Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Why do you think those are hypotheticals? That's stuff being considered for law *right now*
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
No, the argument was that you use the collapsed negotiations to make Republicans look bad to the sort of turbo-credulous swing voter who prioritizes bipartisan sentiment over everything else. If you can peel a couple votes for Ukraine aid from Republicans disgusted with their own caucus so much the better, but that's gravy.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
I have tried to follow along in good faith, and I have no idea what your point is, even now.
So I'm going to bow out. Have fun storming the castle!
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
No, the argument was that you use the collapsed negotiations to make Republicans look bad to the sort of turbo-credulous swing voter who prioritizes bipartisan sentiment over everything else. If you can peel a couple votes for Ukraine aid from Republicans disgusted with their own caucus so much the better, but that's gravy.
Yeah. I don't know where the hell this other stuff is coming from. The whole idea, which has been said multiple times at this point, is that you use the Republicans refusing to support the bipartisan deal they negotiated to attack them for not being interested in solving problems in order to help you in the election coming up. This is a strategy that's already been apparently successfully employed too. It's not some secret what the plan is.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
No, the argument was that you use the collapsed negotiations to make Republicans look bad to the sort of turbo-credulous swing voter who prioritizes bipartisan sentiment over everything else. If you can peel a couple votes for Ukraine aid from Republicans disgusted with their own caucus so much the better, but that's gravy.
I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth. You are incorrect. Please do not insist I am saying something especially when I am not saying it. It is very rude, and contributes nothing but hostility to threads.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
I have tried to follow along in good faith, and I have no idea what your point is, even now.
So I'm going to bow out. Have fun storming the castle!
I will reiterate very plainly one final time for people. It was asserted that failed negotiations around the immigration bill could be used to bully the Republicans in future negotiations due to it collapsing from their own actions. This is incorrect as they do not argue in good faith. The collapsed negotiations will not impact their stance in future ones at all as evidenced by their negotiating tactics presently.
Gnizmo on
+3
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
The one from four Democrats that Hakeem Jeffries has said won't happen?
If we got up in arms every time over the shit that the worst Democrats are in favor of, and were immediately shot down by leadership, we'd never not be.
It's fine to point out the worst shit a party is in support of, and if leadership changes position, that's fine to get angry about too.
But it's clearly NOT the base position of the party, that'd be the clean discharge petition on foreign aid.
Irrelevant to the point. It isn't a situation where you can say this was the deal now what else do we get. Or even this was the deal stick to it. You get. This was the deal, and we want more. They are bad faith actors. You cannot expect to negotiate with them fairly. There is no beating them in the head.
Wait, what's irrelevant to the point?
Republicans being escalatory assholes? Cause that wasn't my point.
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
No, the argument was that you use the collapsed negotiations to make Republicans look bad to the sort of turbo-credulous swing voter who prioritizes bipartisan sentiment over everything else. If you can peel a couple votes for Ukraine aid from Republicans disgusted with their own caucus so much the better, but that's gravy.
I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth. You are incorrect. Please do not insist I am saying something especially when I am not saying it. It is very rude, and contributes nothing but hostility to threads.
What the actual fuck are you talking about
I will reiterate very plainly one final time for people. It was asserted that failed negotiations around the immigration bill could be used to bully the Republicans in future negotiations due to it collapsing from their own actions.
I'm not going to go back and read a dozen pages of this thread's inanity again but I'm pretty sure this wasn't actually said and you misinterpreted the actual argument
I will reiterate very plainly one final time for people. It was asserted that failed negotiations around the immigration bill could be used to bully the Republicans in future negotiations due to it collapsing from their own actions. This is incorrect as they do not argue in good faith. The collapsed negotiations will not impact their stance in future ones at all as evidenced by their negotiating tactics presently.
No.
It was argued that the Republicans nixing their own deal makes them look stupid and like they don't actually want to solve the problem, and that democrats should hammer them on this point to boost their chances in the upcoming election.
ElJeffe on
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.
I will reiterate very plainly one final time for people. It was asserted that failed negotiations around the immigration bill could be used to bully the Republicans in future negotiations due to it collapsing from their own actions. This is incorrect as they do not argue in good faith. The collapsed negotiations will not impact their stance in future ones at all as evidenced by their negotiating tactics presently.
No.
It was argued that the Republicans nixing their own deal makes them look stupid and like they don't actually want to solve the problem, and that democrats should hammer them on this point to boost their chances in the upcoming election.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
To which there are already Democrats trying to work with them on doing something more awful after blowing up their own immigration deal. I cannot be more clear what I am talking about here. Which is the entire point I am trying to make. I do not know why people are trying to spiral this out into something else. I have not mentioned voters anywhere. I have not mentioned voting anywhere.
