As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

US Immigration Policy - ICE still the worst, acting in open defiance of orders given.

12324262829100

Posts

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Thanks Fencingsax!

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Thanks Fencingsax!

    To be fair, Dowd is Pelosi's generation's Haberman.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    I don’t think Pelosi’s attacks on or resentment for the Squad are racially motivated

    But I do think there’s an awkward tension in Pelosi arguing with them over whether to oppose Trump’s bigotry with the camps and then defending them against Trump’s bigoted statement

    It suggests that Pelosi is trying to thread this impossibly small needle where she wants to be seen as standing up against a racist administration but not, you know, too much, or in any way that would affect actual administration policy

    That is, in my opinion, a frustrating misreading of the American public

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    ICE isn't going to disclose any of the details. It is law enforcement (supposedly) afterall.

    We're gonna have to rely on eye-witness accounts and photos / videos.

    Yeah, but usually big raids like this are easy to spot.

    Personally I'm of the belief that the only reason they put a date behind the arrests at all is to see if any would run. Don't need a warrant if they're not at home. Running these as surprise raids would be far more effective.

    This is also about the time we learn how much the farmers in the South are getting shafted and how much they lose in profits because no one's around to pick their crops.

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I don’t think Pelosi’s attacks on or resentment for the Squad are racially motivated

    But I do think there’s an awkward tension in Pelosi arguing with them over whether to oppose Trump’s bigotry with the camps and then defending them against Trump’s bigoted statement

    It suggests that Pelosi is trying to thread this impossibly small needle where she wants to be seen as standing up against a racist administration but not, you know, too much, or in any way that would affect actual administration policy

    That is, in my opinion, a frustrating misreading of the American public

    I think it suggests that Pelosi is against the administrations racist policies and their concentration camps but does not think AOC et all's tactics are an effective way to do that or popular enough to get the required number of votes in the House.

    It does not strike me as any sort of impossibly thin thread. It's just someone with the same overall goal but differing opinions about how to achieve it.

    None of that, of course, precludes her from being wrong about the best way to handle the current crisis.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Not getting lost in the minutia of the latest turd, delivered on schedule by the House, it is remarkable to me that I can live a relatively short life and still find in these Democrats I’m hopelessly tied to not just the consistency of delivering shit, anyone with an asshole and good squat can smear my face and tell me I’m smelling roses, but it’s the diversity of excuses is what really makes them remarkable. They had to deport all those immigrants because [insert well worn explanations here, I enjoy the classics] and besides, those stats are actually misleading if you blah blah blah. You think we’re soft on this issue? “Well, we don’t have a majority in the House that I’m speaker of, what do you expect me to do? Go out and vote for us, and then we’ll talk.“ Oh we have a majority? Well, you see, functionality I still...

    These things happen for my reasons, but they’re all beautiful. A true rainbow coalition.

    But they’re not racists, and they’re not simple incompetent cowards. They are a group of incumbents who care about maintaining their party as it is, and their status in the party and not rocking the boat too much. They are, in fact, highly successful politicians when your consider their hierarchy of goals. Not boobs, not cackling mad racists who hate immigrants, but a group of accomplished people who’ve succeeded at what they set out to do and maintain their positions for decades. Congratulations to them on not being personally racist, which I am led to understand to be some kind of accolade in their culture.

    And look at this tiny issue from their perspective. They have a very stable leadership core that’s been in power for what I assume has been a collective century, I’m not gonna bother to check the actual number, a nice healthy attached consultant class helping maintain it all, a pretty decent fundraising operation that their incumbent backbenchers need to focus on full time, they’re trading power back and forth every few years and everything is humming along nicely. And now you have these agitators disrupting rallies, disrespecting non-racist members, asking for things. And worst of all, wanting things to be different. Aren’t those upstarts the unreasonable ones, to expect all that vast operation to change and take risks because of their one issue? And they keep saying words like “abolish” and using charged language. How can you go back to business as usual with these clowns kicking shit up and setting expectations that things will be fundamentally different? A few of them even snuck into congress, horror of horrors.

