigrant flow.
On a related issue, I haven’t seen a consensus number on asylum applicants who “disappear” into communities and don’t show up for hearings.
The ranges in estimates that I’ve seen are very wide, so I don’t have a number know is fairly accurate.
There are some things Trump can do unilaterally and some things he cannot do.
Even IF he’s seriously considering doing away with asylum status, it’s very unlikely that he’d be able to do it with the stroke of a pen.
Both Congress and the courts would oppose him on that issue.
Tom . . . What you say may be true: That ending chain migration amongst asylum seekers will not appreciably reduce the overall influx of immigrants. The trouble is that Trump is already on the record as seeking to eliminate chain migration amongst asylum seekers. It just so happens to be one the reasons that Trump can’t get Congress to enact the immigration reform that Trump wants.
L4D,…
I haven’t seen exactly what Trump is proposing, just summaries of what he is considering.
So I don’t know if this is beyond the “Tweet stage”, or if the Trump administration has issued a definative, formal proposal or directive.
It looks like Trump wants continue to sanction those who enter the U.S. illegally, so he can probably enforce that.
If he’s trying to dismantle the asylum program he’s not likely to succeed.
So it seems that Trump wants far less “prosecutorial disgression”, but I don’t know if he is ( or will) propose something beyond that.
I think any proposed comprehensive immigration bill would have to be almost exclusively a matter for Congress to hammer out, without much specific input from the White House.
But I don’t think anything will get passed, with or without White House input.
Your response is laced with false assumptions.
Charging illegals with misdemeanors is not new.
Even detaining them and separating the families is not new.
Zero Tolerance is not new.
At most this is more common – partly because a rising economy is making the US more attractive.
The purpose of charging and detaining is NOT to preclude asylum – asylum grants are rare, and this has no effect. The purpose is to speed up the inevitable deportations.
I would bet that ICE will release anyone it is holding immediately who agrees to be deported on the sport.
The objective is that if you want a hearing you will be incarcerated until that hearing – after which you will with near certainty be deported.
Tiara Boy said, “Charging illegals with misdemeanors is not new.”
Prosecuting all misdemeanor offenses for crossing the border illegally is new.
Tiara Boy also said, “Zero Tolerance is not new.”
False. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, zero tolerance for misdemeanor illegal border crossing is new.
Tiara Boy also said, “Even detaining them and separating the families is not new.”
Family detention was practiced from 2014 through 2016. Children were rarely separated from their parents before Trump’s zero-tolerance family-separation policy was adopted in April of this year. When it did happen in the past, it happened because the parents had a felony conviction on their record or because the government had evidence that the person claiming to be the child’s parent was not, in fact, the child’s parent.
That is not what’s happening now. Your argument is laced with false equivalencies. At least 2,342 immigrant children have been separated from their parents in a little over two months. Nothing numerically equivalent to that took place before April of this year (2018). Trump is, in fact, removing immigrant asylum claims from the civil courts by prosecuting immigrants in the criminal courts.
“Prosecuting all misdemeanor offenses for crossing the border illegally is new.”
Zero tolerance was put in place by Obama in 2014.
Regardless, I am a vocal opponent of prosecutorial discretion.
I want law enforcement to prosecute everything, until either people become offended by bad prosecutions for bad law, or government becomes so oppressive we demand fewer laws.
Why would you want to live in a nation where most of us are criminals who have just been fortunate enough not to be prosecuted ?
I like a lot of your comments dhill but we DO live in such a country. Read
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
pros discretion is just a necessary evil in any system
I am aware of that, and I seek to change that.
I do not expect to succeed on the grand scale.
But I beleive we can move the needle a bit.
At the same time. I mostly intend to make the BIG arguments – the sweeping arguments, the ones with bright lines and strong factual, philosophical support.
Though I do not expect to win, I beleive that you ultimately persuade people with good arguments.
Not unchecked emotions.
To charge or not to charge is one aspect of prosecutorial discretion. What to charge is another aspect of prosecutorial discretion. If you object to overly broad interpretations of statutes to charge defendants with crimes that carry stiffer sentences than the facts of the case might otherwise warrant, then you might have a point. If, however, you object to charging one defendant under one set of facts while not charging some other defendant under some other set of facts, then your point runs afoul of the separation of powers as well as the impossibility of enacting laws that anticipate every last conceivable set of facts.
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2016&context=facpub
“To charge or not to charge is one aspect of prosecutorial discretion.”
Nope!
Not charging is prosecutorial discretion.
Charging is following the law.
Just as urinating on a flag pole is public indecency.
But not urinating on the flag pole is NOT public indecency.
“What to charge is another aspect of prosecutorial discretion.”
Nope!
Prosecutors should charge what they have the evidence to convict for.
They should not charge more or less than the evidence supports.
Discretion is lawlessness, it clearly violates equal protection.
“If you object to overly broad interpretations of statutes”
All laws are to be read narrowly – that is basic statutory interpretation.
As close as possible to the clear meaning of the words.
Broad interpretations make criminals of all, and again violates equal protection.
“then your point runs afoul of the separation of powers”
There is no separation of powers issue.
“as well as the impossibility of enacting laws that anticipate every last conceivable set of facts.”
Bzzt, wrong. Criminal law specifies the elements of each crime.
If each required element can be established by the evidence – then the crime has been committed.
We do not have separate crimes for every single fact set. ‘
We have patterns – and if set of facts matches that pattern – it is a crime.
Additional facts outside the pattern do not matter.
IF A shoots and kills B – that is murder.
It does not matter than A is a red head and B is Blond.
We do not need a Red Heads killing Blonds law.
But if we have color video of the murder – then the hair color of A and B might be relevant to a jury as evidence of whether the crime alleged was committed.
“False. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, zero tolerance for misdemeanor illegal border crossing is new.”
Is english not your first language ?
“Zero tolerance” means ZERO prosecutorial discretion. They are the same thing.
Obama put Zero tolerance in place in 2014.
Was absolutley everything exactly the same ? No.
But little of substance changed. Except the lefts need to compare Trump to Hitler and Obama to the Messiah. What is amazing is that you can judge the same conduct by different people so radically different.
By process of elimination your real standard is D – good, R – evil.
Regardless of policy or conduct.
Obama DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson ‘Freely Admits’ They Detained Children, Families: ‘We Believed It Was Necessary’
“Without a doubt the images, and the reality, from 2014, just like 2018, are not pretty,” said Johnson. “We expanded it, I freely admit it was controversial, we believed it was necessary at the time, I still believe it is necessary to remain a certain capability for families.”
Johnson also addressed another phrase that has come up many times in the last week, saying directly that “we can’t have catch and release” and stating that under his DHS in the Obama administration they “deported or repatriated” over a million people.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/unnecessary-incarceration/president-obama-wants-continue-imprisoning
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/
That story is about as honest as Peter Hill’s claim that newborns are being caged at the border.
So you accept factcheck.org over Obama DHS Se. Jeh Johnson ?
Why do you beleive that fact check sites are any less partisan than the media ?
RCP has been doing an excellent job of eviscerating the various fact check sites.
They are inconsistent, have no standards and highly subjective.
They are nearly useless.
With respect to the specifics of the link.
If a family was refered for prosecution – the parents were separated from the children – that is a requirement of the law.
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“But DHS couldn’t provide any statistics on how many children may have been separated from their parents under the Obama administration.
Instead, when we asked, it pointed to numbers that show 21 percent of apprehended adults were referred for prosecution under President Barack Obama. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 2016, there were 2,362,966 adults apprehended illegally crossing the Southern border, and 492,970 were referred for prosecution, those figures show. But that doesn’t tell us anything about how many children may have been separated from their parents under Obama.”
What it does tell us though is that 79% of the adults arrested at the border between 2010 and 2016 were not referred for preosecution under the Obama administration. And that is not zero-tolerance for misdemeanor illegal border crossing.
Lori Robinson who wrote the piece is a paid fact spinner. I remember her defense of an article that said 50% of all bankruptcies were due to healthcare bills. This meant that a man with $1,000 in uncovered medical bills would be a medical bankruptcy even if he owned a $26 Million dollar home but due to a bad investment lost his business, his million dollar paycheck, and had to declare bankruptcy.
You and Lori fit in the same spin box drawing ridiculous conclusions based on personal selection rather than reality.
DHS provided statistics on prosecutions.
Every prosecution that involves a family requires family separation.
Regardless, you are making a fallacious argument – that I or DHS is required to prove your naked assertion wrong.
You and fact check should get your biased heads out of your ass.
There are obvious reasons that you are wrong.
The early media pictures of “familiy separations” came from 2014 and the Obama administration.
The ACLU sued the Obama administration over the issue.
There are court cases on the issue, there is a settlement decree.
Zero Tolerance started in 2014.
2010 the start of your data is 4 years earlier.
Tiara Boy said, ““Zero tolerance” means ZERO prosecutorial discretion. They are the same thing.
Obama put Zero tolerance in place in 2014.”
There is nothing in the ACLU article to which you linked that backs up your claim quoted above that “Obama
put zero tolerance in place in 2014.” That article refers to family detention. Family detention and zero tolerance are not the same thing. Meanwhile, prosecuting all misdemeanor offenders for illegal border crossing is still an instance of prosecutorial discretion. And here’s why: They could stop doing it tomorrow, if they wanted to stop doing it tomorrow.
Wow! One link I provide you which does address MANY issues,
Does not prove one specific fact you demand proof of.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html
Regardless, I provided you with Quotes from Jeh Johnson – Obama’s DHS secretary.
Are you saying he was lying ?