I am sticking to the topic of the thread which is immigration including current pending legislation. It appears that people are attempting to twist this into an election argument which was extremely recently said to not be the best use of this thread.
Edit: I will say this mirrors a pattern across this forum to attribute others statements to me assuming I am part of this forum gang war you all engage in to pass the time. Allow me to reiterate I am not. Please try to remember what I have actually said and not inject others arguments into mine. I think my posts will make more sense at that point.
I don't know why talking about the political implications of immigration negotiations would be off limits, but I think either tack you mentioned could be useful.
Use this particular failing as a chance to pound Republicans. If they come back to the table later and demand more, we tell them to pound sand and remind them of this. By muffing this the way they did, they've established a hard limit on what they can even ask for before we get to lolnope them, and even if they ask for the same thing, we could still lolnope them because we know they aren't good faith actors.
Maybe we WON'T use their failure this way, but we COULD and we SHOULD.
And I would say the actions of a couple shitty democrats is pretty meaningless until the party as a whole starts taking it as direction.
ElJeffe on
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.
+7
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The Problem Solvers Caucus is a group of ~20 backbencher morons high on their own farts split across both parties which has spent its entire existence being completely legislatively irrelevant
Whatever they are saying or planning doesn't matter
I don't know why talking about the political implications of immigration negotiations would be off limits, but I think either tack you mentioned could be useful.
Use this particular failing as a chance to pound Republicans. If they come back to the table later and demand more, we tell them to pound sand and remind them of this. By muffing this the way they did, they've established a hard limit on what they can even ask for before we get to lolnope them, and even if they ask for the same thing, we could still lolnope them because we know they aren't good faith actors.
Maybe we WON'T use their failure this way, but we COULD and we SHOULD.
And I would say the actions of a couple shitty democrats is pretty meaningless until the party as a whole starts taking it as direction.
I wouldn't say meaningless, but their actions are the focus of the point. Republicans are beginning negotiations with "and we want more," because that is how literally every negotiation has gone since the Freedom Caucus became a thing and beyond it. They negotiate in bad faith, and you cannot shame them out of it. They will set the lines they set, and there is little any Democrat can forcibly do about it since the bill is dead without even a record of voting unless the discharge position happens. They have a great deal of leverage here they are using.
I also don't know if it would or wouldn't be to talk about the electoral implications. As you know, I am not a mod. I am trying to keep my comments focused because of how it spiraled recently, and people keep trying to force my statements to that framework. Understandably, I get frustrated having to repeatedly point out I am only saying what I have actually said.
Edit: To clarify in a second thread in as many days, I am not talking about the entire Democratic caucus. They don't agree on a lunch order. I am talking about the stuff that is being done by members of their caucus. I do not enjoy the super position often used to shout down arguments where the Democratic leadership is the only voice that matters when that is convenient, and then switching to we are beholden to the idiot wing when that is convenient. Democratic leadership has chosen to continue to associate with those members and thus their actions are actions taken by Democrats.
The Problem Solvers Caucus is a group of ~20 backbencher morons high on their own farts split across both parties which has spent its entire existence being completely legislatively irrelevant
Whatever they are saying or planning doesn't matter
The problem solvers caucus is literally "centrism: the caucus" and their primary function is to occasionally fuck things up in Congress.
I don't know why talking about the political implications of immigration negotiations would be off limits, but I think either tack you mentioned could be useful.
Use this particular failing as a chance to pound Republicans. If they come back to the table later and demand more, we tell them to pound sand and remind them of this. By muffing this the way they did, they've established a hard limit on what they can even ask for before we get to lolnope them, and even if they ask for the same thing, we could still lolnope them because we know they aren't good faith actors.
Maybe we WON'T use their failure this way, but we COULD and we SHOULD.
And I would say the actions of a couple shitty democrats is pretty meaningless until the party as a whole starts taking it as direction.
I wouldn't say meaningless, but their actions are the focus of the point. Republicans are beginning negotiations with "and we want more," because that is how literally every negotiation has gone since the Freedom Caucus became a thing and beyond it. They negotiate in bad faith, and you cannot shame them out of it. They will set the lines they set, and there is little any Democrat can forcibly do about it since the bill is dead without even a record of voting unless the discharge position happens. They have a great deal of leverage here they are using.
I also don't know if it would or wouldn't be to talk about the electoral implications. As you know, I am not a mod. I am trying to keep my comments focused because of how it spiraled recently, and people keep trying to force my statements to that framework. Understandably, I get frustrated having to repeatedly point out I am only saying what I have actually said.
