Sessions has "personally" decided that asylum applicants aren't worth of basic due process. he just vacated a 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision stating that asylum applicants are entitled to a hearing of their asylum claim and that immigration judges cannot simply dismiss their applications out of hand. the BIA is the highest immigration court in the U.S., the "Supreme Court" of the immigration courts.
Sessions is undermining basic due process in order to shove forward his racism against asylees. fucking goddamned shit.
The San Francisco spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement resigned after the agency’s recent Northern California sweep, saying he couldn’t continue to do his job after Trump administration officials made false public statements about a key aspect of the operation.
James Schwab told The Chronicle on Monday that he was frustrated by repeated statements by officials, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that roughly 800 undocumented immigrants escaped arrest because of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s Feb. 24 warning to the public about the four-day operation, issued the night before federal officers began staking out homes and knocking on doors.
Schwab wanted the agency to correct the number, which he understood to be far lower, and didn’t want to deflect media questions about it, he said.
“I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts,” said Schwab, 38, who was hired in 2015 and resigned last week. “I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit.”
Schwab said the statements about immigrants evading arrest, which were widely quoted in an array of media outlets, were misleading “because we were not ever going to be able to capture 100 percent of the target list” of roughly 1,000 undocumented immigrants in Northern California.
“I didn’t feel like fabricating the truth to defend ourselves against (Schaaf’s) actions was the way to go about it,” he said. “We were never going to pick up that many people. To say that 100 percent are dangerous criminals on the street, or that those people weren’t picked up because of the misguided actions of the mayor, is just wrong.”
Tensions between California and Washington went from hot to blistering Wednesday as U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a speech condemning the state’s sanctuary laws his department is challenging in court — and Gov. Jerry Brown countered that it was “a publicity stunt” filled with lies.
“This is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy,” Brown said.
In a move Brown called “unprecedented,” Sessions traveled to California to deliver news of the first major strike by the Trump administration against the state’s “resistance” movement: a federal suit to block three new immigration laws from taking effect. The former senator from Alabama invoked the Civil War and reminded California that “there is no secession” as he blasted new immigration laws aimed at thwarting President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
Political observers say that Sessions’ trip to Sacramento was likely orchestrated to provoke California’s political left at a time of great turmoil in the White House — and provoke it did. The protesters chanting outside the heavily guarded hotel where the attorney general spoke included the leader of the state Senate and other lawmakers.
“We haven’t seen this level of discord between Sacramento and Washington since we were in the Vietnam period, into the 60s and 70s,” said David McCuan, a professor of politics at Sonoma State. “This is about going right into the resistance, into a deep blue state, and sticking a finger in their eye. Because the attorney general could have gone anywhere to make this speech.”
Brown, for example, had been far more restrained in his rhetoric about Trump than some of his fellow Democrats, such as Senate Leader Kevin de León, who is running for U.S. Senate. But on Wednesday, visibly angry, the governor pulled off the gloves.
“We know the Trump administration is full of liars,” he said, speculating that Sessions was merely trying to save his job by keeping his boss — whom Brown called “Donald” — happy. The lawsuit and visit, Brown said, were “pure red meat” for the president’s base.
In his speech to some 200 law enforcement officers, which received polite applause, Sessions noted that frustrations about immigration enforcement helped to propel Trump into the White House. “Our citizens want our government to think about them for a change, to think about their interests for a change. They have dreams too,” he said
He went on to blast sanctuary policies as harmful to police and undermining the interests of the United States: “There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land.”
Sessions also excoriated Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who late last month warned residents of an imminent raid by federal immigration agents. ICE director Thomas Homan announced last week that the Department of Justice would launch a “review” of the mayor’s actions.
“So here’s my message for Mayor Schaaf: How dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda,” Sessions said. He also attacked Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the leading candidates for governor, for “bragging about the obstruction of law enforcement.”
Schaaf stood her ground. “My response to the attorney general’s statements … How dare you vilify members of our community,” she said Wednesday.
