Because for several years including under the last democratic administration our immigration system for undocumented immigrants was to treat them as criminals, and so far neither party has particularly made good on it aside from talk about supporting the Dreamers while doing little to actually solve the problem of “the government keeps locking up brown folk crossing the southern border”
This is circling back to the open borders debate, you don't have to be against open borders to dislike how various administrations (like Trump) act or how Democratic presidents aren't able or fix immigration within 4-8 years in office. Bills and executive orders like DACA aren't "talk" those are actions I assumed you'd agreed with. Except Democratic politicians do more than lock asylum seekers and illegal immigrants up, they make pathways for them for citizenship. The answer to immigration isn't just "open the borders."
Because American politics is still deep in the throes of white supremacy to the point it doesn’t readily recognize it as long as it isn’t directly shouting slurs, as long as the violence is abstracted away through layers of facade that create the illusion that these laws and regs apply to all, yet it is primarily POC who are ensnared and made to suffer its cruelty.
True, except it paints the Democrats as being identical in immigration policy as the Republicans - which isn't true. Its important to improve the immigration system to wrest control from white supremacy, which as you've admitted is a tough assignment to do and every victory for immigrants should be celebrated not ignored if the problem is impossible to fix.
Because I’m tired of even Democrats supporting system this inherently cruel and inhumane as we dwell in a nation founded on theft from and genocide of the native populace, then pulled up the ramp once folks who could not readily be adopted into whiteness started immigrating in large enough numbers to threaten white dominance.
"Supporting" isn't what you're making it out to be here, people only support it as such in tha they don't want open borders and they want to improve it they don't love what Republicans or even Democrats do on the subject. Biden's administration gets criticised by us, too. Thats not what Democrats supporting closed borders is about, not here anyway. Also ignores the improvements Democrats have made with immigration policy.
Because I’m tired of my government instigating cruelties against my fellow human beings in the name of order and process, all ultimately the abstractions of white supremacy as ever entangled through every inch of this nation and its policies, and the folks who are willing to cut the executors of such policy slack because they share a party affiliation with them instead of demanding that the most powerful people in this country do more and do better.
Being tired isn't an excuse to falsely inform people on how fast the government works, everyones tired of this shit. Making it harder for people to believe in the system doesn't help anyone. That's not true, admitting the limits to governing don't entail not fighting for improving the country. It's disingenuous to make a strawman with peoples argument just because they disagree with you on immigration. We'll only able to do better with governing by acknowledging reality not denying it.
Also the idea that “government is slow by design” is honestly a cop out. Every one of us here knows the government moves shockingly quick on the shit it actually cares about.
It’s only ever actually slow when it comes to things like “please stop oppressing people of color.”
This is one of the reasons I really want more public information about what is happening. I can believe that the system at the border was such a shit show that this is the absolute best you can expect after two months of trying to fix it. I can also easily believe they just aren't putting the resources there because it isn't a priority. I default to the latter in these scenarios as a default for the reason you mention.
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
Then you change the government Mr. Dresden. The government is only as slow as we permit it to be. It's not "by design" at all. It's how it is, and how it is is stupid, and should change. But while we also fight to change it, we can also fight to change things like immigration policy.
Thats not how government works, certainly not the American government. Which is what we're doing.
Think it's too hard or impossible? Then get the fuck out of the way of those of us who believe it IS possible, because "you're rocking the boat" sentiments are obstruction and it doesn't matter how many times you say "I agree with you but."
All emotion, no facts. I could believe every word you've said and it wouldn't change anything because our reality isn't built on believing in ideas like the government. We're not in your way, because this is a simply a forum nobody is suggesting don't protest and make change, but blinding yourself to reality won't make it any less true. I dislike how any improvement the government does should be thrown away like it means nothing, as if that somehow takes the power away from Biden as president. We know its impossible because everyone has tried has failed in making it so, you're not the first person to believe those thoughts and you won't be the last. Which persists is the failure of those getting the results. I'd love for reality to be that simple but its not. It's a fairy tale.
Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
Bills are action, which the Republicans are fighting as we speak - I've gone into this bill earlier in the thread. They're moving the families from the camps to the hotels in April, as well. DACA anyone (that's a past bill)? I don't know you assume everything the government does moved as light speed. When has the movement ever done his on anything? Hint: it doesn't.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Hey Harry, do you know how it makes you look when you tell immigrants and children of immigrants that they're wrong to be emotionally invested in the topic at hand?
It's nice that this is a 'ha ha fun time debate club' thing for you, but for other people this shit is real and has had a detrimental impact on their life.
You've got all the privilege here, guy. It's entirely privileged to say, "The government is slow, oh well!" and argue against wanting it to be faster or address something that has needed drastic action. A light pigment of privilege, in fact.
Because for several years including under the last democratic administration our immigration system for undocumented immigrants was to treat them as criminals, and so far neither party has particularly made good on it aside from talk about supporting the Dreamers while doing little to actually solve the problem of “the government keeps locking up brown folk crossing the southern border”
This is circling back to the open borders debate, you don't have to be against open borders to dislike how various administrations (like Trump) act or how Democratic presidents aren't able or fix immigration within 4-8 years in office. Bills and executive orders like DACA aren't "talk" those are actions I assumed you'd agreed with. Except Democratic politicians do more than lock asylum seekers and illegal immigrants up, they make pathways for them for citizenship. The answer to immigration isn't just "open the borders."
Because American politics is still deep in the throes of white supremacy to the point it doesn’t readily recognize it as long as it isn’t directly shouting slurs, as long as the violence is abstracted away through layers of facade that create the illusion that these laws and regs apply to all, yet it is primarily POC who are ensnared and made to suffer its cruelty.
True, except it paints the Democrats as being identical in immigration policy as the Republicans - which isn't true. Its important to improve the immigration system to wrest control from white supremacy, which as you've admitted is a tough assignment to do and every victory for immigrants should be celebrated not ignored if the problem is impossible to fix.
Because I’m tired of even Democrats supporting system this inherently cruel and inhumane as we dwell in a nation founded on theft from and genocide of the native populace, then pulled up the ramp once folks who could not readily be adopted into whiteness started immigrating in large enough numbers to threaten white dominance.
"Supporting" isn't what you're making it out to be here, people only support it as such in tha they don't want open borders and they want to improve it they don't love what Republicans or even Democrats do on the subject. Biden's administration gets criticised by us, too. Thats not what Democrats supporting closed borders is about, not here anyway. Also ignores the improvements Democrats have made with immigration policy.
Because I’m tired of my government instigating cruelties against my fellow human beings in the name of order and process, all ultimately the abstractions of white supremacy as ever entangled through every inch of this nation and its policies, and the folks who are willing to cut the executors of such policy slack because they share a party affiliation with them instead of demanding that the most powerful people in this country do more and do better.