Edit: To clarify in a second thread in as many days, I am not talking about the entire Democratic caucus. They don't agree on a lunch order. I am talking about the stuff that is being done by members of their caucus. I do not enjoy the super position often used to shout down arguments where the Democratic leadership is the only voice that matters when that is convenient, and then switching to we are beholden to the idiot wing when that is convenient. Democratic leadership has chosen to continue to associate with those members and thus their actions are actions taken by Democrats.
I mean, leadership seems to basically be ignoring them and showing that they are not controlling the terms of negotiation.
I assume you're implying by "continuing to associate" that the DNC should kick them out of the party?
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.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
I dont understand what you’re trying to say.
Is it “nothing matters so we might as well not fight” or is it “we can’t win because when we fight republicans will win anyway”?
Like. I understand that Republicans are bad but I don’t understand how that means them making mistakes isn’t good for democrats and good for policy.
I am reading your posts. But maybe it’s you who is confused or unable to express themselves?
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
So you would gladly do those things for your thing, got it.
I don't follow
Well you said that you would not trade those rights for anything. Such that there is nothing that you could possibly trade immigration reform for not even those things in the asinine hypothetical
Edit: to be clear. “You have A and B you may pick A or B to keep”. And “you have A you may trade A tor B” are equivalent statements.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
To which there are already Democrats trying to work with them on doing something more awful after blowing up their own immigration deal.
And? I don’t give a shit that “republicans” are asking for more and neither does house leadership and neither does senate leadership. It has nothing to do with the thing that was quoted or the thing that the quoted was in reply to. Which was a question of “where is the line”? And the answer was “the line is better now because we have an advantage”. And then you’re back with “but discharge petition” and I am like “are you a nihilist?” Because I cannot possibly read it in any other context.
I don't know why talking about the political implications of immigration negotiations would be off limits, but I think either tack you mentioned could be useful.
Use this particular failing as a chance to pound Republicans. If they come back to the table later and demand more, we tell them to pound sand and remind them of this. By muffing this the way they did, they've established a hard limit on what they can even ask for before we get to lolnope them, and even if they ask for the same thing, we could still lolnope them because we know they aren't good faith actors.
Maybe we WON'T use their failure this way, but we COULD and we SHOULD.
And I would say the actions of a couple shitty democrats is pretty meaningless until the party as a whole starts taking it as direction.
I wouldn't say meaningless, but their actions are the focus of the point. Republicans are beginning negotiations with "and we want more," because that is how literally every negotiation has gone since the Freedom Caucus became a thing and beyond it. They negotiate in bad faith, and you cannot shame them out of it. They will set the lines they set, and there is little any Democrat can forcibly do about it since the bill is dead without even a record of voting unless the discharge position happens. They have a great deal of leverage here they are using.
I also don't know if it would or wouldn't be to talk about the electoral implications. As you know, I am not a mod. I am trying to keep my comments focused because of how it spiraled recently, and people keep trying to force my statements to that framework. Understandably, I get frustrated having to repeatedly point out I am only saying what I have actually said.
Edit: To clarify in a second thread in as many days, I am not talking about the entire Democratic caucus. They don't agree on a lunch order. I am talking about the stuff that is being done by members of their caucus. I do not enjoy the super position often used to shout down arguments where the Democratic leadership is the only voice that matters when that is convenient, and then switching to we are beholden to the idiot wing when that is convenient. Democratic leadership has chosen to continue to associate with those members and thus their actions are actions taken by Democrats.
I mean, leadership seems to basically be ignoring them and showing that they are not controlling the terms of negotiation.
I assume you're implying by "continuing to associate" that the DNC should kick them out of the party?
Roughly yes. You can't stop someone from claiming they are a Democrat, but you can express that you would like to distance yourself from them in that action. Much as I have said repeatedly that Republicans are engaging in this negotiation on the discharge petition I would say the same about Democrats. Interestingly, no one is objecting to the use of Republicans despite Speaker Johnson, and Senate Minority Leader McConnel (I think I have that right but I am having a weird dyslexia moment) stating they want it dead. I struggle to find a good faith interpretation of why that disparity exists, but I am not in the minds of other posters so I will not speculate. I will point out the inconsistency.
I don’t understand how I am “assuming they’re acting in bad faith” or why that matters. I don’t give a shit if they’re acting it bad faith I want to beat them with every tool I have regardless of how faithfully they’re representing things. Them not acting in good faith, and the public realizing it, is one reason why we have this advantage to beat them with…
We should use it. Dem Leadership has indicated that using that advantage is the current plan.