“Meanwhile, prosecuting all misdemeanor offenders for illegal border crossing is still an instance of prosecutorial discretion. And here’s why: They could stop doing it tomorrow, if they wanted to stop doing it tomorrow.”
No actually the opposite is true.
Chosing not to excercise discretion, but to follow the law – is “the rule of law”, it is the OPPOSITE of broad prosecutorial discretion.
Your argument is logical garbage.
It is like saying rampant crime is OK – because police could stop enforcing the law tomorow.
If you do not like the law – join me in trying to change it.
Ever notice when he wants to make a strong point and get something accomplished he pours gas on the fire. I know that, you know that, Trump knows that but do all the readers know that? It’s one of the items that need addressing which seems so obvious but it’s also one of the idea the left is obstructing.
Maybe it’s time some of the left examine their reasons for that strange and rather un American affiliation . It’s obviously no longer a party of our country nor has anything to do with our system of government and is far too willing to serve a foreign ideology Just as many are rexamining the GOP and coming up with the idea of a Constitutional Republic Party with a Constitutional Centrist Coalition I’ve seen evidence of something called Independent Constitutional Democrats. and where Democracy truly waves it flags can the small step to an of, by, and for the citizens Republic be far behind?
No need for the leaders with no followers. There time is coming to an end
Screw due process for these law breakers! Due process is costly, time-consuming, and a waste of time! And unnecessary under the circumstances.The should be glad that we aren’t prosecuting them and putting them in prison!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The requirement for due process does not require remaining in the US.
Give illegal crossers a hearing date and a one day pass to enter for that hearing, and deport them pending a hearing.
Well, Squeeky, “due process” is cetainly time consuming and expensive. Why not set up machine gun nests with interlocking fields of fire and gun down anybody who approaches the border ? Surely you would favor that. (And yes, I am calling you “Shirley”) And a miles-long stack of bodies would absolutely be more of a deterrent than a concrete or brick wall. Johnathan Swift would have approved.
Jay S – I have already floated a shoot to kill at the border and mespo is pushing for a moat with animals. This morning I suggested federalizing the National Guard and militarizing our borders. I think it is time to quit screwing around.
I think a number of governors would resist federalizing the National Guard, and forbid their guardsmen to comply. What then? It would certainly be interesting. Could Trump have governors arrested? What if the individual guardsmen refused to go, and were backed by their governors?
Jay S – I don’t think you can “resist” federalizing the National Guard. Once it is federalized, the President is C-in-C.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
10 U.S. Code § 12406 – National Guard in Federal service: call Whenever—
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
It looks like subheading (3) is your best bet, Schulteacher. But you’d have to show that The POTUS is unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces and that “regular forces” includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other in the employ of The Department of Homeland Security. I don’t see where Trump, Sessions and Nielsen are “unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces.” Do you? Does anyone?
Maybe Trump should ask Congress for an Enabling Act like the one they had in . . . Oopsie Daisy. On second thought, let’s not go there–nor import that from there, either.
ok. let the battle begin
Just a few days ago, Italy refused to allow a group of Africans who crossed the Mediterranean on a boat to land. I think they were from Liberia, but I’m not sure. International law says Italy should have allowed them to enter Italy and make asylum claims, but Italy refused, saying they have been overwhelmed with migrants and have done enough. The Italian navy escorted the boat to Spain and let the Spaniards deal with it. I think we will see more of this in the future. Europe is overwhelmed and so is the U.S. Personally, I think a massive wall is the only answer, because once they gain a foothold in the U.S. it is almost impossible to remove them. As for the minors, I would immediately return them by plane to their home countries.
I recommend that you read the Book of Mathew. For what you propose is evil.
Matthew didn’t have to deal with an invasion.
11 million divided by 330 million equals 3.33%.
5% of 330 million would be 16.5 million.
The “invasion” of your imagination is marginal.
World wide there are 750m people who would come to the US if they were able.
That would be an invasion.
Admittedly, 750 million divided by 330 million equals 2.27–more than doubling the current US population.
Even so, your “point” is still substantially imaginary.
“Admittedly, 750 million divided by 330 million equals 2.27–more than doubling the current US population.
Even so, your “point” is still substantially imaginary.”
I have no problem imagining reality.
Any claim of what would happen if we substanitally relaxed our immigration laws is imaginary.
But it is unlikely that nothing would change.
Europe did and has faced a massive crisis that is tearing nations apart politically and empowering the far right.
In the US the unwillingness of the left to have an honest conversation about immigration is also empowering the right – including the far right.
Regardless, I am prepared to discuss changes to our laws.
In fact I would be happy to.
I am prepared to discuss the potential consequences of such changes and what other laws must change.
Lets just say that by some miracle we only end up with an additional million low wage low skill immigrants each year.
How are you expecting that to work ? do you think you can add 2.5M/year to the low wage/low skill workers pool without driving wages and oportunity for those in that group down ?
I think the US would have no problems absorbing far more people at the bottom.
But we can not provide them with sufficient jobs at current minimum wages.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable.
To match supply and demand the price of low sill labor must drop significantly.
That will not likely pose a problem for immigrants.
But minority males without a HS diploma and a criminal record would be all the more screwed.
If global labor prices converge at $2.50 per hour, then the incentives favoring invasion by migration will revert to the natural ones–arable land, potable water, edible plants and animals and a variety of energy resources.
If we’re going to appeal to immutable laws, then we might as well bring it on all the way home. Mightn’t we?
“If global labor prices converge at $2.50 per hour,”
Because of Magic ?
BTW the average wage in China today is about $5/hr – that is yp from $0.03/hr under mao.
Yet there is still significant immigration to the US from China.
“then the incentives favoring invasion by migration will revert to the natural ones–arable land, potable water, edible plants and animals and a variety of energy resources.”
Yes, we know you left wing nuts think you know why people do anything.
There are many reasons for immigration. the scale of the relative economic disparity is one of those.
Freedom is another.
BTW Africa has vast natural resources that dwarf those anywhere else in the world.
Its failures are not of resources.
Nor are they of colonialism or aide.
Int he past 40 years $1T in aide has gone to africa with ZERO effect.
One of the fundimental problems – both in Africa and the world is the left thinks it knows far more than is knowable and tries to impose it by force.
“If we’re going to appeal to immutable laws, then we might as well bring it on all the way home. Mightn’t we?”
Baby, steps L4D. You do not grasp what rule of law is. What laws can and can not be immutable.
One of the purposes of my demand that the law be imposed as written and without discretion is NOT because the law is immutable, but because that compells us to look closely at what is good law and what is bad and to discard the latter.
The harder we work at law – at developing law that can be implimented as written, and can be implimented without discretion the more we move towards those laws that truly are immutable.
And there are not that many of them.
Wait a second. Add 330 million to 750 million yielding 1.08 billion then divide by 330 million to get 3.27–or more than tripling the current US population size.
It’s still substantially imaginary, anyhow.
All that is relevant is that incentives and barriers actually matter.
Those on the left are correct – Trumps wall is no magic bullet that will solve the immigration problem.
But it will substantially reduce the numbers, and ultimately decrease the cost of enforcement.
Of course reducing the barriers to legal immigration will also reduce the cost of enforcement.
Those of you on the left do not grasp that ever change has consequences – beyond the direct consequences.
Set the law to make deportation easier – and the number of people entering illegally decreases.
Increase the due process requirements for those claiming asylum – and most will suddenly claim asylum.
Provide special treatment for children or families – and you will see more children and families.
I do not have a problem with making immigration easier.
I do have a problem with left wing nuts who think that will not have consequnces.
That incentives do not matter.
Incentives matter in EVERYTHING, and the left actively seeks to disincentivize the very things that will make the country better while incentivizing the things that will make it worse.
And you are completely blind to that.
You operate under the delusion that you can change the law and polices at whim and only have to consider the first order effects.
Since you’re so keen on analyzing second order effects, remind me, please, what is expected to happen to the prices of goods, services and possibly even commodities when the average global labor price converges at $2.50 per hour? What second order effects might that have on, for instance, the ability of The United States to project military power in two hemispheres at the same time? There are other issues to consider as well. Aren’t there?
“Since you’re so keen on analyzing second order effects, remind me, please, what is expected to happen to the prices of goods, services and possibly even commodities when the average global labor price converges at $2.50 per hour?”
The price of labor in $/hr is close to meaningless.
What matters is the ability of people to afford the goods and services they want.
Double the MW and double the average prices and you have done nothing but destroy peoples savings.
Free markets – absent government manipulation of money are mildly DEFLATIONARY.
That is a tautology – standard of living rises when greater value is produced with less human effort.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
“What second order effects might that have on, for instance, the ability of The United States to project military power in two hemispheres at the same time? ”
I am libertarian – I would slash the defense budget in half TO START, and then start cutting more.
It is not the job of the US to be policeman to the world.
“There are other issues to consider as well. Aren’t there?”
There are an infinite number of 2nd and 3rd order effects.
It is not inside the power of humans to determine them with sufficient precision to manage an economy top down. One of the many reasons that bottom up processes work better is that when things are implimented growing organically from the bottom – where 2nd+ order effects prove larger than first order benefits, those approaches are abandoned or fixed quickly.
Evolution economics, markets are fundimentally trial and error processes not suitable for top down management.
The 11,000,000 figure is a common estimate of those illegally residing in the U.S.
Overall, the percentage of foreign-born residents in America is as high as it’s been in nearly 100 years.
Are you lodging a complaint against legal immigrants now, Ptom? If so, then is it all of the legal immigrants? Or mostly just the Spanish-speaking legal immigrants?
L4D,…
It was an observation about the number of those in America who were born in other countries.