Being tired isn't an excuse to falsely inform people on how fast the government works, everyones tired of this shit. Making it harder for people to believe in the system doesn't help anyone. That's not true, admitting the limits to governing don't entail not fighting for improving the country. It's disingenuous to make a strawman with peoples argument just because they disagree with you on immigration. We'll only able to do better with governing by acknowledging reality not denying it.
I’m not falsely informing anyone Harry.
We know for a fact government gets quite speedy when it comes to things like upholding the pillars of white supremacy, getting military gear into the hands of local cops, bailing out corporations who just coincidentally are friends and donors of the beltway elite, but seems to slow to a crawl when it comes to justice for POC and other marginalized groups
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
Incenjucar on
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
What part of this step prevents all other policy changes from happening? That we must wait for the completion of this thing? Because we can be tackling the issue on multiple fronts. Minus our national ADHD I suppose.
Hey Harry, do you know how it makes you look when you tell immigrants and children of immigrants that they're wrong to be emotionally invested in the topic at hand?
It's nice that this is a 'ha ha fun time debate club' thing for you, but for other people this shit is real and has had a detrimental impact on their life.
You've got all the privilege here, guy. It's entirely privileged to say, "The government is slow, oh well!" and argue against wanting it to be faster or address something that has needed drastic action. A light pigment of privilege, in fact.
Nobody's saying its wrong for you to be emotionally invested in this subject, we all are. The problem wasn't the emotion, it's the facts part.
I take this topic seriously because how the government treats its immigrants means a lot to me. No, Im not laughing about it. This is no laughing matter, thats disingenuous. It is real, so why is my acknowledging the government being slow and noting its improvements wrong? Shouldn't we want immigration to be better?
I dint say "oh well," and no, the argument wasn't about not wanting it to be falser - that's the opposite of what I said. We all want drastic action, but drastic action isn't available as Ive said. Not because I wouldn't like it but because reality doesn't change because I want it too. You didn't say you wanted it faster you acted as if what I was saying was incorrect and the government being faster is the norm. Which we both know to be false.
I'm an immigrant, Henroid.
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Because for several years including under the last democratic administration our immigration system for undocumented immigrants was to treat them as criminals, and so far neither party has particularly made good on it aside from talk about supporting the Dreamers while doing little to actually solve the problem of “the government keeps locking up brown folk crossing the southern border”
This is circling back to the open borders debate, you don't have to be against open borders to dislike how various administrations (like Trump) act or how Democratic presidents aren't able or fix immigration within 4-8 years in office. Bills and executive orders like DACA aren't "talk" those are actions I assumed you'd agreed with. Except Democratic politicians do more than lock asylum seekers and illegal immigrants up, they make pathways for them for citizenship. The answer to immigration isn't just "open the borders."
Because American politics is still deep in the throes of white supremacy to the point it doesn’t readily recognize it as long as it isn’t directly shouting slurs, as long as the violence is abstracted away through layers of facade that create the illusion that these laws and regs apply to all, yet it is primarily POC who are ensnared and made to suffer its cruelty.
True, except it paints the Democrats as being identical in immigration policy as the Republicans - which isn't true. Its important to improve the immigration system to wrest control from white supremacy, which as you've admitted is a tough assignment to do and every victory for immigrants should be celebrated not ignored if the problem is impossible to fix.
Because I’m tired of even Democrats supporting system this inherently cruel and inhumane as we dwell in a nation founded on theft from and genocide of the native populace, then pulled up the ramp once folks who could not readily be adopted into whiteness started immigrating in large enough numbers to threaten white dominance.
"Supporting" isn't what you're making it out to be here, people only support it as such in tha they don't want open borders and they want to improve it they don't love what Republicans or even Democrats do on the subject. Biden's administration gets criticised by us, too. Thats not what Democrats supporting closed borders is about, not here anyway. Also ignores the improvements Democrats have made with immigration policy.
Because I’m tired of my government instigating cruelties against my fellow human beings in the name of order and process, all ultimately the abstractions of white supremacy as ever entangled through every inch of this nation and its policies, and the folks who are willing to cut the executors of such policy slack because they share a party affiliation with them instead of demanding that the most powerful people in this country do more and do better.
Being tired isn't an excuse to falsely inform people on how fast the government works, everyones tired of this shit. Making it harder for people to believe in the system doesn't help anyone. That's not true, admitting the limits to governing don't entail not fighting for improving the country. It's disingenuous to make a strawman with peoples argument just because they disagree with you on immigration. We'll only able to do better with governing by acknowledging reality not denying it.
I’m not falsely informing anyone Harry.
We know for a fact government gets quite speedy when it comes to things like upholding the pillars of white supremacy, getting military gear into the hands of local cops, bailing out corporations who just coincidentally are friends and donors of the beltway elite, but seems to slow to a crawl when it comes to justice for POC and other marginalized groups
Bailouts are through Congress, almost never the executive branch. And usually they aren’t speedy. And selling surplus military equipment is an 18 month process.
I’ve been part of $3 billion of government acquisitions 100s of contracts and task orders, and the fastest I’ve ever seen a high visibility sole source contract for a new requirement executed is 6 weeks after the paperwork goes in. That is smoking quick for govt work. Usually the Cutoff is next week for September awards.
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
What part of this step prevents all other policy changes from happening? That we must wait for the completion of this thing? Because we can be tackling the issue on multiple fronts. Minus our national ADHD I suppose.
I factually do not know the details as I am not a member of a government agency and my time working with the government mostly just taught me to have low expectations of everyone involved in the process, even the good guys.
I expect it could be better and faster, and I doubt Biden is prioritizing as much as he could because he seemed very comfortable with it taking a long, long time and has been shit at transparency, but I do not know. If I did know I probably couldn't tell you since whistle-blower laws are basically dead.
I am by no means satisfied with the current situation.
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
What part of this step prevents all other policy changes from happening? That we must wait for the completion of this thing? Because we can be tackling the issue on multiple fronts. Minus our national ADHD I suppose.
I factually do not know the details as I am not a member of a government agency and my time working with the government mostly just taught me to have low expectations of everyone involved in the process, even the good guys.
I expect it could be better and faster, and I doubt Biden is prioritizing as much as he could because he seemed very comfortable with it taking a long, long time and has been shit at transparency, but I do not know. If I did know I probably couldn't tell you since whistle-blower laws are basically dead.
I am by no means satisfied with the current situation.
You don't factually know but... you're still going to give them the benefit of doubt? An unearned benefit, based solely on the position of what, "Well at least it isn't a Republican or Trump"?
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Which they are in the process of doing.
[Citation Needed] that isn't a declaration of "we plan to do it." Because so far they've activated facilities to continue to cage children and other migrants.
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
What part of this step prevents all other policy changes from happening? That we must wait for the completion of this thing? Because we can be tackling the issue on multiple fronts. Minus our national ADHD I suppose.