It doesn't matter if you beat them on the head with immigration. It will not move the needle. I once again ask you to read my posts for the answers. See the current discharge position where they have tried to reduce aid, and increase the horror of the border. Because you are absolutely wrong. This isn't a new concept.
I dont understand what you’re trying to say.
Is it “nothing matters so we might as well not fight” or is it “we can’t win because when we fight republicans will win anyway”?
Like. I understand that Republicans are bad but I don’t understand how that means them making mistakes isn’t good for democrats and good for policy.
I am reading your posts. But maybe it’s you who is confused or unable to express themselves?
Lanz, if you have an alternative please just say it.
Biden could try to not piss off people who voted for him last time and actually attract voters instead of shedding them like it's his job.
He is doing that thing and you have been already presented evidence of it working! Him doing that is the thing you’re complaining about!
Literally enough voters polled in the Santos by election to switch the seat said that Bidens push for immigration and Trumps killing of the negotiated bill caused them to switch their votes for the democrat
Since he's just doing this immigration policy stuff to pick up votes, because a 2nd Trump turn is the loss condition of western civilization and everything must be done to stop it at all costs, then can we presume Biden will do a full 180 on it on November 6th?
If Dems had the house and Senate we wouldn't even be talking about this shitty bargain that had to be made. Dems would have passed Ukraine funding directly, or through reconciliation. Polling on immigrations is far far to the right of most folks on the forum, and Biden with a Democratic Congress would have authorized additional funding for judges and processing of immigrants and asylum seekers. Bills multiple Democrats proposed this cycle and last.
Would we? This whole fucking mess is at least partially fueled by Biden trying to correct polling numbers between him and Trump with regard to immigration. Biden's immigration policy was already way too close to Trump's.
This whole mess was actually fueled by the fact that Republicans were holding aid for Ukraine and Taiwan hostage, and the compromise was the price for it.
Edit: I am assuming by "the whole mess" you mean the bill.
So let me ask you this:
Should the democrats budge on the new line? If the demand for Ukraine war funding is “legalize the right of property owners to use lethal force to protect their land from immigrant trespassers,” are you fine with ceding that? After all, you need that Ukraine Funding. That’s why somehow this current crossing of previous red lines was so permissible, after all.
What if they demand the president be granted authority to unilaterally deport any “illegal immigrant?” Is that a fair horse to trade for Ukraine War funding?
Where are your lines? Are there lines?
What if the price for getting good immigration law was joining Russia and helping to bomb Ukraine?
What if the price was nuking all blue states?
"You approve of this line, so let me come up with asinine hypotheticals" is not the rhetorical pile driver you think it is.
Oh the left wing side of the line is a pretty easy one. You don't horse trade fundamental rights.
If trading away asylum seekers like this is acceptable for the left wing party, other groups at risk are right to be concerned.
So you would gladly do those things for your thing, got it.
I don't follow
Well you said that you would not trade those rights for anything. Such that there is nothing that you could possibly trade immigration reform for not even those things in the asinine hypothetical
Edit: to be clear. “You have A and B you may pick A or B to keep”. And “you have A you may trade A tor B” are equivalent statements.
Given the number of times people have injected entire arguments into my posts, yourself included, that have no basis in the text I find that difficult to believe. If it were the case I would expect people asking for clarification rather than making up entirely different arguments that conveniently fit the narrative they would like to argue against.
No. We had a deal and they blew it up. We get to use it as a cudgel now. If republicans say “we want more” we get to come back and say “no, we had a deal, you cannot be trusted. So you get the deal or nothing”.
To which there are already Democrats trying to work with them on doing something more awful after blowing up their own immigration deal.
And? I don’t give a shit that “republicans” are asking for more and neither does house leadership and neither does senate leadership. It has nothing to do with the thing that was quoted or the thing that the quoted was in reply to. Which was a question of “where is the line”? And the answer was “the line is better now because we have an advantage”. And then you’re back with “but discharge petition” and I am like “are you a nihilist?” Because I cannot possibly read it in any other context.
Case in point. You understood what I was saying, but want it to say more. It is solid evidence I am not being unclear as much as people aren't listening to what I am saying. The negotiating point does not change as you claimed. That is all I have said to you, and all I have intended to say.
I still have absolutely no clue what you were trying to say with your comment. Can you please elaborate in a way that connects the thesis of the prior posts as you read them directly to your reply. Explain explicitly if you are supporting or negating the claimed thesis. In which way you are supporting or negating the thesis and for what purpose you are supporting or negating the thesis. And what you think the thesis, purpose, and supporting or negating positions are.
You do not have to respond I paragraph form. I will accept sentence fragments with labels.