    If your goal is a few reforms as you continue to maintain the same apparatus that’s been in place for years, then those people are more than a nuisance, they are a political liability. Much more if those people happen to be minorities who can speak specifically to this issue with credibility. Their color is not the intrinsic issue, is that its combination with their views elevate them among those who care about the issue, while rendering what you would otherwise do to attack them ineffective and pathetic.

    The targeting of the 4 freshman senators is course given a nod to. But a random unfortunate event or a mistake it isn’t. The exact the right group is being targeted, given the leadership and their main goal in the immigration fight of managing expectations. The vote and consequent fight are not some disconnected events, they come from one from the same drive to keep the eventual result as an acceptable one.

    Let’s see what the wise ones I’m supposed to respect are up to.



    Ok, that’s just the Democrats’ official twitter account. Pelosi’s office has nothing to do with this manufactured controversy that’s happening because Maureen Dowd... Oh wait, speaker chief of staff what do you have to say about this:
    Pelosi Dep CoS @Drew_Hammill on why he RTd this last night... "I RTed this in my personal capacity as a gay man who was bullied and beaten in high school."

    You know what, why the fuck not? Here it is, the nadir of what an ugly thing you’ve twisted identity politics into. A genuinely radical political idea in its inception, taken and shaped by enthusiastic liberals and made into a bludgeon to serve the noble goal of defending an elite, and the funding of ICE. Just go ahead fund it and put a rainbow flag on the uniforms.

    Nothing that the theory of sudden onset convenient incompetence can’t explain. But it’s only just temporary isn’t it?

    It’s the great inversion, and everyone got to see it happen in real time, and clap along to the show. Few groups are as vulnerable immigrant and refugee communities. People who come from those communities and/or care about them have no other choice but the Democratic party. You care about immigrants , you vote Democratic, that’s just the way it is. And here steps in your basic for liberal Democrat for all the years I remember. To turn this relationship of total electoral capture and dependence into a bragging right instead of the responsibility it is. To look at what the little things done for immigrants and rather than ask for more, to use them to say look at how great we are. To use in the great team sport to lionize their party rather than hold anyone’s feet to the fire.

    But they didn’t have the votes! Even in their own caucus they didn’t have votes, not even close, what did you expect? How naive.

    But not so long ago there were more than a few epithets and choice words for immigrant activists who were pressing incumbent Democrats to take stronger positions. “Purity testing” is the phrase, isn’t it? It sure isn’t one that I invented. Divisive. Not focusing on the real enemy. Democrats are the immigrants’ best friends, stop your destructive nonsense. I’m just sick and tired of these wackos who don’t know how shit gets done. Don’t you know who the Democrats are?

    *win an election*

    Well, you probably don’t know this, probably because your naivety, but there are people in the caucus who suck ass. Why did you expect the Democrats to do something with so many members who suck ass? It’s unfortunate that you are now finding about these useless fucks for the first time, really no one knew or supported their existence in any way. How naive of you to expect more that you’re finding for the first time in your life that the caucus is full of members with paper thin commitment to immigrant and refugee rights. No one knew.

    It’s a beautiful circle.

    The great temptation every time one of these things happen is to find a way to explain it away, without taking the totality of the failure into account. An implicit washing away of the past, it was just a different time (with the same leadership, in an unchanged party) you have to forget about that and take the currently plausible explanation for what happened today, in contradiction of many of yesteryear’s plausible explanations.

    But next time? Next time it’ll be different.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Holy goddamn Elki

    and I mean that in the good way

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    That tweet shows two people who need to learn to not put every little conflict on twitter.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I'm not sure what's supposed to be so contradictory about the "circle" you are describing above.

    They had no control of any branch of government. And then they won an election, in that they won control of one house of congress but lost seats in the other and the executive wasn't even up for election. And so now, no, you still don't have enough power to do much because the executive is the one with direct control of immigration and fairly wide latitude, especially given a lack of legislative action for decades.