I factually do not know the details as I am not a member of a government agency and my time working with the government mostly just taught me to have low expectations of everyone involved in the process, even the good guys.
I expect it could be better and faster, and I doubt Biden is prioritizing as much as he could because he seemed very comfortable with it taking a long, long time and has been shit at transparency, but I do not know. If I did know I probably couldn't tell you since whistle-blower laws are basically dead.
I am by no means satisfied with the current situation.
You don't factually know but... you're still going to give them the benefit of doubt? An unearned benefit, based solely on the position of what, "Well at least it isn't a Republican or Trump"?
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
Incenjucar on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
The value is holding them accountable. Further, not only are their goals not amazing but this administration has already been breaking campaign / election promises so you're being soft on them by phrasing it so lightly.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
Honestly, the most frustrating thing about this thread is the over focus on Biden. People seem to be forgetting that the US is a democracy, one can argue it's pretty shitty at that, but it's a democracy none the less. Is there more Biden could be doing, sure there is, but he is at least doing something to fix the mess that Trump left behind. That said, there is far too much energy spent shitting on Biden, that would be better spent on shitting all over the assholes in Congress that keep things broken. Hell, the over focus on the presidency is a great example of how those assholes in Congress have been so successful in making the US's immigration system such a shit show. They know they can easily break things or refuse to fix things and then count on most people snapping at the current president for being 100% at fault in regards to every issue with the system, when in fact people should be getting on Congress's ass to fix this shit.
Yes, I'm aware some of the shit stains in Congress are pretty much embedded into the institution until the day they die or retire because they represent a district or state, where a majority of people have fuck awful views on immigration. That said, there are a decent number where their voters aren't completely fucking awful on immigration. So might actually get some movement if their feet are put to the fire for a change and you don't need a perfect Congress, just enough of it's members to get a majority for fixing stuff that is broken with the system.
Biden issuing "new guidelines" to ICE is laughable. Obama issued guidelines. Hell, the courts issued mandates. ICE has openly defied it all and faced no repercussions for doing so. You cannot expect an organization that is rotten to its core to be fixed by any half-measures or even anything less than full dismantling.
Executive orders overriding some of Trump's executive orders is not reform. Executive orders themselves cannot achieve any appreciable sort of actual reform because they are so easily altered or ceased.
Your final link about expanding housing is telling agencies to find more space for kids, which includes maybe opening more overflow facilities (which as I linked to before, include sites on military bases where toxic chemicals have been illegally dumped) and providing beds that were deliberately kept empty in order to comply with COVID-19 social distancing guidelines.
None of this is fixing the underlying issues, or even really addressing them. It's putting a bandaid on the gaping chest wound and asking for credit for trying to save the patient's life.
So that's the essential issue. Executive actions can only do so much, and legislation takes time and a functional senate. And with some emergent problems (or emergent escalations of existing problems) the infrastructure to fix the issue simply isn't there.
It's frustrating. It's totally right to be mad about.
But you're asking for what they're doing, and what they're doing is either stuff that can be done quickly, or not implemented yet.
Deportations are sharply down, and would be zero but for the lawsuit. The current policies are more restrictive on ICE than they ever were under Obama.
There are distinct, measurable differences between active malice and a good faith effort to fix problems. We should be able to agree on that, just as we agree that much more needs to be done before things are acceptable.
I'm sorry, what? This is the first I've heard about the Biden administration wanting to end deportations, much less being forced to continue performing deportations they have not wanted to have been doing because of some lawsuit compelling them to do so. What is this lawsuit that is the only thing preventing the Biden administration from implementing this apparent goal of theirs to not have any deportations?
Even if you aren't considering most of "the overwhelming majority of people coming to the border and crossing are being sent back" (to borrow Biden's exact words) as deportations because they aren't going through the exact legal process defined as deportation, there are absolutely lots of deportations occurring and not just of the people who have just crossed over the Mexico-US border in the last year or two. To suggest otherwise requires evidence to be presented.
Telling me that ICE they have new rules to follow, in response to me pointing out that ICE has been ignoring rules they don't care to follow for years now, is not convincing or reassuring.
Sorry this is a few pages late, I went to sleep for 8 hours.
Biden is doing what he said he would do, and it’s in line with what the majority of the public wants.
Criticizing him for not also massively overhauling by now or for changing policy to be essentially open-borders is criticizing Biden for not living up to a standard he never said he was aiming for.
Tell me what he said he would do, and how he is doing it, and how it does not line up with what I said he said he would and is doing. I have quoted people who feel lied to by Biden's rhetoric during the election and his statements and actions (or inactions) since taking office, so obviously some people don't feel he's doing what he said he would do.
And do not say that I am criticizing him for something I am not criticizing him for, because nowhere have I ever said he ran on open borders or whatever you're trying to imply/suggest.
That’s exactly my point, you’re misunderstanding me. Biden never ran on a policy of open borders and you never said he did. But Biden following current laws, as humanely as he can, looks like the situation we have now. People who come to the border will continue to either be sent back, or taken in as refugees and settled, depending on their situation.
Cool so we're on the same page, in that I am criticizing the current laws. Because the current laws are the same laws that Trump used, and are the same laws that Obama used. I am being critical not just of Biden, but also of Trump, and of Obama, and of W as well - but not just the presidents dating back to the creation of ICE. I am also being critical of the United States government writ large that, with overwhelming bipartisan legislative approval that created these organizations and set into motion the events that are currently unfolding here. For all the criticism that the Democrats had for the operations of ICE and DHS under Trump, they didn't have much to say about Obama's record-high deportations or proposed any sort of reform or, yes, abolishment of those organizations.
I'm angry as hell because this is systemic rot that cannot just be neatly be dumped in the laps of the Republican party while excusing the Democratic party from any guilt and responsibility, yet that is what is occurring again and again in this thread.
These changes to ICE and CBP policy are assuredly not fixes to all of the problems of the organizations, but perhaps they qualify as "any sort of reform"?
Aye. Biden has been doing things to try and fix issues with the immigration system within the scope of his actual immigration policies. If you are expecting Biden to go well beyond both what he promised and what the public supports on these issues, you are going to be disappointed.
And the comments about Obama's "record high deportations" are somewhat misleading. There's a bunch of different numbers you can go over on this front. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration
And again, Obama is working within the framework of his own immigration policies that I'm sure are not what some people want either.
And again, if Biden gave two shits, he could be using his soapbox (one of the biggest in the world) to work on drumming up that public support. Anyone who says that politicians can only do what the public wants COMPLETELY missed the run up to Iraq 2.0
This is an unreasonable standard for evidence that a president "gives two shits" on an issue. If only because a huge public opinion push can only really exist for one issue at a time. That issue is currently public health.
Ahhh... so BLM should have gone home last summer?
I suppose I should have explained that I was specifying public opinion pushes by the president.