I don’t think you made the distinction between the total number of immigrants and those who entered illegally you when kept using the 3.3% or 11,000,000 number.
There was an article quoting Seattle school district official celebrating,the diversity of the city and its schools.
The official mentioned that students in the school district spoke 127 different languages.
That Tower of Babel mix would seem to present some problems.
The immigration debate often involves a discussion of legal immigration.
In general, we had a large influx of total immigrants over the past c. 50 years.
Certainly as a percentage of our population.
That 50 year period followed a c. 40-50 year period of very large numbers of immigrants.
So I do see the need to evaluate overall immigration policy, and focus only on illegal immigration.
It may be inevitable that some fool will imply that that racism or xenophobia drives my views on immigration policy, I’m not too concerned about what a jackass implies.
I meant to add in the restrictive immigration policies from c.1925-1965, before a new wave of immigration began.
Roughly soeaking, it was the mass immigration wave in the c.1875-1925 period, a restrictive period from c.1925-1965, then the start of a new wave of immigration.
Gee Gnash, thanks for not spelling the name of the inevitable fool is your last paragraph.
Tom Nash – 2 years ago, Ann Coulter put the number of illegals at 30 million. The number of 11 million has not increased since it was originally estimated. This is why the Democrats are fighting that question on citizenship on the census so hard.
Ann Coulter is a lapsed lawyer who knows nothing of demography.
Teaching Spastics to Dance – she is not the only one who has high numbers than the 11 million. That number has been frozen in stone since it was first estimated and not gone up or down. However, we know millions of illegals are coming into the country every year since so 30 million two years ago is not an unreasonable guess.
Some observers have suggested 15 million. That’s why I offered the 5% figure of 16.5 million. I do not recommend wrangling with Tada on Tada’s home turf. But since you see yourself as a raging bull, please disregard my dys-recommendation.
L4D enables David Benson – I think Ann Coulter’s number is closer to the truth.
Paul C. Schulte,…
– I’ve seen estimates of those who came here illegally mostly in the 12-14 million range.
Given the “hidden nature” of how those illegals enter, that they blend in flying under the radar, and the inconsistent and sporadic enforcement of immigration laws ( sanctuary cities, etc.), I don’t know what the methodology is in reaching an estimate.
I’ve seen cases where the illegal status of a criminal defendant seemed to be a non-factor in how that person was processed through the criminal justice system and in sentencing….that is, it looks like a jurisdiction might may or may not choose to deport a convicted illegal alien.
Under these circumstances, it looks like a lot of guesswork trying to accurately estimate how many entered illegally.
Get out of your lilly white suburb and visit some big cities “Late4dinner” there are wide swaths of major metros that are totally controlled by foreigners
Assumed facts not in evidence. Quite the rage with blawg hounds.
“Assumed facts not in evidence. Quite the rage with blawg hounds.”
Diane, assuming facts is your specialty.
Religion imposes positive moral duties on us as individuals.
Duties that are not really sustainable.
I am not personally capable of feeding all the poor.
But I do choose to feed some of the poor.
But we can not convert positive individual moral obligations into collective societal obligations.
We can not feed the poor as a nation anymore than we can do so as individuals.
Nor may some of us impose their particular version of Mathew on the rest of us.
My daughter was adopted from a horrible orphanage in China.
When I think of my moral obligations – I think of the children like her in countries like china or worse.
I do not think of poor US minority children who only get two rather than three full meals a day.
The point is that none of us are capable of fullfilling the full moral obligations that our religions impose on us and it is immoral for one group of us to selectively choose the obligations that the rest of us will pay for.
Do not cite Mathew to me unless you live it.
The book of Mathew speaks to David B. Benson – and each of us as individuals – not the US as a nation.
The key to that problem is jurisdiction of those on the lower courts who saieem to think they are The Supreme Court. No one noticed nor paid attention to that Hawaiian 9th Circuit Judge who made a couple three one man laws affecting the entire nation on this subject BUT do you know how many immigrants Hawaii accepted in the last year? ZERO. Something wrong when ONE individual who has received no votes can dictate to an entire nation and overturn Supreme Court Rulings in the process.
Any asylum claims by Liberian citizens can be dealt with at the Italian consulate nearest Monrovia. There aren’t likely to be many valid asylum claims from Liberians. The place is dirt poor but it’s had fairly congenial internal politics the last 15 years.
What was the origin of Liberia? therein lies a lesson and a recommendation all in one, like a riddle wrapped in an enigma
No, there isn’t any particular ‘lesson’ there, since it was a one-off experiment. At most it would rule out crude interpretations of economic and social history, but you don’t need Liberia to rule those out.
Excerpted from the ACLU article to which dhlii linked way upstream from here:
“[T]here is no evidence that President Obama’s family detention camps have deterred migrant families from fleeing violence in Central America. More importantly, it’s unclear how the administration can legally and properly deter people from seeking protection in the first place: As the judge in RILR v. Johnson—a case brought by the ACLU—observed, these families aren’t “wrongdoers, but rather individuals who may have legitimate claims to asylum.” Indeed, the government itself admits that nearly 87 percent of detained families have been found to have legitimate asylum claims that they should be allowed to pursue in immigration court.”
Go ahead on and do your Mandy Rice Davies cue, Tada. But the ACLU claims that the Obama administration admitted that 87% of the families detained during the Obama administration had been found to have had legitimate asylum claims that they should’ve been allowed to pursue in immigration court. Oh! But of course the catch-and-release crowd would say that; wouldn’t they? Perhaps so, but then why was the ACLU complaining most bitterly about Obama’s family detention policy? It’s not for the same reason that Trump is complaining that Obama supposedly had a family separation policy. There is a difference between family detention versus family separation. Isn’t there?
This is a failure of Congress to write appropriate laws.
and when writing them give far too much power to other branches making them what we call the Fourth Branch which has all three powers.
Fourth Branch?
“Deep State” bureaucracy plus Nii’s “lawfare” complaint, I guess?
I presume all or almost all of the persons found illegally crossing the S border claim asylum. It appears that a high ratio of the persons living S of the US border live in horrid unlivable conditions where criminal gangs rule, IOW, Trump accurately described such nations as “sh__ holes.”
Why is it that north of the border is the richest nation extant, south of the border are horrid “s___ holes?” Why do progressives welcome and encourage southern nations exporting their poverty and safety net responsibilities to the US?
Progressives don’t.
And by the way, Mexico isn’t the problem.
Progressives started it but soon found out those folks are Catholic and Catholics are anti abortion Now they don’t know how to spell DACA.
Balderdash.
David Benson owes me five citations after five weeks, one from the OED, and the source of a quotation – Mexico is a major part of the problem.
The US is better than Mexico. How much longer will The US remain better than Mexico?
If living in a Sh__hole qualifies you for asylum – there are about 7B people who qualify.
Currently, anyone who enters the country from the Southern border through a designated port of entry may apply for asylum. That is the LEGAL way. However, many choose to circumvent U.S. law by illegally crossing the border at a place of their choosing in an attempt to avoid the official process and avert the risk of asylum being denied them. Why shouldn’t they be deported immediately and forced to do it the right way?
Additionally, most of those requesting asylum now are from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. If they really need asylum, why are they not requesting it from Mexico and why isn’t Mexico offering it? According to a January 23, 2018 article in USA Today titled – Mexico Fails to Offer Migrants Asylum, Amnesty International Reports- “Seventy-five percent of the migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador who were interviewed said they had not been informed by Mexican immigration agents about their right to seek asylum in Mexico. The report also said that “people seeking asylum whose lives are at risk in Central America are very frequently pressured into signing ‘voluntary return’ deportation papers.”
“In 2017, 14,596 people asked for asylum in Mexico, a 66% increase over 2016. Of those, 1,907 requests were approved in 2017. That’s a 13% approval rate. Mexican authorities say Central American migrants often decide not to pursue asylum claims after they learn how long it will take. The process can last for months, and sometimes years.” Do you hear the U.S. media or the Left condemning Mexico? It’s about to get far worse when they elect the leftist candidate now leading in the polls for President of Mexico. He is promising to assist migrants in their effort to violate U.S. immigration law while privately turning them away from Mexico.
Mexico did offer it and the offer was refused. so they passed the peso.
We just need to build enough tent cities to house them until their court hearings take place, instead of releasing them into the interior of the US where they never (90%) show up for up for their hearings. We also need to federalize the National Guard in all Democratic states and send them to the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas border.
One of the issues is the 1997 Flores Consent Decree which limits the time unaccompanied children can be held by ICE to 20 days. Open border advocates seized upon this loophole created by sympathetic liberal judges and sought a further ruling from the radical left-leaning, 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. It was granted. The 9th Circuit Court extended the 20-day limit for unaccompanied children to include children that accompanied adults in crossing the border illegally. Essentially, the 9th Circuit assumed for itself the powers reserved for Congress and is making it virtually impossible to enforce immigration law. I’m surprise that a constitutional scholar like Jonathan Turley has not addressed this.
90% figure is made up. Of course, you could just make up a source, or admit that you heard it on Pravda Faux News.
this is to “I wanted a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back, but they said it would hurt” paulie
Sen. Jeff Flake cited the 90% figure; CBS news claims it is “only” 84% of illegals who fail to show up for their immigration hearings. This is to “My only client is now on death row, so I’m up at 3:20 a.m. babbling about Pravda,” Mr. Marky McGoo.
Again, not true; a determination supported by your failure to cite to an authoritative source. A simple referral to the organization which actually operates the courts reveal that the number of no-shows for those released with a court date is 39% over the last 20 years.
this is to “I just accept whatever the boob toob tells me” tinnie
Marky Mark Mark – I point you to Dr. David Benson, formerly of Washington State University, regarding the necessity of citations. He is quite clear there is no need to cite sources.