    And yeah, that majority is still built on a bunch of votes that are cowardly and/or not interested in the kind of positions many want on these issues.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    "[they] still don't have enough power to do much"

    I, in my position of immense privilege, would have settled for "did not vote for the terrible thing, in exchange for a worthless not-promise, after all the language to make it slightly less terrible was methodically stripped out."
    They didn't even manage that.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ICE isn't going to disclose any of the details. It is law enforcement (supposedly) afterall.

    We're gonna have to rely on eye-witness accounts and photos / videos.

    Yeah, but usually big raids like this are easy to spot.

    Personally I'm of the belief that the only reason they put a date behind the arrests at all is to see if any would run. Don't need a warrant if they're not at home. Running these as surprise raids would be far more effective.

    This is also about the time we learn how much the farmers in the South are getting shafted and how much they lose in profits because no one's around to pick their crops.

    Farmers don't need immigrants anymore because they are now turning to prisoner labor instead. The same lack of payment and legal protections with the same amount of racism expressed towards the labor, but the police will keep the workers in line instead of occasionally driving them away.

  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ICE isn't going to disclose any of the details. It is law enforcement (supposedly) afterall.

    We're gonna have to rely on eye-witness accounts and photos / videos.

    Yeah, but usually big raids like this are easy to spot.

    Personally I'm of the belief that the only reason they put a date behind the arrests at all is to see if any would run. Don't need a warrant if they're not at home. Running these as surprise raids would be far more effective.

    This is also about the time we learn how much the farmers in the South are getting shafted and how much they lose in profits because no one's around to pick their crops.

    Farmers don't need immigrants anymore because they are now turning to prisoner labor instead. The same lack of payment and legal protections with the same amount of racism expressed towards the labor, but the police will keep the workers in line instead of occasionally driving them away.

    In real time the effects are happening, and they'll be hitting some thriving businesses during the summertime.

    I just checked into a hotel, working in another town for a few weeks? Guess what? They're on a skeleton crew, hardly any housekeepers showed up, they were scrambling to find clean rooms.

    This will happen everywhere. Now these migrants, who have become an embedded workforce many businesses rely on, will not be working, and will continue to not work as long as the threat of an ICE raid at their job is still there.

    Hotels, restaurants, farmers, any business who rely on this form of cheap labor will be struggling, HARD, for the foreseeable future until the raids stop.

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    "[they] still don't have enough power to do much"

    I, in my position of immense privilege, would have settled for "did not vote for the terrible thing, in exchange for a worthless not-promise, after all the language to make it slightly less terrible was methodically stripped out."
    They didn't even manage that.

    That depends on whether you view that as the best way to approach this situation.

    Basically you can think the best thing to do here is to take a symbolic stand against the camps by refusing to vote for funding. This doesn't actually do anything, but it's a moral stand on the issue and there's plenty of people who think it's rhetorically powerful.

    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    If you think the second is the better play, it's not a matter of "not even managing that" at all. It's simply about a different view on what to do. They don't have the power to do anything else really.

    shryke on
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Commander Zoom on
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Agreed. People have been trying to send donations of basic supplies to the concentration camps and those donations have been turned away. The powers that be will not let the conditions improve. They want conditions to deteriorate and for people to suffer and die in filth, disease, and hopeless misery. The cruelty is the point.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    shryke on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    What is this snappy "keep <her/his> name out of your mouth" shit?

    It's some sort of unargument. Are we supposed to snap our fingers? Is it a sick burn of some kind?

    Seems like a sassy in-joke that isn't funny and needs to stop.

    Edit: I could do without emoji laden memes in official congressional twitters when you're... talking about children living in shit, drinking from toilets and dying. Democrats are shit at messaging on this thing.

    Edit2: Thanks shryke. I guess my assumption was correct. I'm so angry that twitter exists sometimes.

    dispatch.o on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    What is this snappy "keep <her/his> name out of your mouth" shit?