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
The value is holding them accountable. Further, not only are their goals not amazing but this administration has already been breaking campaign / election promises so you're being soft on them by phrasing it so lightly.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
I do not understand how me assuming they have already entirely failed has any impact or holds anyone accountable. Can you explain what material physical change this creates in the world that benefits anyone?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Honestly, the most frustrating thing about this thread is the over focus on Biden. People seem to be forgetting that the US is a democracy, one can argue it's pretty shitty at that, but it's a democracy none the less. Is there more Biden could be doing, sure there is, but he is at least doing something to fix the mess that Trump left behind. That said, there is far too much energy spent shitting on Biden, that would be better spent on shitting all over the assholes in Congress that keep things broken. Hell, the over focus on the presidency is a great example of how those assholes in Congress have been so successful in making the US's immigration system such a shit show. They know they can easily break things or refuse to fix things and then count on most people snapping at the current president for being 100% at fault in regards to every issue with the system, when in fact people should be getting on Congress's ass to fix this shit.
Yes, I'm aware some of the shit stains in Congress are pretty much embedded into the institution until the day they die or retire because they represent a district or state, where a majority of people have fuck awful views on immigration. That said, there are a decent number where their voters aren't completely fucking awful on immigration. So might actually get some movement if their feet are put to the fire for a change and you don't need a perfect Congress, just enough of it's members to get a majority for fixing stuff that is broken with the system.
In previous iterations of the thread we were yelling at the Trump administration. We have a new administration now. And these administrations oversee the execution of immigration policy.
Hence the focus on Biden and what he is and is not doing in regard to all this.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
The value is holding them accountable. Further, not only are their goals not amazing but this administration has already been breaking campaign / election promises so you're being soft on them by phrasing it so lightly.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
I do not understand how me assuming they have already entirely failed has any impact or holds anyone accountable. Can you explain what material physical change this creates in the world that benefits anyone?
By not approving, despite the small concessions, of the shit the administration is doing, you might convince the people around you to change their mind. Or re-affirm to people already against him on the issue that they're not alone (which is a huge morale boost).
And I don't just mean here on this forum or the internet. The people in your life. The people who bag your groceries.
Unified public outcry can't be ignored. And when it is, you get protests. And when those are ignored, you get riots. All of which are valid as fuck.
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
The value is holding them accountable. Further, not only are their goals not amazing but this administration has already been breaking campaign / election promises so you're being soft on them by phrasing it so lightly.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
I do not understand how me assuming they have already entirely failed has any impact or holds anyone accountable. Can you explain what material physical change this creates in the world that benefits anyone?
As the old saying goes, the first step to fixing problems is admitting that there is one to begin with
Arguably, one major issue at hand is that faith in the administration leads people to be lax in pressuring the government, the assumption that they will handle the issue, when the track record of the government across multiple administrations is poor.
By critiquing the administration and through social agitation, it is hoped that the public will become elucidated to the problems at hand and thus turn their attention towards actively pressuring the government to do more and do better, as with other historic civil rights movements, and build steam that the government cannot ignore to reform or abolish destructive, inhuman systems so that they are transformed or replaced with just systems that emphasize equity and human dignity at their cores
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
The value is holding them accountable. Further, not only are their goals not amazing but this administration has already been breaking campaign / election promises so you're being soft on them by phrasing it so lightly.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
I do not understand how me assuming they have already entirely failed has any impact or holds anyone accountable. Can you explain what material physical change this creates in the world that benefits anyone?
By not approving, despite the small concessions, of the shit the administration is doing, you might convince the people around you to change their mind. Or re-affirm to people already against him on the issue that they're not alone (which is a huge morale boost).
And I don't just mean here on this forum or the internet. The people in your life. The people who bag your groceries.
Unified public outcry can't be ignored. And when it is, you get protests. And when those are ignored, you get riots. All of which are valid as fuck.
Ah. So, you're making a lot of really incorrect but fair assumptions about how I interact with people or what I do when there isn't a pandemic. It might be a reasonable assumption as an average human behavior thing, but it does not apply to me. If that's it, there is no benefit, but I understand why you think there would be. Thank you.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies.
This thread is hard enough to maintain without folks deliberately making stupid arguments.
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.
+8
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
From the selfish Ellis Island perspective, if we would actually fund our freaking infrastructure there is a massive need for people who are willing to be trained for difficult union-friendly work that can easily ramp up into high-end skills, and the nations always benefit from brain draining their neighbors.
And frankly if Americans don't like having their local culture changed by newcomers then maybe they should do something about gentrification.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
It's literally identical as far as enforcement of the policy designed to kick asylum seekers at the border, designed on explicitly racial scaremongering about diseased foreigners. And entirely kept in place by choice by Biden.
As the old saying goes, the first step to fixing problems is admitting that there is one to begin with
Everyone agrees with this, the conflict comes from what actions the government should take on fixing immigration. This is moving the goal posts.
Arguably, one major issue at hand is that faith in the administration leads people to be lax in pressuring the government, the assumption that they will handle the issue, when the track record of the government across multiple administrations is poor.
This is such a bizarre argument. Where are you getting this idea from? Why should I subscribe to that belief? Where's the evidence? Having faith in government isn't bad in itself, and its worrying sentiment which shouldn't be talked about so casually, because he right believe in shit like that. They hate the government as it is and don't want anyone to support it so they can tear it down brick by brick. Is that what you want? There is no assumption, this completely erases the good the Democrats and politicians have done on immigration. As the saying goes, you can choose your opinions you can't choose your facts. There are more positions than he falsely attributed choices of doing everything I want now or being as evil as Trump on immigration. The track record, which includes bills like DACA, the bill to move immigrant families from the camps into hotels and the bill they're trying to pass congress right now which will create a pathway for millions immigrants. That's just what I can think of right now. There are assumptions being made here, this paragraph relies on it from breaking from the slightest scrutiny. Argue in good faith, Lanz.
By critiquing the administration and through social agitation, it is hoped that the public will become elucidated to the problems at hand and thus turn their attention towards actively pressuring the government to do more and do better, as with other historic civil rights movements, and build steam that the government cannot ignore to reform or abolish destructive, inhuman systems so that they are transformed or replaced with just systems that emphasize equity and human dignity at their cores
Except everyone is ok criticising the government here, including the people who believe in the government. Social agitation is a whole other thread which off-topic, and has nothing to do with a group of posters on a video game forum talking about immigration. This is a forum, not an activist rally. That's all going to happen, people on a video game message board won't stop that progress, its frankly confusing why you'd think movements like that would be so fragile that they'd disintergrate simply because people believe the government does good works sometimes. Work on the acton, less of the pretty words everyone agrees with you about anyway.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
It's literally identical as far as enforcement of the policy designed to kick asylum seekers at the border, designed on explicitly racial scaremongering about diseased foreigners. And entirely kept in place by choice by Biden.