OFCOLA. The citation you demand is in the post to which you just replied. Stop demanding citations that you’ve already rejected.
Marky Mark Mark – prove my figure is made up. I am willing to back down if you have reliable statistics proving different.
He just gave it to TIN. Your cell phone is an encumbrance, Schulteacher.
L4D enables David Benson – he did not give it to TIN. You need to learn to read closer.
Mark M. said “. . . the organization which actually operates the courts . . . ”
Paul Caviler Schulteacher is a commando with The Modern Language Association who rappels from black helicopters in whisper mode demanding citations in MLA format from any blawg hound who criticizes the Day-Glo Bozo.
L4D enables David Benson – that is like saying an unnamed government agency has the records. I did read that, however, that is not a citation. Check the MLA, Chicago, whatever, etc. That does not qualify as a citation.
L4D enables David Benson – I think of myself as a ninja.
Paul – You want to give Trump control of selective states National Guards? I suspect you may have once complained of Obama’s use of Executive Orders but would give Trump even more power? BTW, at least one Republican state has refused to send their Guard in support of Trump’s mission.
Sorry to bust your uninformed bubble did you wonder why it’s called NATIONAL Guard? 95% of their budget if federal funded. That Governor no longer has those helicopters they belong to the federal government. They are no more state entities than my left foot. Everytime this comes up they get their budget money delayed and start whining the other way. Get real or at least informed before looking foolish.
Yet 11 states have ended their cooperation and either are either withdrawing support or refusing to send troops.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ny-mass-colorado-pull-national-guard-troops-over-family-separation-2018-6
enigma – I would think the Southern states NG would be sent north but the Northern states NG south. They need to feel the heat of a real summer. Actually, I was starting with the Democratic states because they were being pi$$y, but in reality, it should rotate between all the states.
And I think the Army Corps of Engineer should help build the wall. It is for the defense of the country.
That’s an interesting point. But the NG was effectively federalized about a century ago I think, there is a case name I forget. So it’s kind of moot. But I would like to see a more independent NG and a stronger 10th amendment. Democrats used to be in favor of that. Before the Civil war.
Mr. Kurtz – The reason for Federalization in the first place was tied to Posse Comitatus which prevents US Troops from acting on American soil but does not apply to the National Guard. It was introduced in 1878 when as part of a compromise to free the South from Federal Troops who were enforcing the peace after the end of slavery. After a highly disputed Presidential election, Democrats gave up the winning of the Presidency to rid themselves of the burden of Federal Troops, also giving us the rule that Federal Troops could never again compel order within the states. The exception being the Federalization of the National guard for limited purposes which wouldn’t include much of what Trump would want them to do.
If you consider much of what the Democrats were in favor of before, during, and for some time after the Civil War, that’s where many Republicans find themselves now.
“If you consider much of what the Democrats were in favor of before, during, and for some time after the Civil War, that’s where many Republicans find themselves now.”
Not True. Just look at how Democrats act towards any successful black that takes a position off their plantation. Just listen to what they have said and tried to do to Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Walter Williams and any black whose opinion deviates from their own. Intersectionality to which it seems the left is now beholden to is fundamentally racist to the core.
Allan – You and I are talking about completely different things, the Democrats are nowhere near perfect. The current Republican party wholeheartedly supports various forms of voter suppression which makes them a complete non-starter. What are you going to tell me (other than a ridiculous denial of its existence) that is going to make me forget that?
The current Republican party wholeheartedly supports various forms of voter suppression which makes them a complete non-starter.
‘Voter suppression’ does not exist. It is a political fiction.
Claiming something does not exist doesn’t make it a fact. It has existed as long has there have been elections. Democrats used to be the best/worst at perpetuating it. Now it’s the Republicans.
Two questions for you. Did it ever exist? When did it stop?
It does not exist, enigma, outside of the space between your ears. Republicans have enacted some banal ballot security measures such as requiring the presentation of a picture ID at polling stations. This makes Democrats extremely upset, indubitably because ACORN type outfits have been scamming around in various ways. Any addition to the information set increases the probability of detection. You’re a mark, buddy, and you haven’t realized it yet.
So it never existed and therefore there was no need for it to stop? You have the luxury of choosing to ignore reality. I don’t!
The relevant question is not whether “it” existed.
You are playing the same word game as those who call everyone they disagree with nazi’s or socialists.
Every action has many effects – both positive and negative ones.
Some actions related to voting have both important positive effects, as well as potential negative effects.
Thus far the evidence regarding Voter ID laws is:
They do not alter minority voting.
They do not appear to expose rampant voter fraud.
But the DO increase the perception of voters that the outcome of the election reflects the real vote.
My only problem with poll taxes – is that we passed a constitutional amendment barring them,
And I would encourage those on the left to do just that – to amend the constitution when you do not like it
Rather than construct new “theories” or what it means – the constitution means what it says.
Most of the time it is not ambigous. Where there is question – it means what those who ratified it or its amendments thought. If we do not like that – just like them we are free to amend it.
Regardless the problems with poll taxes and litteracy tests was AS APPLIED.
Requiring all new voters pass some test is fine. Requiring all voters to provide ID is fine.
Demanding that only black first time voters pass a test or provide ID is not.
It is not the “effect” that matters. It is not the “intent” that matters.
It is whether the law conforms to the constitution and is applied equally to all.
Which is also why I oppose all but the most minor prosecutorial discretion.
The police, prosecutors, the FBI, DOJ do NOT get to pick and choose who they are going to prosecute for what. It is wrong to single out groups or individuals FOR ANY REASON.
The equal application of the law is NOT something that BLACK people are entitled to.
It is something ALL people are entitled to.
We should not celebrate when the police target blacks or the poor.
We should not celebrate when they target the rich, or businesses, or republicans.
Or italians, or …..
It does not exist, enigma.
You allocate a great deal of rent free space to odd and non-systematic problems, to historical events, and to political fiction. It’s a complete waste of time. There are real social problems you might contemplate, but they don’t interest you.
Enigma writes: “So it never existed and therefore there was no need for it to stop? You have the luxury of choosing to ignore reality. I don’t!”
Here we go again, the bitch and moan theory of how to get things done.
Instead of bitching and moaning provide the solutions that protect us from illegal voting.
The simplest things you can do is require a thumb in blue ink at polling stations, a picture ID at the polls, a thumbprint and photostat of a picture ID be appended to an application for a postal ballot, limit standing orders for postal ballots to military families, U.S. government personnel posted abroad (and their dependents), and shut-ins; placing postal ballots in a lock-box and tabulate them all on election day, returning to sender any such ballots who arrive after election day; requiring people to vote once every quadrennium to maintain their registration, sending postcard notices out notifying them of an impending purge when they don’t. I suspect if you look under the rock, it’s absentee-ballot fraud that’s the big problem, as well as relict registrations in high-turnover neighborhoods, which allow canvassers to impersonate people they know have moved away.
More complicated reforms would be creating interstate databases to vet voter rolls and having the IRS and state tax collectors provide for the secretary of state or state board of elections the names and addresses of those filing federal tax returns and building a data base which county clerks and local boards could cross-check. You could then send out post cards asking registrants to respond by mail or in person to resolve discrepancies. Another thing you could do would be to have the secretary of state or state board of elections monitor the disposition of criminal cases and build a database of people who’ve lost their suffrage. You could make it a general practice to restore their suffrage once they’ve completed their probation or parole. You want to keep ex-cons off of juries and (more selectively) debar them from obtaining certain sorts of licenses and public sector positions (depending on what their crime was). Keeping them off of voter rolls is not necessary.
And yes, put a question about citizenship on tax returns and voter registration forms, with false statements at least a misdemeanor.
Ideally, citizen population, not resident population, would be used for apportionment and redistricting.
A practice manual for redistricting which limits and distributes discretionary boundary-drawing is certainly feasible. You’d have to tell our officious judiciary to get stuffed, though, because you cannot have strictly equipopulous districts without comprehensive discretion.
Other things you can do would be selective use of what they call a ‘jungle primary’ in Louisiana;, ordinal balloting (as now used in Minneapolis), streamlined and regularized ballot access procedures, amendments in the law governing the corporate organization of political parties, mandatory rotation-in-office, reduction in the number of specialized elected offices, and four year terms for all non-judicial offices.
Enigma will not deal in real solutions. You have set out some pretty good things for consideration but that is not exactly what Enigma is looking for.
Voter suppression is not making people register or show ID. You can’t get on a plane without showing ID and you can’t at least in certain areas pay with a credit card at Walmart without ID. The slight inconvenience is worth it to maintain an honest voting system.
What is it that you think constitutes voter suppression?
I’ll provide something mostly responsive to your question because providing an in-depth answer to your question that you won’t actually consider will be time I’ll never get back. These are my own words btw, so don’t get upset about that.
https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/hold-up-republicans-your-policies-are-just-as-racist-as-trumps-words/
Enigma, I read your piece and didn’t find much of substance. Mostly complaints mixed with generalities. Let you and I figure out a reasonable solution that provides the best guarantee that those votes are valid while making sure the polls are color blind and all have the ability to vote. Let us be clear that voting is a privilege that all citizens should have and that it is also a task that may cause some inconvenience.
Let me hear your ideas. Let’s see if you are concerned about both the ability of citizens to vote and the ability to prevent the legal vote from being diluted by illegal votes.