    It's some sort of unargument. Are we supposed to snap our fingers? Is it a sick burn of some kind?

    Seems like a sassy in-joke that isn't funny and needs to stop.

    Like the clapping hands thing, it's a twitter meme.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

    There are other options, sure. But they didn't take any, they supported it.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

    There are other options, sure. But they didn't take any, they supported it.

    They did. They took the option I'm talking about above. The House even tried to take the modified version of that where you attach strings to said funding.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    In real time the effects are happening, and they'll be hitting some thriving businesses during the summertime.

    I just checked into a hotel, working in another town for a few weeks? Guess what? They're on a skeleton crew, hardly any housekeepers showed up, they were scrambling to find clean rooms.

    This will happen everywhere. Now these migrants, who have become an embedded workforce many businesses rely on, will not be working, and will continue to not work as long as the threat of an ICE raid at their job is still there.

    Hotels, restaurants, farmers, any business who rely on this form of cheap labor will be struggling, HARD, for the foreseeable future until the raids stop.

    Yeah, and if all the interviews I've seen are any indication, those business owners voted for Trump before. They got exactly what they foaming-mouth screamed and begged for.

    And when it hurts them, OMG economic anxiety! Better vote for Trump again! Because none of them said they would have changed their vote and all of them say they will do it again.

    Vast numbers of white-owned businesses in the South closed down rather than integrate. Their hatred was and is more important than their livelihoods. But if they can hold onto the hate AND their livelihoods (such as in the case of prison labor) they'll gladly do that instead.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

    There are other options, sure. But they didn't take any, they supported it.

    They did. They took the option I'm talking about above. The House even tried to take the modified version of that where you attach strings to said funding.

    But there was no strings on the one they voted on.

    So what they did was support the GOP's concentration camps.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Depending on context, keeping someone’s name out of one’s mouth is anywhere from “you do not get to talk about this person, asshole” to “you have no grounds to claim this in their name”

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

    There are other options, sure. But they didn't take any, they supported it.

    They did. They took the option I'm talking about above. The House even tried to take the modified version of that where you attach strings to said funding.

    But there was no strings on the one they voted on.

    So what they did was support the GOP's concentration camps.

    Concentration camps would exist regardless of funding. More funding may help alleviate some issues, via the mechanism I just described above. It's literally what I was talking about.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    We should probably also not just discount things as “twitter memes” as these are still actually human interactions and linguistics that mean things beyond the sort of dismissive sort of ingroup/outgroup dynamics implied by “twitter memes”

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Or you can think that the best you could accomplish here is to get some extra funding to these camps on the chance that it might improve the situation and that refusing to fund the overcrowded camps would be a bad look.

    that chance is zero and we all know it.

    Eh, I'm not sure it's exactly zero. The larger point though is that taking a stand against any funding absolutely does have a zero change of anything changing until an election.

    So if you don't give ICE 4 billion dollars the thing that changes is they don't get 4 billion dollars.

    Giving Nazis what they want with the vague hope that then things won't get worse has been tried.

    What always happens is they take what you gave them then proceed to make things worse.

    Not giving them money won't change shit. They haven't needed the money to be as cruel as they are so far.

    And as much as a lot of the cruelty is deliberate, it is also simultaneously true that a big reason this whole crisis looks like it does is because the system simply can't handle the number of people Trump is having thrown into it. They can't process people fast enough and they aren't equipped to house all these people. And they aren't gonna stop rounding up foreigners. There is potentially room for more funding to make the conditions less awful. Not as a deliberate strategy from the admin to reduce the shittiness of conditions but simply as a byproduct of a potential expansion of the resources they have available to deal with all the people they have in custody. And of course there is also the question of how it looks to be refusing extra funding that is ostensibly to be put towards making the situation better.

    The point is that there are other options beyond blanket opposition here, even if one might not necessarily agree with them.