It seems more accurate to say that Biden is in the process of changing the asylum system to deal with the tens of thousands of currently pending asylum applications in a way that doesn't exacerbate the crisis.
It's imperfect, and the situation is such that all options are bad.
But just because it's bad doesn't mean it's the same as it was, or equally bad, or equally malicious and inspired by white supremacy.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
It's literally identical as far as enforcement of the policy designed to kick asylum seekers at the border, designed on explicitly racial scaremongering about diseased foreigners. And entirely kept in place by choice by Biden.
It seems more accurate to say that Biden is in the process of changing the asylum system to deal with the tens of thousands of currently pending asylum applications in a way that doesn't exacerbate the crisis.
It's imperfect, and the situation is such that all options are bad.
But just because it's bad doesn't mean it's the same as it was, or equally bad, or equally malicious and inspired by white supremacy.
What's title 42 inspired by?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
Part of the problem is that the impulse seems to not just be white supremacist, but part of the human condition we must fight against.
As the old saying goes, the first step to fixing problems is admitting that there is one to begin with
Everyone agrees with this, the conflict comes from what actions the government should take on fixing immigration. This is moving the goal posts.
Arguably, one major issue at hand is that faith in the administration leads people to be lax in pressuring the government, the assumption that they will handle the issue, when the track record of the government across multiple administrations is poor.
This is such a bizarre argument. Where are you getting this idea from? Why should I subscribe to that belief? Where's the evidence? Having faith in government isn't bad in itself, and its worrying sentiment which shouldn't be talked about so casually, because he right believe in shit like that. They hate the government as it is and don't want anyone to support it so they can tear it down brick by brick. Is that what you want? There is no assumption, this completely erases the good the Democrats and politicians have done on immigration. As the saying goes, you can choose your opinions you can't choose your facts. There are more positions than he falsely attributed choices of doing everything I want now or being as evil as Trump on immigration. The track record, which includes bills like DACA, the bill to move immigrant families from the camps into hotels and the bill they're trying to pass congress right now which will create a pathway for millions immigrants. That's just what I can think of right now. There are assumptions being made here, this paragraph relies on it from breaking from the slightest scrutiny. Argue in good faith, Lanz.
By critiquing the administration and through social agitation, it is hoped that the public will become elucidated to the problems at hand and thus turn their attention towards actively pressuring the government to do more and do better, as with other historic civil rights movements, and build steam that the government cannot ignore to reform or abolish destructive, inhuman systems so that they are transformed or replaced with just systems that emphasize equity and human dignity at their cores
Except everyone is ok criticising the government here, including the people who believe in the government. Social agitation is a whole other thread which off-topic, and has nothing to do with a group of posters on a video game forum talking about immigration. This is a forum, not an activist rally. That's all going to happen, people on a video game message board won't stop that progress, its frankly confusing why you'd think movements like that would be so fragile that they'd disintergrate simply because people believe the government does good works sometimes. Work on the acton, less of the pretty words everyone agrees with you about anyway.
I’m not sure we do actually agree on all this, and as citation I’ll note the dozens, if not hundreds, of forum pages we’ve spent on this back and forth so far.
As for where I get that idea from, from living in the US my entire life and watching how people interact with the government throughout my lifetime. Activism is a thing, surely, but in large part only a small fraction of the population is engaged with that level of activism. At best, by your standard here, most folks don’t have the time, energy or upkeep to maintain even electoralism thanks to the demands placed on their lives by just trying to keep a roof over their head, the utilities running and food on the table. But through this agitation, awareness can be created, and even in forums like this one those who may just lurk and are otherwise just casually following these issues in the moments of rest they have can become aware of these issues and the depths to which their roots run.
Having faith in government as a hypothetical is one thing. I still would say I believe there is utility in the state as a mechanism for organizing a large, interconnected society and making sure their needs are met. But having faith in the US government? That is another story entirely. Time and Time again, the government has proven it will not pursue the moral or ethical course of action unless pressured to do so. Again, every civil rights movement was achieved not by winds of electoralism and some kind of amorphous social evolution reaching their appointed and destined time, but by the hard won effort, bought in blood, sweat, tears, and even lives, of activists who marched for change, spoke for change, and stood their ground.
As for the next part of your post... who is are the “he” and “they” you’re talking about? I’m not advocating for tearing down the government brick by brick and it’s honestly kind of weird that that is the place you’re going to here. While various structures certainly need to be completely disassembled such as our immigration system, and built back with something actually just and humane, I’m not going to go on a tear saying we need to demolish constitutional democracy here; I rather like constitutional democracy.
I am not particularly interested in heaping praise on political parties here. My interest is in the plight of those suffering and as far as I can tell, regardless of how things play out with the immigration system, the Democrats will be rather fine, and honestly quite insulated from the tribulations that those in our nation’s concentration camps are facing. But more to the point, they are vested with power and authority as our representatives in government to work on behalf the good of this nation and its people, which I would argue demands the end of our current immigration system and its replacement with something founded in human dignity. Something that doesn’t treat those crossing the border as criminals to be detained, but as people seeking to join our communities, to live lives here just like any of us do, and far many without ever having had to make the efforts that many of these detained made to accomplish that.
So yes, DACA, the movement of families into hotels instead of prison camps, and bills to provide citizenship for the dreamers are steps forward, they ultimately only address the symptoms, allowing the problem to build up again as the years go by because we have failed to address the real problem: an immigration system antagonistic towards immigration in the first place, and whose origins were founded in the vilest of white supremacy, this nation’s original sin. Until that is solved, I will continue to have criticism for our government and even the Democrats. I’d say then that I am arguing in good faith, and that you’ve mistaken my lack of the faith you have in the government and the party as bad faith.
As for this, yeah, it’s a video game message board. But we’re still people, we still share ideas, influence one another, get each other thinking. If there wasn’t something to any of that, I doubt we’d be here. As for the fragility of the movement, I don’t think that somehow we here are going to end up breaking it. But if we’re going to have an immigration thread here, I’d rather argue in favor of radical justice, the kind of change Lewis’s generation accomplished in fighting to end Jim Crow, than not. And that often requires a stark critique of power and those who hold it, rather that congratulating the most powerful people in our country when there is far more work to be done.
EDIT: @Elki was that last paragraph still okay? Not sure if that’s falling into the same kind of thing you just said for Harry not to do or not (so not trying to mod but trying to explain why I think this discussion has value); I can strike it if it’s not allowed
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
Part of the problem is that the impulse seems to not just be white supremacist, but part of the human condition we must fight against.
Well given it’s the US immigration thread, White Supremacy is a pretty big core of the issue
Since, you know, White Supremacist Genocidal Settler Colony Nation that has never meaningfully grappled with any of what it meant to non-white, non-settlers to be a White Supremacist Genocidal Settler Colony Nation.
Lanz on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
Part of the problem is that the impulse seems to not just be white supremacist, but part of the human condition we must fight against.