I don’t have a problem with your concern about valid votes. We’ve come a long way since dead people impacted elections. The type of suppression now has little to do with addressing any real problems (what is the real incidence of illegal voting?) but to make it harder for certain groups of people to register and to vote in order to affect outcomes.
I’ve always said I don’t have a particular problem with Voter ID in and of itself, provided getting one doesn’t create disparity. In every single instance where Republicans in recent history have implemented Voter ID, they also instituted other provisions designed to make voting harder, typically for minorities, sometimes also for youth who tend to vote Democrat. This happens at both a Federal level and at the State and County level where much of the policy is implemented. At the state level, Florida for example, the Governor attempted to purge over 20,000 people from the rolls with Hispanic surnames that were similar to some felons ineligible to vote. That number was eventually reduced to less than 200 which still may be high. He was willing to exclude over 19,800 people from voting due to a policy he knew to be flawed and fought in court. People talk about the option of provisional votes which often are not even counted unless a challenge is made in a close statewide race.
You’ve seen the long lines in some urban areas (Cleveland, Miami, Pennsylvania) which only occur in competitive states in minority areas. This is not by accident but by design, especially when it happens repeatedly in the same locations. Planned insufficient numbers of locations, placed in locations harder to get to. In North Carolina, they moved a location from an HBCU, Elizabeth State University to a place miles from campus that many students had to walk to. They also tried to prevent out-of-state students from voting and many states don’t allow state-issued college ID as identification.
We haven’t even touched on Gerrymandering and SCOTUS just whiffed at their chance to address it because they didn’t want to touch “Partisan Gerrymandering” which is the same thing as racial gerrymandering, affecting the same people in the same way but if you don’t say it’s racially based it’s somehow different.
As far as solutions, we have to make the laws racially blind in name and effect. If partisan gerrymandering (which shouldn’t be legal either) causes a racial disparity, it should be prohibited. If the day after several states were released from preclearance based on their history from the Voting Rights Act, they immediately implement a number of rules they couldn’t have passed the day before, chances are they’re racist, as several Federal Judges and/or panels have determined but many of those changes are still in effect.
When access to voter ID is limited to having DMV locations open one day a month, only in the blackest counties in Alabama, it’s racist. When the policies become racially blind, I’ll stop bringing it up.
You are making a lot of complaints at least some if not all are bogus in today’s environment. You mention certain areas that are Democratic and the solutions are local, state and county. Therefore the Democratic leaders aren’t doing a very good job since they are in the majority in many of those areas.
Then you talk about gerrymandering favored by some minority individuals so that their vote doesn’t disappear among a wider population. The same occurs with farmers and other groups that have legitimate needs and need representation. I don’t know what is right or best because there are points to be made on both sides but you like to insist that everything is due to racism and is a conspiracy by Republicans. The Democrats do the same but what we want to do is avoid making voting a political issue.
In any event, skip the complaints and offer the solution. No solution will be perfect but the idea is to make everyone equal under the law and not to individualize the law based on race or party. Let us hear your ideal solution. DSS has offered his solutions in the recent past and I thought his ideas had merit. He was very comprehensive. I’m not asking you to be as comprehensive rather for you to provide a list encompassing the most important things. After you do that we can discuss your proposals and see where that gets us.
That you find examples of voter suppression bogus doesn’t surprise me in the least. I was right in that it was time spent I’ll never get back.
No, I believe most if not all are bogus today and those that aren’t are not a federal matter rather a state or local matter. If people in Chicago (an example) claim that there aren’t enough polls or the lines are too long or something else then the county can do something about it. After all, you are claiming the ones affected are Democrats and Chicago is a Democratic city in a Democratic county with at least two recent governors that were Democratic.
I’m not saying these things didn’t exist, but I don’t blame only one side. Furthermore, the idea is to find a solution so that the biggest problems are solved under the law. Don’t pretend to be incensed and cop out. Propose a solution as to how voting should be controlled so that every citizen has an opportunity to vote and the voting citizen doesn’t have his vote diluted by illegal votes.
I made no mention of Chicago. I am proposing voter suppression of all kinds be eliminated.
Enigma, I used Chicago as an example. To discuss any one of those examples we would have to go into detail. You don’t like gerrymandering and neither do I but gerrymandering is how certain groups might get the representation that they would lose without gerrymandering. There are always losers and winners. The idea is to make things as neutral as possible based on certain goals. We both agree that voter suppression should not exist and that legal votes should not be diluted by illegal votes.
How would you handle the process starting with the most important things and working your way down to lesser important things?
The long poll lines you bemoan are near univerally in democratically controlled municiplaities, and often minority controlled.
Chicago, Philadephia – does it matter ?
We still have dead people impacting elections.
Both parties conduct major voter registration drives prior to every election.
Those drives always result in many obviously bogus names getting registered.
Partly that is because people get paid based on the number of registrations they get
Partly it is because a bogus registered voter is an oportunity for Fraud.
We have numorous precincts where we have more votes than registered voters.
In the Franken/Coleman recount more than 3500 votes were “found” after the election.
In atleast one instance the “found” votes put the precinct well over the number of registered voters.
But even if you could identify which voters were bogus – the secret ballot means you can not cull the votes of fraudulent voters.
We know in NH in 2016 that 6500 voters who moved to NH from out of state never established a NH residence, Drivers License or otherwise showed up as actual NH residents.
That is more than enough voters to have tipped to election and particularly the senate election.
It is near certain that most of those 6500 votes were students at NH colleges – who are NOT NH residents.
It is even possible that many voted twice – in NH and in the actual state they reside.
There is strong evidence that many hundreds of thousands of voters possibly millions are registered in multiple states and my actually vote in multiple states.
And even may be able to LEGALLY vote in multiple states.
But while residing in multiple states might allow you to vote in local and state elections in both states – it does not alow you to vote twice in federal elections.
“I’ve always said I don’t have a particular problem with Voter ID in and of itself, provided getting one doesn’t create disparity. In every single instance where Republicans in recent history have implemented Voter ID, they also instituted other provisions designed to make voting harder, typically for minorities, sometimes also for youth who tend to vote Democrat. This happens at both a Federal level and at the State and County level where much of the policy is implemented. At the state level, Florida for example, the Governor attempted to purge over 20,000 people from the rolls with Hispanic surnames that were similar to some felons ineligible to vote. That number was eventually reduced to less than 200 which still may be high. He was willing to exclude over 19,800 people from voting due to a policy he knew to be flawed and fought in court. People talk about the option of provisional votes which often are not even counted unless a challenge is made in a close statewide race.”
You are completely clueless.
The model Voter ID law – which is what every state that has implimented voter ID has done.
Allows:
Company ID’s and Student ID’s to be used for voting IF those ID’s meet the same federal requirements as drivers licenses – i.e. they have a picture, and an SS#, and an address.
Voting without ID, so long as you sign an affidavit that you are who you claim to be.
Waives fee’s for DL or State ID’s for those who can not afford them.
Purging voter lists has NOTHING to do with Voter-ID and is something that should be done every year.
Registering to voter requires providing only a name and address – and that is as it should be.
As a result matching dead people is fraught with error.
It is prefectly reasonable for states to cull their rolls of voters who have not voted in many years.
Or do you think we should leave people who are dead or have moved on the rolls for a century – just to be sure ?
Those removed from the rolls were sent multiple notices – before being removed, and did not respond.
Registered voters who were removed from the rolls can in most states vote provisionally.
Regardless, there is actually ZERO evidence that any of these actiions have had the disparate impact you claim they did.
There are not 10’s much less 10,000 people who showed up at the polls and were not allowed to vote because their registration was purged.
Yes, the courts have done very stupid things – and I would note that SCOTUS continues to reverse lower courts.
No Voter ID law that has made it to SCOTUS has been tossed.
This years “gerrymandering” cases – both those of democrats and republicans – lost.
The cause against purging voting rolls lost.
In all these instances some lower court did as you claim and exceeded their authority and created facts from thin air.
“You’ve seen the long lines in some urban areas (Cleveland, Miami, Pennsylvania) which only occur in competitive states in minority areas. This is not by accident but by design, especially when it happens repeatedly in the same locations. Planned insufficient numbers of locations, placed in locations harder to get to. In North Carolina, they moved a location from an HBCU, Elizabeth State University to a place miles from campus that many students had to walk to. They also tried to prevent out-of-state students from voting and many states don’t allow state-issued college ID as identification.”
Federal monies for voting are distributed equally by population.
As are state monies.
If your local district F’s up – that is evidence of the incompetence of the politicians in those local precints.
If there is actually some minorty twist to it – all that would suggest is that minority politicians are more corrupt than the rest.
Regardless, the length of lines and the difficulty voting in a precinct is a precinct specific issue.
I would note you keep fixating on “students” and “campuses”.
Get a clue. Out of state college students can vote in THEIR home state – not the state of the college they are at.
The model voter ID law has requirements for an acceptable ID
those requirements are the same as a drivers license.
If a college ID does not meet those requirements it is not acceptable.
The requirements for drivers licesnses are now FEDERAL LAW.
I beleive these are:
A recent photo
A SS#
A signature
A home address
An Age.
But you can check the Real ID law.
I oppose the inclusion of SS#’s but their use is not “racist”, it is just a mistake to put SS#’s on ID’s.
dhlii – AZ only allows residents to vote in its elections. We do not allow CA voters to cross over the Colorado to vote. Who would complain that out-of-state students were prevented from voting? For goodness sake, they should be.
I was not commenting specifically on AZ.
Regardless, you should only be allowed to vote ONCE in a federal election.
In the state in which you reside.
“Out of state” college students do not reside in the state they attend college.
They can vote in the state they reside. They can typically file absentee ballots.
States have criteria for becoming a resident.