Sessions’ lawsuit targets three bills. Senate Bill 54, the centerpiece of California’s resistance on immigration, aims to prevent state and local police officers from helping to carry out the president’s promised crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Assembly Bill 450 requires an employer to ask for proper court documents before allowing immigration agents access to the workplace or to employee information — or face a fine. And Assembly Bill 103 gives California’s attorney general the authority to review the conditions of immigration detention centers that contract with ICE.
Protesters gathered on the sidewalk Wednesday outside the downtown hotel where Sessions spoke, chanting and holding signs saying “Crush ICE” and “First They Came For Immigrants.” Some marched through the streets.
Authors of the three immigration laws — Senate Leader de León, D-Los Angeles, Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens — joined the peaceful demonstration outside the hotel. They later held a news conference, calling the lawsuit a retaliatory move that lacked legal merit.
“California will not be bowed,” De León said. “We shall see Mr. Sessions in court.”
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said the trust between the immigrant community and law enforcement is “critical” for public safety and said the lawsuit was “a misguided waste of federal resources.”
Jon Rodney, spokesman for the California Immigrant Policy Center which has an office in Oakland, called Sessions’ speech and lawsuit an “attempt at political retaliation.”
For over a year, ICE and the Department of Justice have issued warnings to cities that have adopted so-called “sanctuary” policies to protect undocumented immigrants, threatening such repercussions as stepped-up raids and withheld law enforcement grants.
Sessions isn’t saying anything new, said Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who is now a lecturer in USC’s Annenberg School of Communication. “The difference is he’ll be saying it in a courtroom as opposed to on cable television.”
The final “sanctuary state” compromise brokered by Brown before its final passage largely exempts the state prison system from the new law. It allows ICE officers to question immigrants in county jails, although it prohibits them from holding permanent office space there. It permits information-sharing and coordination between federal and state law enforcement officers when the immigrant in question has been convicted of one of some 800 crimes within the past 15 years. It also makes an exception for suspects in serious crimes punishable with prison time for which a judge has found probable cause.
The California Police Chiefs’ Association, one of the groups organizing Wednesday’s event, took a neutral position on SB 54 after the last-minute amendments, while the more conservative sheriffs’ association opposed it.
Some state lawmakers have criticized the peace officers’ association for inviting Sessions. But an association official interviewed afterward said it would be “foolish” for the group not to hear what he had to say.
“Attorney General Sessions is the top law enforcement officer in the United States of America,” said Neil Gallucci, the association’s second vice president, “and his opinion is certainly something we need to listen to and understand in California law enforcement.”
Democratic leaders are backing off of their demand that "Dreamer" protections be a part of the 2018 budget negotiations.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders had hinged their support for last month’s budget caps deal on a commitment from Republicans to consider legislation salvaging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, they’ve signaled they won’t hold a similar line heading into next week’s expected vote on an omnibus spending bill.
If Democrats fail to win back control of the House or Senate due to decreases in attendance by minorities at the polls, it'll be for shit like this.
You can argue that not voting is self defeating, but that won't change the outcome.
If the Democrats arent even willing to go through the motion of the fight, and simply rely on "give us majorities in both houses and we MIGHT do something", it's going to be a long couple of election cycles. Because they'll need significant majorities because you know some conservative Democrat will break ranks, and getting it veto-proof is going to be near impossible.
That Democrats didn't do anything about this in 2009-10, means they need to show that this time is different.
And what's happeni g here just seems more of the same. Using the vulnerability and anxiety of minorities for their votes, but not expending any real political capital on actually fixing the problem.
MorganV on
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Democratic leaders are backing off of their demand that "Dreamer" protections be a part of the 2018 budget negotiations.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders had hinged their support for last month’s budget caps deal on a commitment from Republicans to consider legislation salvaging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, they’ve signaled they won’t hold a similar line heading into next week’s expected vote on an omnibus spending bill.
I fucking knew it. I knew they would hang Mexicans out to dry as they always do when push comes to shove.