Okay so let's fight against it and refuse to accept it as a permissible outcome of electoralism. To accept it as permissible is to side yourself with human rights violations. I, for one, will not side with xenophobic, regressive outcomes.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
Don't come over here we're gonna just tell you to fuck off was the Trump policy during the last year of his administration. This is now adopted by Biden, using the exact title designed by Trump and Miller, so there's a virtually identical policy at the core of the border strategy.
I guess I'm not sure what the alternative is when your policy is for people to not enter the country. Fly them to Canada?
Nothing is obligating Biden to follow Stephen Miller's policy, other than an alignment of goals and politics. His policy is a choice, and so are subsequent statements that naturally follow it.
It is true that Biden is not going to open the borders nor welcome any and all possible refugees.
That's a bizarre thing to say. What I'm talking about is denying asylum seekers the right to make their petition at a border crossing, and allowing ICE/BP to detain and send back anyone without ever being allowed a lawyer. I'm not opposed to open borders, but that's an extremely right wing definition of open borders.
I'm not trying to imply anything I'm not saying explicitly. My understanding is that the administration is currently trying to increase legal access, but that there are resource issues in doing so due to the sheer volume of it. I personally am rather upset that access to legal resources seems to be especially low, and I personally don't understand why that access isn't being expanded nor do I understand what possible resource constraints would apply to it. Biden is actively discouraging immigrants of all sorts, specifically including refugees, at least partly because the system cannot take it, and most assuredly also for political reasons.
Open border scaremongering when they haven't been mentioned is a pretty standard feature of right wing discourse, much of vile. Unless the person you're talking is about it specifically, invoking open borders out of nowhere is just not something I'm down with. If I don't mention open borders, I don't really appreciate someone dropping their open borders quotes on me.
Open borders don't really have an automatic stigma in this discussion, but I will try to keep in mind that you are uncomfortable with the concept going forward.
My overall point is that Biden's current goal is to reduce the number of people attempting to enter the country, yes, and I am not denying that it resembles the previous administration. I disagree that the situation is "virtually identical" because the methodology is different, and the long-term goals are at least partly different.
It's literally identical as far as enforcement of the policy designed to kick asylum seekers at the border, designed on explicitly racial scaremongering about diseased foreigners. And entirely kept in place by choice by Biden.
It seems more accurate to say that Biden is in the process of changing the asylum system to deal with the tens of thousands of currently pending asylum applications in a way that doesn't exacerbate the crisis.
It's imperfect, and the situation is such that all options are bad.
But just because it's bad doesn't mean it's the same as it was, or equally bad, or equally malicious and inspired by white supremacy.
What's title 42 inspired by?
The Trump administration's use of Title 42 was clearly as a method to expel as many people as possible, indefinitely or until stopped by the courts, to further white supremacist goals.
The Biden administration's partial reduction of the use of Title 42, in combination with the consequences of four years of denial at the border, has resulted in more people than the government can process humanely.
The Biden administration is bad because they are still using Title 42. The Biden administration is also bad because they people they are not expelling under Title 42 are in horrendous conditions and they do not have the resources to fix it.
There doesn't appear to be a silver bullet.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
Part of the problem is that the impulse seems to not just be white supremacist, but part of the human condition we must fight against.
Okay so let's fight against it and refuse to accept it as a permissible outcome of electoralism. To accept it as permissible is to side yourself with human rights violations. I, for one, will not side with xenophobic, regressive outcomes.
Absolutely. My point was more that the policies and methods to get there would be somewhat different, as focusing on the white supremacist aspects would not necessarily get a comprehensive solution.
You know what would be a good, meaningful step forward?
an equivalent to the Schengen zone for the Americas
I had to look up what that is and all I can hear in my head RE: objection is "BUT SOCIALISM" from Republicans and "but they'll call us Socialists!" from the Democrats.
Edit - BTW it's the thing that lets the European nations' peoples travel among all those countries without passports and such.
Henroid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You know what would be a good, meaningful step forward?
an equivalent to the Schengen zone for the Americas
I had to look up what that is and all I can hear in my head RE: objection is "BUT SOCIALISM" from Republicans and "but they'll call us Socialists!" from the Democrats.
Edit - BTW it's the thing that lets the European nations' peoples travel among all those countries without passports and such.
Would you support the policy requirements that would be needed to enable such thing?
Edit: A better example of the American equivalent of Schengen would essentially be the U.S.
Fencingsax on
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
You know what would be a good, meaningful step forward?
an equivalent to the Schengen zone for the Americas
I had to look up what that is and all I can hear in my head RE: objection is "BUT SOCIALISM" from Republicans and "but they'll call us Socialists!" from the Democrats.
Edit - BTW it's the thing that lets the European nations' peoples travel among all those countries without passports and such.
Would you support the policy requirements that would be needed to enable such thing?
Edit: A better example of the American equivalent of Schengen would essentially be the U.S.
Enlighten me on what those requirements are, as you imagine them to be.
Posts
This is circling back to the open borders debate, you don't have to be against open borders to dislike how various administrations (like Trump) act or how Democratic presidents aren't able or fix immigration within 4-8 years in office. Bills and executive orders like DACA aren't "talk" those are actions I assumed you'd agreed with. Except Democratic politicians do more than lock asylum seekers and illegal immigrants up, they make pathways for them for citizenship. The answer to immigration isn't just "open the borders."
True, except it paints the Democrats as being identical in immigration policy as the Republicans - which isn't true. Its important to improve the immigration system to wrest control from white supremacy, which as you've admitted is a tough assignment to do and every victory for immigrants should be celebrated not ignored if the problem is impossible to fix.
"Supporting" isn't what you're making it out to be here, people only support it as such in tha they don't want open borders and they want to improve it they don't love what Republicans or even Democrats do on the subject. Biden's administration gets criticised by us, too. Thats not what Democrats supporting closed borders is about, not here anyway. Also ignores the improvements Democrats have made with immigration policy.
Being tired isn't an excuse to falsely inform people on how fast the government works, everyones tired of this shit. Making it harder for people to believe in the system doesn't help anyone. That's not true, admitting the limits to governing don't entail not fighting for improving the country. It's disingenuous to make a strawman with peoples argument just because they disagree with you on immigration. We'll only able to do better with governing by acknowledging reality not denying it.
This is one of the reasons I really want more public information about what is happening. I can believe that the system at the border was such a shit show that this is the absolute best you can expect after two months of trying to fix it. I can also easily believe they just aren't putting the resources there because it isn't a priority. I default to the latter in these scenarios as a default for the reason you mention.
Thats not how government works, certainly not the American government. Which is what we're doing.