    There are other options, sure. But they didn't take any, they supported it.

    They did. They took the option I'm talking about above. The House even tried to take the modified version of that where you attach strings to said funding.

    But there was no strings on the one they voted on.

    So what they did was support the GOP's concentration camps.

    Concentration camps would exist regardless of funding. More funding may help alleviate some issues, via the mechanism I just described above. It's literally what I was talking about.

    But they won’t

    Because the problem isn’t a lack of money. Again, over $700 per day being spent on each detainee.


    The money will instead be used to round up more people because its fungible and the degrees to where it is ostensibly not meant to be, they will not care because oversight will not be exercised

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    We should probably also not just discount things as “twitter memes” as these are still actually human interactions and linguistics that mean things beyond the sort of dismissive sort of ingroup/outgroup dynamics implied by “twitter memes”
    This, very much this. I'm sick of seeing "Twitter wokeness" and "Twitter activism" as well, used to discount rising sentiment on an issue and thus demand from representatives on said issues. "Trend" is not a bad word, it is not a flippant thing to dismiss. It is what is rising and what will be until the next trend. "Stop putting kids in gross camps" is a trend that should lead to "stop separating families," that should lead to the next step, etc etc.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Javen on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    The assumption that underlies that is whether they were being limited in their cruelty by their funding, and they aren't, so would more funding really make more cruelty? Like, I don't agree with the vote, but I get the argument.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Henroid wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    We should probably also not just discount things as “twitter memes” as these are still actually human interactions and linguistics that mean things beyond the sort of dismissive sort of ingroup/outgroup dynamics implied by “twitter memes”
    This, very much this. I'm sick of seeing "Twitter wokeness" and "Twitter activism" as well, used to discount rising sentiment on an issue and thus demand from representatives on said issues. "Trend" is not a bad word, it is not a flippant thing to dismiss. It is what is rising and what will be until the next trend. "Stop putting kids in gross camps" is a trend that should lead to "stop separating families," that should lead to the next step, etc etc.

    It's slang, and a form not widely used enough for people on a computer games forum who discuss politics to understand it. This really shouldn't be in response from the official party account to a message that doesn't also use it (or as a joke) if you want that form of communication to be taken seriously. Especially if the comment is from someone disagreeing with a congresswoman's vote to fund concentration camps - yeah, that's definitely something that can only be really answered with accusations of racism and emojis, whilst missing the point entirely (that a native america woman of colour can support racist policies with their votes for the system without being racist themselves - singling out Sharice Davids as unlikely to be a racist is the whole point).

    This is the perfect example of "twitter wokeness", where you're just doing it for the retweets and responses or accidentally missing the whole point in order to respond as quickly as possible for those retweets and responses.

    [Edit] Also "who is this guy" - it's AOC's chief of staff.

    Tastyfish on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    If you vote for funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a bunch of people will criticize you for funding concentration camps.

    If you vote against funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a different bunch of people are going to criticize you for not providing enough money to adequately care for those detainees.

    The question isn't which option makes things better for the detainees, because the answer is "none of them." The question is what option is better for optics and for characterizing Trump and Republicans as monsters.

    The Dems went with "the only winning move is not to play", and tried to just get this shit out of the news, which is the wrong move here. I think this was a fight we wanted to have, not because it really mattered in the short term for the people suffering, or because the dems are "supporting concentration camps" or whatever, but because this would have been a good bludgeon to beat the Republicans with. Dems need to be less skittish.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The assumption that underlies that is whether they were being limited in their cruelty by their funding, and they aren't, so would more funding really make more cruelty? Like, I don't agree with the vote, but I get the argument.

    Well, for one thing, they asked for it

    Nazis were going to continue being Nazis in Germany regardless of whether they were handed Belgium and Poland. Rejecting appeasement probably wouldn’t have made things in Germany any better, but it may have prevented its spread further into Europe. Worst case it wouldn’t have encouraged it, like appeasement ended up doing.