Democratic leaders are backing off of their demand that "Dreamer" protections be a part of the 2018 budget negotiations.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders had hinged their support for last month’s budget caps deal on a commitment from Republicans to consider legislation salvaging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, they’ve signaled they won’t hold a similar line heading into next week’s expected vote on an omnibus spending bill.
I fucking knew it. I knew they would hang Mexicanscore values out to dry as they always do when push comes to shove.
Hopefully this doesn't mean it's abandoned. I can see where they might be thinking they can campaign on it, adding to the list of things they need us to take congress to achieve, rather than something the GOP can claim credit for.
But as quote-fixed, that's less convincing the more they back down.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2018
Yeah it seems like because of the stays, the Dem leadership just don't feel any urgency to do what they know they should.
As a note, campaign issues are stronger if you are demonstrating you are willing to actually do the thing.
Yeah it seems like because of the stays, the Dem leadership just don't feel any urgency to do what they know they should.
As a note, campaign issues are stronger if you are demonstrating you are willing to actually do the thing.
Haven’t judges (at least one) that ruled on the stays said that the reason was basically just because the White House was using the reasoning that DACA was illegal (which it isn’t, the President has the authority to make immigration related decisions) and so far has refused to change their stated reasoning?
Those stays don’t seem like something that anyone should really be relying on long term.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah it seems like because of the stays, the Dem leadership just don't feel any urgency to do what they know they should.
As a note, campaign issues are stronger if you are demonstrating you are willing to actually do the thing.
Haven’t judges (at least one) that ruled on the stays said that the reason was basically just because the White House was using the reasoning that DACA was illegal (which it isn’t, the President has the authority to make immigration related decisions) and so far has refused to change their stated reasoning?
Those stays don’t seem like something that anyone should really be relying on long term.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
Yeah it seems like because of the stays, the Dem leadership just don't feel any urgency to do what they know they should.
As a note, campaign issues are stronger if you are demonstrating you are willing to actually do the thing.
Haven’t judges (at least one) that ruled on the stays said that the reason was basically just because the White House was using the reasoning that DACA was illegal (which it isn’t, the President has the authority to make immigration related decisions) and so far has refused to change their stated reasoning?
Those stays don’t seem like something that anyone should really be relying on long term.
Yes, exactly.
They're turning it into a game of chicken.
They know RepubliTrump doesn't want to openly end DACA because it would make people angry/sad at him, and any attempt to compromise would (a) get shot down by Republicans or Trump or Steve Miller and (2) would piss off the people who historically vote in midterms.
So, they're currently putting a huge stack of chips on Trump/Sessions being more incompetent than they are evil.
Democratic leadership has repeatedly expressed unease with focusing on Russia, both in public and in private. They haven't been on of the big drivers of that.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
Yep, they held the budget hostage to get votes on immigration, none of them passed.
Holding the country hostage on an issue again that still isn't spurring many major recent protests isnt great optics for them, as it just keeps exposing their current inability to stop the Republicans and may remind the Republicans to stop grifting and start focusing on targeting minorities again
When you actually want the hostage to keep living it's incredibly hard to shoot it, even when it's the right move. At the very core of the Democrats is the belief in a functioning government doing the most good for the most people. It's a little too utilitarian in a lot of ways, with this issue being a prime example of why. I think Democrat leadership will do everything they can, including accepting empty promises, to keep the government open as long as there is a chance dreamers won't be deported. It will take the deportations to start happening on a scale that is impossible to ignore before they shut the government down, but it will be 'too little too late' at that point.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
Yeah, I mean, we had the votes on this shit. It's not happening. So the only options are hostage taking or just accepting that you can't win the votes.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
Yep, they held the budget hostage to get votes on immigration, none of them passed.
Holding the country hostage on an issue again that still isn't spurring many major recent protests isnt great optics for them, as it just keeps exposing their current inability to stop the Republicans and may remind the Republicans to stop grifting and start focusing on targeting minorities again
They had a major Pro-DACA protest when they held up the budget!