All emotion, no facts. I could believe every word you've said and it wouldn't change anything because our reality isn't built on believing in ideas like the government. We're not in your way, because this is a simply a forum nobody is suggesting don't protest and make change, but blinding yourself to reality won't make it any less true. I dislike how any improvement the government does should be thrown away like it means nothing, as if that somehow takes the power away from Biden as president. We know its impossible because everyone has tried has failed in making it so, you're not the first person to believe those thoughts and you won't be the last. Which persists is the failure of those getting the results. I'd love for reality to be that simple but its not. It's a fairy tale.
Bills are action, which the Republicans are fighting as we speak - I've gone into this bill earlier in the thread. They're moving the families from the camps to the hotels in April, as well. DACA anyone (that's a past bill)? I don't know you assume everything the government does moved as light speed. When has the movement ever done his on anything? Hint: it doesn't.
It's nice that this is a 'ha ha fun time debate club' thing for you, but for other people this shit is real and has had a detrimental impact on their life.
You've got all the privilege here, guy. It's entirely privileged to say, "The government is slow, oh well!" and argue against wanting it to be faster or address something that has needed drastic action. A light pigment of privilege, in fact.
I’m not falsely informing anyone Harry.
We know for a fact government gets quite speedy when it comes to things like upholding the pillars of white supremacy, getting military gear into the hands of local cops, bailing out corporations who just coincidentally are friends and donors of the beltway elite, but seems to slow to a crawl when it comes to justice for POC and other marginalized groups
From some immigration lawyer outfit:
http://immigration.dickinson-wright.com/2021/02/09/immigration-update-biden-administration-takes-action/
"Executive Order on Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. In this Executive Order, the Biden Administration condemned the policy of separating children from their parents at the United States – Mexico border using the Zero-Tolerance Policy and revoked Executive Order 13841. The task force must identify all children separated from their families and facilitate the reunification of the children with their families."
I assume that children will not be in cages when with their families, but perhaps said families are also all in cages but even then that's an improvement. Yes I am aware that this is not immediately releasing the children or putting an end to adding new children.
Nobody's saying its wrong for you to be emotionally invested in this subject, we all are. The problem wasn't the emotion, it's the facts part.
I take this topic seriously because how the government treats its immigrants means a lot to me. No, Im not laughing about it. This is no laughing matter, thats disingenuous. It is real, so why is my acknowledging the government being slow and noting its improvements wrong? Shouldn't we want immigration to be better?
I dint say "oh well," and no, the argument wasn't about not wanting it to be falser - that's the opposite of what I said. We all want drastic action, but drastic action isn't available as Ive said. Not because I wouldn't like it but because reality doesn't change because I want it too. You didn't say you wanted it faster you acted as if what I was saying was incorrect and the government being faster is the norm. Which we both know to be false.
I'm an immigrant, Henroid.
I’ve been part of $3 billion of government acquisitions 100s of contracts and task orders, and the fastest I’ve ever seen a high visibility sole source contract for a new requirement executed is 6 weeks after the paperwork goes in. That is smoking quick for govt work. Usually the Cutoff is next week for September awards.
I factually do not know the details as I am not a member of a government agency and my time working with the government mostly just taught me to have low expectations of everyone involved in the process, even the good guys.
I expect it could be better and faster, and I doubt Biden is prioritizing as much as he could because he seemed very comfortable with it taking a long, long time and has been shit at transparency, but I do not know. If I did know I probably couldn't tell you since whistle-blower laws are basically dead.
I am by no means satisfied with the current situation.
I don't see any value to not doing so at the moment. We know that whatever they do is not going to be amazing, because their goals are not amazing, and that they will fall short of their goals, because America is designed against progress, but I have no evidence to suggest that the current stated goals are not being pursued.
There is a zero percent chance of me being happy about the outcome, but it's going to be the better of the available options unless social change happens.
Until society changes, there is a pretty solid ceiling of how good it can get, and I don't get anything out of rending my garments. I don't fault anyone for doing so, but I don't work that way.
No government should ever be given any amount of leeway on anything.
Yes, I'm aware some of the shit stains in Congress are pretty much embedded into the institution until the day they die or retire because they represent a district or state, where a majority of people have fuck awful views on immigration. That said, there are a decent number where their voters aren't completely fucking awful on immigration. So might actually get some movement if their feet are put to the fire for a change and you don't need a perfect Congress, just enough of it's members to get a majority for fixing stuff that is broken with the system.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Sorry this is a few pages late, I went to sleep for 8 hours.
I mentioned Biden's order to suspend all deportations for 100 days on the previous page. That's the one that the corrupt Texas AG is suing over. A judge ruled that Biden refusing to deport people harmed Texas, so deportations were reinstated while that case continues. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960948480/federal-judge-blocks-bidens-100-day-deportation-moratorium
And ICE arrests are down over 60% since Biden took office, as a result of these new policies. Which the Biden administration is also being sued over. It's not just that they have rules to follow, the rules appear to have made an impact.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960948480/federal-judge-blocks-bidens-100-day-deportation-moratorium
I suppose I should have explained that I was specifying public opinion pushes by the president.
I do not understand how me assuming they have already entirely failed has any impact or holds anyone accountable. Can you explain what material physical change this creates in the world that benefits anyone?
Hence the focus on Biden and what he is and is not doing in regard to all this.
And I don't just mean here on this forum or the internet. The people in your life. The people who bag your groceries.
Unified public outcry can't be ignored. And when it is, you get protests. And when those are ignored, you get riots. All of which are valid as fuck.
As the old saying goes, the first step to fixing problems is admitting that there is one to begin with
Arguably, one major issue at hand is that faith in the administration leads people to be lax in pressuring the government, the assumption that they will handle the issue, when the track record of the government across multiple administrations is poor.
By critiquing the administration and through social agitation, it is hoped that the public will become elucidated to the problems at hand and thus turn their attention towards actively pressuring the government to do more and do better, as with other historic civil rights movements, and build steam that the government cannot ignore to reform or abolish destructive, inhuman systems so that they are transformed or replaced with just systems that emphasize equity and human dignity at their cores
Ah. So, you're making a lot of really incorrect but fair assumptions about how I interact with people or what I do when there isn't a pandemic. It might be a reasonable assumption as an average human behavior thing, but it does not apply to me. If that's it, there is no benefit, but I understand why you think there would be. Thank you.
This thread is hard enough to maintain without folks deliberately making stupid arguments.
Yeah that's bad. We should change that attitude and not accept that as a suitable answer from our government. Change the police state policy created by white supremacists for white supremacists.
From the selfish Ellis Island perspective, if we would actually fund our freaking infrastructure there is a massive need for people who are willing to be trained for difficult union-friendly work that can easily ramp up into high-end skills, and the nations always benefit from brain draining their neighbors.
And frankly if Americans don't like having their local culture changed by newcomers then maybe they should do something about gentrification.
It's literally identical as far as enforcement of the policy designed to kick asylum seekers at the border, designed on explicitly racial scaremongering about diseased foreigners. And entirely kept in place by choice by Biden.