I tried to become a resident of the state I attended college – it would have reduced my tuition significantly.
If you do not like a states rules for residency – work to change them.
Regardless, if you vote more than once in a federal election or in a state in which you do not reside,
you are breaking the law.
It is near certain that approx. 6500 out of state students in NH voted in NH’s 2016 election.
That almost certainly flipped the results of the NH senate. And may have flipped the results of the NH presidential contest.
Further this particularly type of voter fraud does not appear to be huge – but it is reasonably easily established.
When someone votes in an election but does not complete the steps necescary to demonstrate residence – there is a clear problem.
Just to be perfectly clear – if you are an out of state college student – i.e. you legally reside in another state, then you many NOT LEGALLY vote in the state you attend college.
If you wish to do so, you must establish residence – that typically means getting a drivers licesence and renting an appartment.
If you do not establish residence and you vote in a state you do not reside you ARE committing voter Fraud.
Worse if you vote in your state of residence AND the state your college is in you are committing MULTPLE frauds.
“We haven’t even touched on Gerrymandering and SCOTUS just whiffed at their chance to address it because they didn’t want to touch “Partisan Gerrymandering” which is the same thing as racial gerrymandering, affecting the same people in the same way but if you don’t say it’s racially based it’s somehow different.”
The left’s fixation on gerrymandering is stupid.
There is no subjectively correct means to setup districts.
There are two forms of gerrymandering – the first, creating safe districts for incumbents is by far the msot common and is incompatible with the second.
The second – trying to increase your majority in legislative seats is stupid and counter productive and dangerous.
Minor changes in voting can change a solid majority into a weak minority.
Basically that type of gerrymandering is so stupid we should not try to prevent it.
But left wing nuts are incapable of logic and beleive in magic fairy dust.
Today Democrats have a Trifecta in 7 states – that is control of the governor, the house and the senate.
Republicans have a trifecta in 26 States.
Based on that it appears to me that democrats are OVER represented in the house and senate.
“As far as solutions, we have to make the laws racially blind in name and effect. ”
It is nearly impossible for our laws to effectively determine secondary and tertiary effects.
This is why law should be limited – because quite often (most of the time) secondary effects are larger than the direct effects of the law.
More simply – the disparate impact argument is crap.
Where we must have laws – only the primary effects can be considered.
More is just guessing. And BTW the history of voter ID laws is that the “guesses” fo the left are WRONG.
“If partisan gerrymandering (which shouldn’t be legal either) causes a racial disparity, it should be prohibited.”
You keep pretending that you can prohibit things – by magic.
Ultimately – humans, usually ones with a political bent are going to create districts.
And they are going to be subject to political influences.
To the greatest extent possible we want to confine political corruption to the legislature and not bleed it into our courts and elsewhere.
The left’s efforts to make political disagreements into constitutional matters has severely negatively impacted our courts, and undermined the rule of law.
There is also in your idiotic claim, the presumption that democrat and minority mean the same thing.
I believe SCOTUS has finally after several decades disposed of the racial gerrymandering that the left imposed on us – which BTW results in exactly the political gerrymanding you do not like.
“If the day after several states were released from preclearance based on their history from the Voting Rights Act, they immediately implement a number of rules they couldn’t have passed the day before, chances are they’re racist, as several Federal Judges and/or panels have determined but many of those changes are still in effect.”
The preclearance provisions of the VRA were unconstitutional from day one.
After being released those states implimented a series of laws that SCOTUS had already found constitutional, but DOJ had been barring southern states from imposing.
The political corruption is on the left.
You are unbeleiveably fixated on race.
Worse you are fixated on ONE race – blacks.
Guess what – the civil war is over, as is jim crow, and the 60’s.
Absolutely racism still exists in the US. But it is far far less signficant than when I was in school.
As I noted before you also confuse political partisanship with racism – i.e. anything that is bad for democrats is bad for blacks and visa versa.
How well has being in thrall to the democratic party worked for blacks in the past century ?
While Obama was president we had all this racial garbage that law enforcement was systemically racist.
That would require beleiving that cities with black governments, and black police commissioners and cheifs were unable to prevent white racism in some small portion of white police.
Maybe, Maybe not. When your examples of racism do not come from the places minorities have had half a century of pollitical control – then I might be interested.
In the meantime, My daughter is chinese, and my son is korean. and they have to do twice as well as anyone else to get into a decent college – because YOUR affirmative action does not actually target whites, it targets people who work hard and do well.
Ask Harvard about its systemic bias against asians.
Dhlii, from memory a quick report of a Dartmouth study. I only casually heard it and need to reference it so be careful with my numbers.
All things being equal the acceptance rate for Asians to Dartmouth(?) was 25%, Caucasians 37%, Hispanics 75% and blacks 95%. Recognizing that I heard this on the fly I’d be careful with the numbers but it does indicate a problem in that all are not being treated equally.
Then again there is the Tucker Carlson video.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/02/obama-era-faa-hiring-rules-place-diversity-ahead-airline-safety-attorney-tells-tucker-carlson.html
Just to be clear – whether it is harvard or Red Hen, as far as I am concerned outside of government you can discriminate as you wish.
AND I can protest, moan, complain, bitch, …. whatever I want so long as my actions are not violent and do not involve attempts to use force – such as government to change your conduct.
But the left should watch out – Asians are an increasingly influential group in this country.
And they have a long history of persecution.
Today they are persecuted for being more successful.
“Just to be clear – whether it is harvard or Red Hen, as far as I am concerned outside of government you can discriminate as you wish.”
I almost always follow the law even if I disagree with it. Harvard receives federal money so it has other obligations.
I am almost 60. As important as my principles are, I try hard not to spend an night in jail over them.
Harvard should not receive federal money.
Funding education is not the governments job.
Worse still it has done nothing except drive the cost up while decreasing its value.
Further – while I oppose government funding everything in creation.
I would separately note that whether government funding is proper or not attaching a broad collection of strings is not.
If government is buying something – it should buy that thing, and it should do so at the greatest value for the least cost. It should not be imposing criteria beyond those related to the thing purchased.
Government can not accomplish by bribing private actors what it can not do directly.
The “you accept federal money” argument is bogus.
If government wants specific behavior from colleges, it should legislate that behavior. Then those laws can be properly challenged.
Part of the problem with Enigma is semantic.
Actions have consequences – both good ones and bad ones.
Voting laws have consequences good and bad.
In “enigma world” there can be no bad consequences, particularly no bad consequences that he can hypothesize have impacts that vary by group.
There is no action in existance that does not have disparate impact.
Voter ID laws appear to have minimal impact on actual voting. They have not exposed vast amounts of fraud (they are really not intended to expose, but to prevent), nor have they had any measurable disparate impact. The left has fixated on the fact that some idiot legislators have said stupid things about these laws.
But that is consistent with the idiocy on the left that a legal act is a crime if they postulate that you have bad reasons for that act.
It is not as an example a crime to hate others, it MIGHT be a motivation for a bad act.
It MIGHT be reason for a steeper sentence when you are convicted of an actual crime.
But there is no “hate crime”.
The concept that your reasons for doing something make something legal or not is ludicrously stupid.
It inherently results in vastly unequal application of the law.
Obama can issue Immigration EO’s but according to the left – the same EO by Obama is unconstitutional because …. “Trump”
If an act is legal, it is legal for ALL. It is legal for blacks, it is legal for republicans, it is legal if you are gay. it is legal if you hate gays.
““Part of the problem with Enigma is semantic.”
I don’t agree. I think the problem is intentional and that Enigma cannot move forward. It is easier to complain about things that cannot be proven one way or another nor corrected, since we cannot yet time travel backward, than to develop solutions that make everyone equal under the law.”
In my own larger family unit we have faced torture, slavery, death, and loss of everything we owned. This is not something distant rather recent enough to have been close to numerous relatives that barely escaped and live with one who did. It is also something that occurred in my family in more than one continent and by more than one group of people. These things happen all over the world.
The one thing I was taught was don’t look back. Look forward and though one should remember history it doesn’t do anyone any good to simply bitch and moan. That would be disrespectful to all my ancestors who would have then died in vain.
The problem is not that “voter suppression” does not exist.
It is that the term is deliberately deceitful.
The left is under the ludicrous and wrong belief that everyone MUST vote.
That we need more democracy.
This country is not a democracy.
Democracy is one of the most repressive totalitarian forms of govenrment their is.
Not only is there nothing wrong with disincentivizing voting, but it is a positive thing.
We want people to vote because they have gone to the trouble to inform themselves, because the election is important to them.
My grandmother used to openly vote for the most handsome candidate.
Our system permits that – and I would not change that.
But she was also less likely to vote if it rained or the lines were long or voting was in any way inconvenient.
I want to make voting difficult.
I have no problem with “supressing the vote”.
What we may not do, is disencentivize voting in ways that are not in application (not effect) equal.
I have zero problems with making absentee baloting difficult.
I think the motor voter law was ludicrously stupid.
If you can not go to the trouble of registering to vote – you should not vote.
I have zero problems with requiring proof that you are who you say you are and that you are eligable to vote, in order to vote.
The left has spent far more money trying to stop voter ID laws than the cost of getting all minority democrats who do not have state ID’s ID’s.
BTW – negative campaigning – that is deliberate efforts at “voter supression”
And I have no problem with that.
Democrats engate in it all the time.
Or do you think that calling those you disagree with fascist, nazi’s, homophobes, mysoginysts hatefull, hating haters – is up beat and positive ?
“It is that the term is deliberately deceitful.”
Deceit is one of the preferred methods used by race-baiters and those with their hands in your pockets.