They gave up on that before the weekend opinion polls came in, and the polls were on the side of the shutdown.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
It sounded like what the GOP was offering was full funding for the wall to push the dreamer stuff until 2020 so no actual decision on it just punt it till 2020. So I am not sure there is actually any deal to be made there until/unless things change in one of the next elections.
The full article leaves the impression that they're avoiding having to compromise on the wall by just not doing anything, betting the Dreamer farm on the court battle that's currently won a stay.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
Yep, they held the budget hostage to get votes on immigration, none of them passed.
Holding the country hostage on an issue again that still isn't spurring many major recent protests isnt great optics for them, as it just keeps exposing their current inability to stop the Republicans and may remind the Republicans to stop grifting and start focusing on targeting minorities again
They had a major Pro-DACA protest when they held up the budget!
They gave up on that before the weekend opinion polls came in, and the polls were on the side of the shutdown.
If there was a large pro DACA protests, and votes held after that point still failed, I fail to see what more hostage taking is going to accomplish.
Some people need to come to terms with the fact that some issues require changes to come from the voting booth.
Which means focusing on reducing the number of politicians who are actively opposed to DACA
MWO: Adamski
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We need more Democrats, but we also need more Dem voters to care about this issue. Holding symbolic (potentially costly) votes isn’t the answer right now.
We need more Democrats, but we also need more Dem voters to care about this issue. Holding symbolic (potentially costly) votes isn’t the answer right now.
Shutting the government down isn't s symbolic vote. The question is whether it'd help.
We need more Democrats, but we also need more Dem voters to care about this issue. Holding symbolic (potentially costly) votes isn’t the answer right now.
You lose voters when you stop actively supporting things people want you to support. It's also strategically bad to say that you won't stymie a vote. There's nothing good that comes from saying that they won't filibuster or stymie a vote in the future, or that they're removing DACA from their docket.
+8
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The point of shutting down the government was to get a vote. They got a vote. The vote failed. We can do that again for the symbolism, but I don’t think that’s worth it at this point.
The point of shutting down the government was to get a vote. They got a vote. The vote failed. We can do that again for the symbolism, but I don’t think that’s worth it at this point.
At the same time publiclly saying "well that's done" is dumb because it provokes exactly the reaction we've seen here. Assuming that's what happened- the reporting around their intentions has been kind of ass.
Right there's literally no reason to play this as "well we tried, time to move on. Oh and remember to vote for us" unless you either never cared much to begin with or you're woefully bad at your job.
We need more Democrats, but we also need more Dem voters to care about this issue. Holding symbolic (potentially costly) votes isn’t the answer right now.
You lose voters when you stop actively supporting things people want you to support. It's also strategically bad to say that you won't stymie a vote. There's nothing good that comes from saying that they won't filibuster or stymie a vote in the future, or that they're removing DACA from their docket.
Except “actively supporting things” in these circumstances include not doing everything a fringe branch of voters want (with consquences which could weaken the coalition as a whole down the line) and unless the Dems win fights like this will be viewed as being just as bad as the GOP. It’s impossible to win over voters like this, they’re trying too inclined to throw Dems under the bus despite the fact the Dems are doing everything they can for there cause. Because while they may be on the left they are not allies unfortunately.
Edit: Which is a frustrating position to be in since the Dems are limited to political realities, which keep getting confused with fighting ideals - which they have, yet are constricted by the former. And this won’t be going away any time soon. Sigh.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Harry are you calling Mexican-Americans (and others who support the issues they hold onto strongly) a "fringe" branch of voters?
Right there's literally no reason to play this as "well we tried, time to move on. Oh and remember to vote for us" unless you either never cared much to begin with or you're woefully bad at your job.