Everyone agrees with this, the conflict comes from what actions the government should take on fixing immigration. This is moving the goal posts.
This is such a bizarre argument. Where are you getting this idea from? Why should I subscribe to that belief? Where's the evidence? Having faith in government isn't bad in itself, and its worrying sentiment which shouldn't be talked about so casually, because he right believe in shit like that. They hate the government as it is and don't want anyone to support it so they can tear it down brick by brick. Is that what you want? There is no assumption, this completely erases the good the Democrats and politicians have done on immigration. As the saying goes, you can choose your opinions you can't choose your facts. There are more positions than he falsely attributed choices of doing everything I want now or being as evil as Trump on immigration. The track record, which includes bills like DACA, the bill to move immigrant families from the camps into hotels and the bill they're trying to pass congress right now which will create a pathway for millions immigrants. That's just what I can think of right now. There are assumptions being made here, this paragraph relies on it from breaking from the slightest scrutiny. Argue in good faith, Lanz.
Except everyone is ok criticising the government here, including the people who believe in the government. Social agitation is a whole other thread which off-topic, and has nothing to do with a group of posters on a video game forum talking about immigration. This is a forum, not an activist rally. That's all going to happen, people on a video game message board won't stop that progress, its frankly confusing why you'd think movements like that would be so fragile that they'd disintergrate simply because people believe the government does good works sometimes. Work on the acton, less of the pretty words everyone agrees with you about anyway.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/12/967201293/biden-team-unveils-new-asylum-system-to-replace-trumps-remain-in-mexico
It seems more accurate to say that Biden is in the process of changing the asylum system to deal with the tens of thousands of currently pending asylum applications in a way that doesn't exacerbate the crisis.
It's imperfect, and the situation is such that all options are bad.
But just because it's bad doesn't mean it's the same as it was, or equally bad, or equally malicious and inspired by white supremacy.
What's title 42 inspired by?
Part of the problem is that the impulse seems to not just be white supremacist, but part of the human condition we must fight against.
I’m not sure we do actually agree on all this, and as citation I’ll note the dozens, if not hundreds, of forum pages we’ve spent on this back and forth so far.
As for where I get that idea from, from living in the US my entire life and watching how people interact with the government throughout my lifetime. Activism is a thing, surely, but in large part only a small fraction of the population is engaged with that level of activism. At best, by your standard here, most folks don’t have the time, energy or upkeep to maintain even electoralism thanks to the demands placed on their lives by just trying to keep a roof over their head, the utilities running and food on the table. But through this agitation, awareness can be created, and even in forums like this one those who may just lurk and are otherwise just casually following these issues in the moments of rest they have can become aware of these issues and the depths to which their roots run.
Having faith in government as a hypothetical is one thing. I still would say I believe there is utility in the state as a mechanism for organizing a large, interconnected society and making sure their needs are met. But having faith in the US government? That is another story entirely. Time and Time again, the government has proven it will not pursue the moral or ethical course of action unless pressured to do so. Again, every civil rights movement was achieved not by winds of electoralism and some kind of amorphous social evolution reaching their appointed and destined time, but by the hard won effort, bought in blood, sweat, tears, and even lives, of activists who marched for change, spoke for change, and stood their ground.
As for the next part of your post... who is are the “he” and “they” you’re talking about? I’m not advocating for tearing down the government brick by brick and it’s honestly kind of weird that that is the place you’re going to here. While various structures certainly need to be completely disassembled such as our immigration system, and built back with something actually just and humane, I’m not going to go on a tear saying we need to demolish constitutional democracy here; I rather like constitutional democracy.
I am not particularly interested in heaping praise on political parties here. My interest is in the plight of those suffering and as far as I can tell, regardless of how things play out with the immigration system, the Democrats will be rather fine, and honestly quite insulated from the tribulations that those in our nation’s concentration camps are facing. But more to the point, they are vested with power and authority as our representatives in government to work on behalf the good of this nation and its people, which I would argue demands the end of our current immigration system and its replacement with something founded in human dignity. Something that doesn’t treat those crossing the border as criminals to be detained, but as people seeking to join our communities, to live lives here just like any of us do, and far many without ever having had to make the efforts that many of these detained made to accomplish that.
So yes, DACA, the movement of families into hotels instead of prison camps, and bills to provide citizenship for the dreamers are steps forward, they ultimately only address the symptoms, allowing the problem to build up again as the years go by because we have failed to address the real problem: an immigration system antagonistic towards immigration in the first place, and whose origins were founded in the vilest of white supremacy, this nation’s original sin. Until that is solved, I will continue to have criticism for our government and even the Democrats. I’d say then that I am arguing in good faith, and that you’ve mistaken my lack of the faith you have in the government and the party as bad faith.
As for this, yeah, it’s a video game message board. But we’re still people, we still share ideas, influence one another, get each other thinking. If there wasn’t something to any of that, I doubt we’d be here. As for the fragility of the movement, I don’t think that somehow we here are going to end up breaking it. But if we’re going to have an immigration thread here, I’d rather argue in favor of radical justice, the kind of change Lewis’s generation accomplished in fighting to end Jim Crow, than not. And that often requires a stark critique of power and those who hold it, rather that congratulating the most powerful people in our country when there is far more work to be done.
EDIT: @Elki was that last paragraph still okay? Not sure if that’s falling into the same kind of thing you just said for Harry not to do or not (so not trying to mod but trying to explain why I think this discussion has value); I can strike it if it’s not allowed
Well given it’s the US immigration thread, White Supremacy is a pretty big core of the issue
Since, you know, White Supremacist Genocidal Settler Colony Nation that has never meaningfully grappled with any of what it meant to non-white, non-settlers to be a White Supremacist Genocidal Settler Colony Nation.
Okay so let's fight against it and refuse to accept it as a permissible outcome of electoralism. To accept it as permissible is to side yourself with human rights violations. I, for one, will not side with xenophobic, regressive outcomes.
The Trump administration's use of Title 42 was clearly as a method to expel as many people as possible, indefinitely or until stopped by the courts, to further white supremacist goals.
The Biden administration's partial reduction of the use of Title 42, in combination with the consequences of four years of denial at the border, has resulted in more people than the government can process humanely.
The Biden administration is bad because they are still using Title 42. The Biden administration is also bad because they people they are not expelling under Title 42 are in horrendous conditions and they do not have the resources to fix it.
There doesn't appear to be a silver bullet.
Absolutely. My point was more that the policies and methods to get there would be somewhat different, as focusing on the white supremacist aspects would not necessarily get a comprehensive solution.
an equivalent to the Schengen zone for the Americas
Edit - BTW it's the thing that lets the European nations' peoples travel among all those countries without passports and such.
Would you support the policy requirements that would be needed to enable such thing?
Edit: A better example of the American equivalent of Schengen would essentially be the U.S.