    Javen on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you vote for funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a bunch of people will criticize you for funding concentration camps.

    If you vote against funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a different bunch of people are going to criticize you for not providing enough money to adequately care for those detainees.

    The question isn't which option makes things better for the detainees, because the answer is "none of them." The question is what option is better for optics and for characterizing Trump and Republicans as monsters.

    The Dems went with "the only winning move is not to play", and tried to just get this shit out of the news, which is the wrong move here. I think this was a fight we wanted to have, not because it really mattered in the short term for the people suffering, or because the dems are "supporting concentration camps" or whatever, but because this would have been a good bludgeon to beat the Republicans with. Dems need to be less skittish.

    That's even assuming it's all secret ballots and closed door discussions. There was plenty of opportunity to make this into a bigger thing when the original protection elements were stripped out of the Bill that could have got your guys on side, or at least ambivalent.
    It's the third group of "If you vote for funding, X detainees are not going to suffer as much, and a bunch of people will criticize you for not funding concentration camps" that came into play here - and I still have enough faith that you could appeal to a lot of 'Law and order' border voters that this is just flat out wrong, not working, a waste of money and just making things worse.

    But they didn't. And if the Dem strategy to defeat Trump in 2020 assumes that there are more Dems they will lose by fighting the camps than independents they'll gain by showing that all this cruelty is pointless? That's pretty much surrendering to Trump, as you can't use his biggest issue against him whilst he will use it as his biggest strength to win those same independents and fire up his base.

    Tastyfish on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If you vote for funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a bunch of people will criticize you for funding concentration camps.

    If you vote against funding, X detainees are going to suffer, and a different bunch of people are going to criticize you for not providing enough money to adequately care for those detainees.

    The question isn't which option makes things better for the detainees, because the answer is "none of them." The question is what option is better for optics and for characterizing Trump and Republicans as monsters.

    The Dems went with "the only winning move is not to play", and tried to just get this shit out of the news, which is the wrong move here. I think this was a fight we wanted to have, not because it really mattered in the short term for the people suffering, or because the dems are "supporting concentration camps" or whatever, but because this would have been a good bludgeon to beat the Republicans with. Dems need to be less skittish.

    Even if their goal was just to get it out of the news, I don't see how voting for it is better for that end than just putting it in a drawer. Republicans were all but silent in the public and the media leading up to this bill being passed. They don't want to be on the record of approving of these camps anymore than Democrats. If Pelosi had refused to bring the Senate's version of the bill to a vote, I seriously doubt you'd have conservative Senators on the Sunday shows extolling the virtue of immigrant detention camps, and they're only going to become more disinclined to comment on it going forward.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Nah, it's literally the entire point. The cruelty is not contingent on funding in either direction. It's simply a function of the task and the people carrying it out. More funding does not mean more cruelty. Less funding does not mean less cruelty. Nor the other way around.

    It's basically the same with camps. The entire thing all these looks inside the camps have shown is that the number of camps or staff they have is not a limiting factor on what they are doing. Which should be no surprise since there's no way they are letting people go free just because they don't have the space.

    Given the above the basic reasoning behind going for funding would be because then you avoid headlines about how you are responsible for the overcrowding because you refuse to properly fund border security and you can say "We gave you money Trump and yet it's still terrible, what are you diong?" and because it might lead to less overcrowding or more resources or something. Not saying I think it's the best play, but there's a case to be made there.

    The other point here is that the alternative doesn't solve anything either. Refusing funding is basically just a positioning strategy so you can say you had nothing to do with the issue and aren't responsible in any way.

    It's basically a matter of picking your media strategy here. Because nothing you do is gonna stop the camps beyond, like, oversight attached to funding bills. Which they already said and showed they won't allow.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Nah, it's literally the entire point. The cruelty is not contingent on funding in either direction. It's simply a function of the task and the people carrying it out. More funding does not mean more cruelty. Less funding does not mean less cruelty. Nor the other way around.