Sure there is, unless your ok with how the GOP are doing in government. They can care and fail, this occurs regularly in politics. Your last line implies that it would be easy to win in for the DACAs when that isn’t true. It’s also why it’s important for Dems to be voted in higher numbers in congress to avoid situations like this in the future. A big reason they’re unable to save the DACA is due to poor turnout, change that equation and you’ll get different results. For now they have to work with what the public gave them, which sadly was too little to stop the DACA from being deported. No amount of yelling at them will alter that political reality.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
Right there's literally no reason to play this as "well we tried, time to move on. Oh and remember to vote for us" unless you either never cared much to begin with or you're woefully bad at your job.
Sure there is, unless your ok with how the GOP are doing in government. They can care and fail, this occurs regularly in politics. Your last line implies that it would be easy to win in for the DACAs when that isn’t true. It’s also why it’s important for Dems to be voted in higher numbers in congress to avoid situations like this in the future. A big reason they’re unable to save the DACA is due to poor turnout, change that equation and you’ll get different results. For now they have to work with what the public gave them, which sadly was too little to stop the DACA from being deported. No amount of yelling at them will alter that political reality.
You might consider you're getting your cause and effect backwards and the reason they're doing to poorly in Congress is that they can't ever been bothered to be seen truly believing in anything.
Right there's literally no reason to play this as "well we tried, time to move on. Oh and remember to vote for us" unless you either never cared much to begin with or you're woefully bad at your job.
Sure there is, unless your ok with how the GOP are doing in government. They can care and fail, this occurs regularly in politics. Your last line implies that it would be easy to win in for the DACAs when that isn’t true. It’s also why it’s important for Dems to be voted in higher numbers in congress to avoid situations like this in the future. A big reason they’re unable to save the DACA is due to poor turnout, change that equation and you’ll get different results. For now they have to work with what the public gave them, which sadly was too little to stop the DACA from being deported. No amount of yelling at them will alter that political reality.
You might consider you're getting your cause and effect backwards and the reason they're doing to poorly in Congress is that they can't ever been bothered to be seen truly believing in anything.
If the recent history of political elections is any guide, standing for anything beyond vague desires or platitudes isn't much of a boost to political chances.
Posts
Sessions is undermining basic due process in order to shove forward his racism against asylees. fucking goddamned shit.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Trump Administration suing California over new laws.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/06/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-to-make-major-sanctuary-city-announcement-in-sacramento/
Sessions coming to Sacramento to make some major announcement regarding Sanctuary Cities tomorrow, probably related to the above.
#statesrights
These fuckin' guys.
don't forget sexism, ableism, and corporate abuse!
edit: oh and generally punishing the poor!
Did anything come of this? Did he even show?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article204045194.html
It's basically what you expect. Brown responded
Https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/07/attorney-general-jeff-sessions/
You can argue that not voting is self defeating, but that won't change the outcome.
If the Democrats arent even willing to go through the motion of the fight, and simply rely on "give us majorities in both houses and we MIGHT do something", it's going to be a long couple of election cycles. Because they'll need significant majorities because you know some conservative Democrat will break ranks, and getting it veto-proof is going to be near impossible.
That Democrats didn't do anything about this in 2009-10, means they need to show that this time is different.
And what's happeni g here just seems more of the same. Using the vulnerability and anxiety of minorities for their votes, but not expending any real political capital on actually fixing the problem.
Hopefully this doesn't mean it's abandoned. I can see where they might be thinking they can campaign on it, adding to the list of things they need us to take congress to achieve, rather than something the GOP can claim credit for.
But as quote-fixed, that's less convincing the more they back down.
That's a risky enough bet, but it turns rather sour when noting that the Dreamer farm isn't theirs to begin with.
Tastes like ugly politics. If they win enough in the courts to delay things until a D majority is around - great! If not, and Republicans deport Dreamers while 87% of the country opposes such a thing, well, that'll just make voters mad at Republicans and maybe contribute to a D surge; just don't think too hard about the people getting deported. Meanwhile, they get to tout opposition to the wall and avoid handing Trump a red-meat symbolic victory, helpful to depress R turnout in '18 and, if he's still in office, win in '20. And if the R's actually pass something due to the 87%, the D's never had to face any consequences for causing a shutdown.