“We want people to vote because they have gone to the trouble to inform themselves because the election is important to them.”
An excellent point, but first your earlier point has to be clearly understood. Democracy can be repressive and its fault can best be demonstrated by two foxes and a chicken voting on what to eat for lunch. Therefore, voting is not meant to be a process that requires no energy. If one cares that little about what is being voted on they should leave the voting process to those that find it important.
False assumptions underly much of the left.
Democracy is not by definition good. In fact it is by definition evil.
Voting is not supposed to be made as easy as possible – that is a sure route to the worst evils of democracy.
When I say no energy in my comment I mean more than just the usual energy of physically voting. I mean also the intellectual energy of actually being informed and being decent something the founders recognized as a necessity for our Republic to survive.
In an earlier response I attacked your “common sense” premise.
This is a good place to explain.
Enigma, almost certainly beleives that restrictions on voting are wrong.
Possible even that ALL restrictions on voting are wrong.
I would bet he would claim that is just common sense.
I would further bet that if you queried 100 people without framing the question carefully,
you could get very near universal agreement that it is common sense that voting restrictions are bad.
Yet, I think you and I both agree that is not true.
There are restrictions on voting that are bad.
But so is unrestricted voting without much thought.
Nassim Taleb talks about “skin in the game” – that we make bad decisions, when we have no “skin in the game”.
Most of us as an example tend to make pretty good decisions when we are purchasing.
Because we are required to decide how to allocate our scarce resources towards our wants and needs.
If we could do as we pleased without cost, we would make poor choices
It’s common sense to recognize that the voting process has to be secure.
“It’s common sense to recognize that the voting process has to be secure.”
The voting process has to be PERCEIVED to be secure.
IF it is not people will not have confidence in the results and government will not have “the consent of the governed” and will therefore be illegitimate.
Most of the time what we perceive and what is true are the same. But with respect to voting it is the former that matters.
The left as an example constantly rants that there is no evidence of systemic voter fraud.
I do not know that that is true. I do tend to agree with the left that voter fraud is more rare than the right fears. At the same time I think the obstinance of the left and resistance to pretty trivial improvements is evidence that even they do not actually beleive it is not an issue.
But what matters is not how much fraud there actually is.
What matters is not who is elected.
What matters is that the losers in an election accept the result.
The more doubt there is the less legitimacy the government has.
This even plays into the current moment.
The left’s belief that the 2016 election was improperly influenced,
undermines significantly the power of the executive to engage in affirmative actions.
Fortunately for Trump there is so much that he can legitimately do that is just the reversal of past lawlessness or the reduction of government that he does not need the same strength in consent.
While Our constitution was not unfortunately properly structured in this regard,
Not only does enacting law require supermajority support (which our constitution does recognize, but merely maintaining law requires sustaining that supermajority support. Something our constitution did little to consider.
Trump does NOT have sufficient consent of the governed to do big things.
But he does not need it to undo things.
““It’s common sense to recognize that the voting process has to be secure.”
The voting process has to be PERCEIVED to be secure.”
This mostly semantics but if the perception is that voting is secure and it isn’t it can later lead to tremendous problems and loss of faith in government.
“Trump does NOT have sufficient consent of the governed to do big things.”
It is the legislature that is supposed to pass the laws to accomplish the goals of the nation while the executive branch is the enforcer. It seems the idea of checks and balances escapes many.
“This mostly semantics but if the perception is that voting is secure and it isn’t it can later lead to tremendous problems and loss of faith in government.”
We are debating a pretty much non-existant hypothetical.
The importance of the perception of security is the OPPOSITE issue – if the means of an election ARE secure, but people do not beleive that – you STILL have a loss of faith.
Where people have faith but should not os probably a unicorn.
Regardless, if they have faith and do not lose that faith – there are no problems.
Whether that faith is deserved.
“It is the legislature that is supposed to pass the laws to accomplish the goals of the nation while the executive branch is the enforcer. It seems the idea of checks and balances escapes many.”
True and irrelevant. The ability of government to act – regardless of structure rests on the strength of public confidence in the legitimacy of the government.
What we have today is Trump weakened because though the election was legitimate, too many people beleive it was not.
That limits his positive ability to increase, but not his negative ability to decrease.
Checks and balances is a combination of things – it is a normative super majoritarian force. and it strengths the perception of legitimacy.
“We are debating a pretty much non-existant hypothetical.”
I don’t know what non-existant hypothetical you are talking about. Loss of faith in any area leads to radical change.
Loss of faith – requires loss of faith.
That is pretty much as tautological as you can get.
As I understand your unicron hypothetical.
We have an election which we falsely beleive produces the proper results
but because the results were not actually proper – though we do not know that.
Magically we lose faith.
Well maybe that is not quite as hypothetical as I stated.
That is essentially what has happened with the left.
Prior to the moment Trump won they assured us that US elections could not be rigged.
that voter ID was not necescary, ….. That Trump’s concerns about a rigged election were idiotic fairytales.
Prior to election day the left had supreme confidence – full faith in the results.
But when the results were unexpected, they lost faith – not because there was a problem.
But because since the outcome was wrong there had to be a problem.
They failed to grasp
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves.”
and so were ripe to beleive any conspiracy explanation no matter how absurd.
“Loss of faith – requires loss of faith. That is pretty much as tautological as you can get.”
Yes, you are engaging in a tautology and confusing yourself in the process.
No you have a time problem and assumptions in your argument.
If an election is conducted fraudulently, and the people are deceived and never find out,
they will continue to have confidence in government absent some other reason to question government.
It is only fraud that is discovered that matters.
Or more accurately it is the perception of fraud that matters, not the reality of fraud.
We mostly combat the reality – because out perceptions TEND to follow reality.
Though in the past election much of the left beleives in nonsense.
Still their belief in the invalidity of the election undermines the government.
I laughed at your tautology and subsequent confusion. “Loss of faith in any area leads to radical change” when the truth is discovered.
In our discussions, you say a lot of extraneous things and then add to that the complication of the game of telephone where what was said is slightly and gradually changed with each response. As you said in your last reply that your confusion becomes so great you don’t even know what the discussion is all about.
Yes, I expect that what you initially say is what you mean.
Gradually transforming it into something different distorts the conversation and the argument.
You said nothing about “the truth being discovered” in your original post.
At best you assumed it. But that was not clear.
My argument was that the PERCEPTION of corruption is what matters – regardless of the reality,
Your challenge does not make sense.
“You said nothing about “the truth being discovered” in your original post.
At best you assumed it. But that was not clear.”
As best as I can discover now the following statement is the one that you worked into a long several part thesis of libertarianism.
“This mostly semantics but if the perception is that voting is secure and it isn’t it can later lead to tremendous problems and loss of faith in government.”
I think this is indirectly but clearly stating that the truth being discovered is what leads to tremendous problems.
Enigma, I am not all that enthused about either side of the aisle.
What you call voter suppression is actually appropriate voting habits with the exception of certain tactics used by both sides. For instance, the New Black Panthers standing outside of the polls with baseball bats in their hands wasn’t an act to encourage white people to vote. They had already lost the case and Attorney General Holder let them go. That isn’t really equality under the law. Yes, some pretty bad things were done to Blacks, but heinous things were done to Armenians and Jews and Chinese and Russians and Cambodians. Gosh, way back to the Helots there was slavery. You know, in the Spartan world the Helots were their slaves. Gosh, look at all the Indians killed in the Western Hemisphere before 1776. It was terrible.
The thing is time passes and we have to get on with our lives. Maybe a handful of Armenians are still alive to remember the genocide and the Jews still have people alive today that suffered. Have you noticed how these people and others got on with their lives instead of being caught in a time warp demanding that time be reversed? It won’t be and I don’t know of anyone that was a slave that is alive today. I know some are alive that were very much discriminated against and I saw that. One can wallow in their history and create generations of misery or one can choose to move forward and try to correct the wrongs committed against all people, all races, all religions.
Do you know one way of doing that is by having a Democratic voting process that is trusted where all people have to put in the effort to register in an effective way and prove who they are at the polls? Work with the Constitution not against it.
You should read Thomas Sowell. I’ll be glad to buy any of his books for you. He even wrote books on culture, where one could learn that their own culture was not the only one to be discriminated against. We need to work together and get rid of tribalism that is promoted by the left.
Allan, I wasn’t speaking of history, I was speaking of the present when it comes to voter suppression. The example you point to of the New Black Panther Party consisted of two people standing outside a predominantly black polling place, one of which had a billy club and was sent away. He was suspended by the party for that action. The other was allowed to stay because he was a “registered poll watcher.” I’ll be a little Turley-like and say I don’t think registered poll watchers are a good thing and can be associated with suppression in and of themselves. I’ll also say far more poll-watchers are from the right.
I’ve read Sowell, I love it when white people tell me to listen to other black people with similar beliefs as theirs.
The people who seem to have forgotten the atrocities committed against the Jews are those who ignore the rise of Neo-Nazi’s and White Supremacists and White Nationalists in this country, those factions are well represented in our Administration.
I would love it if there was a strong two or more party system where ideas determined who got votes. Despite the denials of others about the existence of voter suppression, it is very evident, was RNC policy under Reince Priebus and before and is the mechanism by which Republicans hope to retain power while demographics are steadily working against them. I haven’t seen any polls yet about the impact of Zero-Tolerance but I suspect Trump is speeding up the eventual impact of the increased Hispanic voting percentage and tendency to vote Democrat. I think it was Reagan who said Latinos were “Republicans but just don’t know it yet.” I suspect they are increasingly realizing they are not as they watch things happen to children who look like them that would never be perpetrated against white families.