    It's basically the same with camps. The entire thing all these looks inside the camps have shown is that the number of camps or staff they have is not a limiting factor on what they are doing. Which should be no surprise since there's no way they are letting people go free just because they don't have the space.

    Given the above the basic reasoning behind going for funding would be because then you avoid headlines about how you are responsible for the overcrowding because you refuse to properly fund border security and you can say "We gave you money Trump and yet it's still terrible, what are you diong?" and because it might lead to less overcrowding or more resources or something. Not saying I think it's the best play, but there's a case to be made there.

    The other point here is that the alternative doesn't solve anything either. Refusing funding is basically just a positioning strategy so you can say you had nothing to do with the issue and aren't responsible in any way.

    It's basically a matter of picking your media strategy here. Because nothing you do is gonna stop the camps beyond, like, oversight attached to funding bills. Which they already said and showed they won't allow.

    If they did not need the money, then why did they ask for it?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Javen wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Nah, it's literally the entire point. The cruelty is not contingent on funding in either direction. It's simply a function of the task and the people carrying it out. More funding does not mean more cruelty. Less funding does not mean less cruelty. Nor the other way around.

    It's basically the same with camps. The entire thing all these looks inside the camps have shown is that the number of camps or staff they have is not a limiting factor on what they are doing. Which should be no surprise since there's no way they are letting people go free just because they don't have the space.

    Given the above the basic reasoning behind going for funding would be because then you avoid headlines about how you are responsible for the overcrowding because you refuse to properly fund border security and you can say "We gave you money Trump and yet it's still terrible, what are you diong?" and because it might lead to less overcrowding or more resources or something. Not saying I think it's the best play, but there's a case to be made there.

    The other point here is that the alternative doesn't solve anything either. Refusing funding is basically just a positioning strategy so you can say you had nothing to do with the issue and aren't responsible in any way.

    It's basically a matter of picking your media strategy here. Because nothing you do is gonna stop the camps beyond, like, oversight attached to funding bills. Which they already said and showed they won't allow.

    If they did not need the money, then why did they ask for it?

    They don't need the money to be cruel or to keep rounding people up. I'm sure they can find somewhere to spend it.


    EDIT: Like, functionally the entire point of asking for the money is to shift the blame to Democrats it seems to me. "We can't improve conditions for these people because we are out of money."

    shryke on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    If X funding produced X camps why wouldn’t it stand to reason that X+Y funding will equal X+Y camps

    EDIT: ‘They were being cruel without the money’ is a bad argument when the whole point of the money was to allow them to continue being cruel. That was why they asked for the money.

    Nah, it's literally the entire point. The cruelty is not contingent on funding in either direction. It's simply a function of the task and the people carrying it out. More funding does not mean more cruelty. Less funding does not mean less cruelty. Nor the other way around.

    It's basically the same with camps. The entire thing all these looks inside the camps have shown is that the number of camps or staff they have is not a limiting factor on what they are doing. Which should be no surprise since there's no way they are letting people go free just because they don't have the space.

    Given the above the basic reasoning behind going for funding would be because then you avoid headlines about how you are responsible for the overcrowding because you refuse to properly fund border security and you can say "We gave you money Trump and yet it's still terrible, what are you diong?" and because it might lead to less overcrowding or more resources or something. Not saying I think it's the best play, but there's a case to be made there.

    The other point here is that the alternative doesn't solve anything either. Refusing funding is basically just a positioning strategy so you can say you had nothing to do with the issue and aren't responsible in any way.

    It's basically a matter of picking your media strategy here. Because nothing you do is gonna stop the camps beyond, like, oversight attached to funding bills. Which they already said and showed they won't allow.

    If they did not need the money, then why did they ask for it?

    They don't need the money to be cruel or to keep rounding people up. I'm sure they can find somewhere to spend it.

    Okay.

    Then if they did not need the money, then why did they ask for it?

This discussion has been closed.