Sure, it'll cause a bit of a ruckus among the base, but in this political climate, that's unlikely to depress D turnout much this year.
Ugh. I think I feel nauseous.
As a note, campaign issues are stronger if you are demonstrating you are willing to actually do the thing.
Haven’t judges (at least one) that ruled on the stays said that the reason was basically just because the White House was using the reasoning that DACA was illegal (which it isn’t, the President has the authority to make immigration related decisions) and so far has refused to change their stated reasoning?
Those stays don’t seem like something that anyone should really be relying on long term.
Yes, exactly.
The other thing is we had three votes on this stuff earlier, so we have s good idea where the GOP stands on it.
I'm not sure who they could peel to get it to pass. And you aren't going to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, let alone the house.
They're turning it into a game of chicken.
They know RepubliTrump doesn't want to openly end DACA because it would make people angry/sad at him, and any attempt to compromise would (a) get shot down by Republicans or Trump or Steve Miller and (2) would piss off the people who historically vote in midterms.
So, they're currently putting a huge stack of chips on Trump/Sessions being more incompetent than they are evil.
Rough bet. Long odds either way.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yep, they held the budget hostage to get votes on immigration, none of them passed.
Holding the country hostage on an issue again that still isn't spurring many major recent protests isnt great optics for them, as it just keeps exposing their current inability to stop the Republicans and may remind the Republicans to stop grifting and start focusing on targeting minorities again
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, I mean, we had the votes on this shit. It's not happening. So the only options are hostage taking or just accepting that you can't win the votes.
They had a major Pro-DACA protest when they held up the budget!
They gave up on that before the weekend opinion polls came in, and the polls were on the side of the shutdown.
It sounded like what the GOP was offering was full funding for the wall to push the dreamer stuff until 2020 so no actual decision on it just punt it till 2020. So I am not sure there is actually any deal to be made there until/unless things change in one of the next elections.
If there was a large pro DACA protests, and votes held after that point still failed, I fail to see what more hostage taking is going to accomplish.
Some people need to come to terms with the fact that some issues require changes to come from the voting booth.
Which means focusing on reducing the number of politicians who are actively opposed to DACA
MWO: Adamski
Shutting the government down isn't s symbolic vote. The question is whether it'd help.
You lose voters when you stop actively supporting things people want you to support. It's also strategically bad to say that you won't stymie a vote. There's nothing good that comes from saying that they won't filibuster or stymie a vote in the future, or that they're removing DACA from their docket.
At the same time publiclly saying "well that's done" is dumb because it provokes exactly the reaction we've seen here. Assuming that's what happened- the reporting around their intentions has been kind of ass.
Except “actively supporting things” in these circumstances include not doing everything a fringe branch of voters want (with consquences which could weaken the coalition as a whole down the line) and unless the Dems win fights like this will be viewed as being just as bad as the GOP. It’s impossible to win over voters like this, they’re trying too inclined to throw Dems under the bus despite the fact the Dems are doing everything they can for there cause. Because while they may be on the left they are not allies unfortunately.
Edit: Which is a frustrating position to be in since the Dems are limited to political realities, which keep getting confused with fighting ideals - which they have, yet are constricted by the former. And this won’t be going away any time soon. Sigh.
Sure there is, unless your ok with how the GOP are doing in government. They can care and fail, this occurs regularly in politics. Your last line implies that it would be easy to win in for the DACAs when that isn’t true. It’s also why it’s important for Dems to be voted in higher numbers in congress to avoid situations like this in the future. A big reason they’re unable to save the DACA is due to poor turnout, change that equation and you’ll get different results. For now they have to work with what the public gave them, which sadly was too little to stop the DACA from being deported. No amount of yelling at them will alter that political reality.
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
You might consider you're getting your cause and effect backwards and the reason they're doing to poorly in Congress is that they can't ever been bothered to be seen truly believing in anything.
If the recent history of political elections is any guide, standing for anything beyond vague desires or platitudes isn't much of a boost to political chances.