Anyway, as long as Republicans support voter suppression, their appeal is almost zero. Until that changes, nothing else need be said.
Enigma, I provided an example where the laws weren’t followed and the AG refused to follow them based on race. I would lock anyone up that prevented people from their right to vote. I think we have a system open to abuse and I wouldn’t be surprised if a huge number of votes were invalid. Take note, I am not declaring a specific side benefited. I just want clean voting.
“I’ve read Sowell, I love it when white people tell me to listen to other black people with similar beliefs as theirs.”
I rake note that you made this into a black-white issue. I brought up Sowell because he is brilliant not because he is black and I brought him up instead of Milton Friedman because I mentioned culture something he also wrote about in his usual brilliant fashion. You assume everything is a black-white issue. The only book of his that has anything to do with his being black is his autobiography which was quite enlightening. If you haven’t read that book you might find it interesting. I would also read Free to Chose by Friedman which is a fast easy read. He, Hayek and a number of others have written some superb books that are not as easy.
The immigration issue is a matter of law. It is Congress that passes the laws but Congress has been ineffective for a number of years, We need to set term limits and remove a lot of their perks that make them feel superior to the people they represent. Many of them have abused their office and become rich by doing so. We have seen that no matter what color our legislators are.
You would do a lot better if you became racially blind and focused on injustice and the Constitution. Following the law and the Constitution raises all citizens, not just a few. The biggest generators of racism today are those that are always looking either to complain or to fight. Do so through the law.
When the policies of this nation become “racially blind” I would be happy to follow.
DSS said it right but you are more interested in promoting a national agenda that has never helped to make the nation color blind. Instead many of the leftist policies promoted racist feelings. With your type of talk, it is no wonder that racial anxiety is heightened. You should calm down and become more racially blind. That would do more to create the proper atmosphere than what you are doing now.
“Racial anxiety” is not caused by talking about race, it is enhanced by not discussing it. Trump talks about it constantly, he offers Muslim Bans and talks about “shithole countries,” he calls Mexicans rapists and infers most immigrants are criminals, he calls Elizabeth Warren, “Pocahontas” and in testimony said he can tell Native Americans when he see’s them. Him you don’t object to but “my type of talk” causes racial anxiety?
As I said before, when the policies of this country become “racially blind.” I will happily do the same.
“When the policies of this nation become “racially blind” I would be happy to follow.”
What is “racially blind” ?
Voter ID laws as an example are racially blind.
There is no requirement (as with literacy tests) that only blacks have ID.
You confuse “disparate impact” – NOTHING has perfectly equal impact,
and few things have predictable impact beyond first order effects.
With racial bias.
You also continue to make the delusional claim that your guess as to why someone did something
alters whether that is a crime or not.
If I do a good thing for bad reasons – it is still a good thing.
When the policies of this nation become “racially blind” I would be happy to follow.
Black Americans began around 1964 to engage in bloc voting of a sort that’s only seen in one other locus in the occidental world: Ulster.
That aside, enigma, federal politics is the least consequential venue in regard to establishing and implementing public policies which might address some of the signature problems blacks face. It’s in the state capitals and the county seats where the action is. Black politicians are by and large doing nothing about these issues.
Now some joke of a Congressional wants full size dormitories built at each of the 88 stations. so how about a wall of dormitories?
Michael Aerethun – I like the tent cities. They have pasted SC muster for prisoners so they will be fine for detaining illegals. And there is no reason to keep them comfortable. 😉
Emphasis on the opposite to bring forward the congressional inaction regarding immigration reform
Em-peach-ment grounds?
“Difficult to square” indeed. At last, welcome to the party of Constitutional rights and protections, Professor. Obviously, many, if not all of these immigrants, are seeking asylum. So adding judges and “resources” (at what cost?) to the border is the answer? Resources from JAG who know nothing about immigration? Rethink this, Professor.
Reblogged this on What i found intersting today… and commented:
The call would raise serious questions under both U.S. and international law. It would be a denial of the most basic protections of due process for those with credible claims for asylum. The position is both extreme and untenable.
Credible. The keyword is credible. Very few of these people coming across have credible claims.
But it only applies to a small percentage. The others are being rejected on their asylum claims but Demos arranged for the 20 day catch and release crap and we got infested.
If you want to claim asylum – come to a border crossing and do so.
The lack of Congress’ action for the last decade has brought us to a terrible situation. Pres. Trump knows his Exec Order from the past week will get overturned in court. So it will either be ‘catch and release’ or ‘catch and release’.
The asylum claims are all bogus so what is the country supposed to do? The immigrants crossing illegally should not have any US Constitutional rights, but of course they do. What a disaster. Thanks Dems.
Man, do we need that wall.
And how many of these claims have you examined? You don’t think that some, if not all, of the claims of Hondurans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans are valid? Prove it.
Political asylum is the right to live in a foreign country, and is given by the government of that country to people who have to leave their own country because they are in danger of persecution.
While the people seeking asylum may be living in dangerous countries, their governments are not persecuting them, so yeah, pretty much ALL bogus claims.
Burden is on the asylee applicant to make their case. Mostly central american applicants clearly don’t give a valid basis the way a lot of other source country applicants do. Asylum applicants from Central America are making a lot of the other applicants from Asian nations who have stronger claims look bad.
We’re any of Obama’s 200+ Executive Orders overturned?
To my knowledge, only one.
Supreme Court overturned 13 Trump at least ten and that is out of date but the most important high profile ones and the least known the over reach orders seem to indicate somewhere near a hundred or so.
But he can’t change the system put in place by the Supreme Court and neither can the lower courts but he can ask to have them impeached on those very same grounds I just mentioned.
If the arrested illegal aliens are informed if they do not want to apply for asylum they can be walked to the gate at the border and released. I suspect the vast majority will choose this option.
In the absence of a claim of asylum I don’t see the illegality of arresting someone on probable cause then releasing them after a forty-eight hour hold. It is not unusual on criminal matters for this to happen on ordinary criminal violations.
So why do they keep the children then?!
I imagine if they are unaccompanied minors ICE needs to determine placement with a relative.
What? A US relative? A foreign relative? You think ICE and CBP and HHS are capable of doing this? Not in our lifetimes.
“You think ICE and CBP and HHS are capable of doing this?”
~+~
Yes
They are a study in failure so far. How many have they reunited?
There are people willing to foster these children while their parents can’t be found.
They are probably capable of doing it, but not overnight.
I don’t think keeping them indefinately or tossing them back over the border is either an option or a likelihood….authorities will have to track down who these kids belong with on a case by case basis.
exactly and that has always been the procedure. the recent flap is nonsense
Dandoha,…-If I heard correctly, about 80% of the “children” crossed without their parents.
If they are not accompanied by a parent, or if they are by themselves, the authorities probably have to determine their status.
I don’t know what the procedure would be, if, for example, a coyote guided a group of kids in their mid-teens to our border.
Or if there even is a procedure in place to deal with that.
There isn’t just one set of circumstances that has to be handled…..it isn’t always a case of Mom, Dad, and the kids crossing and putting them in separate facilities.
Because the parents abandoned them or themselves are incarcerated felons and the search for nearest relative then begins. Can’t turn them over to anyone without some vetting or the girls will be turning tricks within a day or two and theboys humping drugs. the worst reason is any sign of just putting them on the street unless the street is in Mexco OR THEIR real home country.would have the flippers flopping again.
among other reasons because we have no means of knowing that the adults are the actual parents of the children, or that other nonsense is not going on.
The 3yr old that made the time cover, was not separated, but was brought to the US without her father’s permission.
One of the problems with this – and one of the problems with asserting that illegal immigrants have broad US constitutional rights is that the US suddenly becomes the arbiter in matters that are really out of its jurisdiction/
If you immediately return the mother and child to honduras – they can sort out issues of custody.
Otherwise the US has to figure out whether a child is legitimately in the custody of the person it crossed with. And we have to determine that without the information necescary to do so.
You are so ignorant and obviously wrong!
Ad Hominem is not argument.
If I have made an actual error – point it out.
Facts, logic, reason.
Are these ordinary?
I think walking them to the gate and releasing them is better than the imprisonment that is going on now. And I would not stop but encourage the people who want to help to set up their own wayside camps, like you see on the sides of the road at races, with water, maybe a meal, supplies, and information and or money to give the refugees. A lot of people have donated money to help reunite the families. Give them the freedom to do more.
BTW I heard s few years ago on NPR that 40% of illegal immigrants are from a Eastern Europe. White, blond, blue-eyed people walk around our country with no fear of nighttime raids by ICE men. The rich clubs and hotels on the ocean all up and down the East Coast recruit young white people for wait staff and cabana boys, etc. mainly for seasonal work. They pay for their flights here, but not back. Many overstay their work visas.
I think walking them to the gate and releasing them is better than the imprisonment that is going on now. And I would not stop but encourage the people who want to help to set up their own wayside camps, like you see on the sides of the road at races, with water, maybe a meal, supplies, and information and or money to give the refugees. A lot of people have donated money to help reunite the families. Give them the freedom to do more.
BTW I heard s few years ago on NPR that 40% of illegal immigrants are from a Eastern Europe. White, blond, blue-eyed people walk around our country with no fear of nighttime raids by ICE men. The rich clubs and hotels on the ocean all up and down the East Coast recruit young white people for wait staff and cabana boys, etc. mainly for seasonal work. They pay for their flights here, but not back. Many overstay their work visas.
BTW ICE is not set up at all in their organization to find and place family members. The best thing would be to involve the states Children and Family services who already have these systems in place WITH proper oversight. ICE has no experience nor oversight in child placement services.