You say “the negotiating point does not change as you claim” and I don’t know what the negotiating point is. I don’t know where I claimed it changed. I don’t know why I would have claimed it “changing”.
Look. In the MENA thread you said “No one is claiming it[the aid] is performative because it is inadequate”, when you had also said, not one day earlier “ In this case the aide[sic] is performative because it is inadequate.” So maybe you can cut me some slack if I am having a hard time parsing what you mean. Since either you have no clue what you’re saying or you don’t have sufficient consistency of thought over a 24 hour period to keep a cogent argument through multiple posts.
I still have absolutely no clue what you were trying to say with your comment. Can you please elaborate in a way that connects the thesis of the prior posts as you read them directly to your reply. Explain explicitly if you are supporting or negating the claimed thesis. In which way you are supporting or negating the thesis and for what purpose you are supporting or negating the thesis. And what you think the thesis, purpose, and supporting or negating positions are.
You do not have to respond I paragraph form. I will accept sentence fragments with labels.
You say “the negotiating point does not change as you claim” and I don’t know what the negotiating point is. I don’t know where I claimed it changed. I don’t know why I would have claimed it “changing”.
Look. In the MENA thread you said “No one is claiming it[the aid] is performative because it is inadequate”, when you had also said, not one day earlier “ In this case the aide[sic] is performative because it is inadequate.” So maybe you can cut me some slack if I am having a hard time parsing what you mean. Since either you have no clue what you’re saying or you don’t have sufficient consistency of thought over a 24 hour period to keep a cogent argument through multiple posts.
This is the second time you have chosen to insult me rather than engage with my point. If you truly wish to get responses then I suggest that change. Otherwise my words will have to stand on their own, and your inability to stick to the arguments I have made will not be something I can help with more. I have repeatedly exactly stated everything you are looking for should you choose to read for content, and not for a way to insult me further.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
QI doesn't protect against criminal charges *and* doesn't protect against everything. Trump's idea of immunity probably includes things like "kettle anyone who resists then shoot them all".
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
Actively encouraging violence against immigrants will absolutely increase the level of violence against them. There is no bottom.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
Actively encouraging violence against immigrants will absolutely increase the level of violence against them. There is no bottom.
Oh that part is not in doubt. My question is limited in scope for a very specific reason.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
QI doesn't protect against criminal charges *and* doesn't protect against everything. Trump's idea of immunity probably includes things like "kettle anyone who resists then shoot them all".
In my head for a moment it did, and I can't tell you why exactly. Probably just the lack of accountability overall. I have more to say, but nothing relevant here so I will stop.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
Actively encouraging violence against immigrants will absolutely increase the level of violence against them. There is no bottom.
Oh that part is not in doubt. My question is limited in scope for a very specific reason.
Removing the tiny, tiny, tiny chance of justice will also make things worse.
Trump in this clip not only promises mass deportations on day one, but also vows to immunize local police so they can't be prosecuted for any excesses that take place while they round people up
Aaron Rupar is a journalist
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
Actively encouraging violence against immigrants will absolutely increase the level of violence against them. There is no bottom.
And right now there’s at least the illusion that they might be held accountable. If you tell a bunch of racist cops they are completely immune from any consequences you will see some shocking levels of violence.
Just so we're clear, the appeals to solidarity with the hispanic / latino minority need to end in this thread, for everybody that cosigned a "sorry you can't have that" sentiment over this page and the last one regarding moderate reforms, the dead bill, or tighter border security in general. You're not in solidarity with the hispanic and latino Americans anymore.
I don't think that changes anyone's argument or shifts their position, but I feel like it's important to note because the broad cloak of unity with minority Americans is strong moral ground to argue from and it simply does not exist for those folks. And I mean, that's not even necessarily a bad thing! There are some compelling moral arguments for extremely permissive immigration policy - they just don't include a claim that you're shoulder to shoulder with hispanics and latinos here in the US. That population is not in agreement with one another on the issue, and y'all are some distance from the majority of them.
I wanted to address this, because you made some leaps that are not at all important. (Also, that study was in the heart of COVID, so I would want to see something much more recent before we really dove too far into it).
But:
There's a lot to digest here, but some takeaways:
- While most Latinos in the US say major change needs to happen, party is a bigger predictor that ethnicity as to whether policy should be more or less restrictive.
- Latino-Americans with legal status are more ambivalent about paths to citizenship or allowing 'dreamers' to stay than non-citizens. Nearly half don't like either idea.
- Progressive attitudes toward border policy fade generationally. US-born Latinos are less likely to support major change to create a more permissive environment.
Lots more data there, not much of it in support of generalizations about Latino support for significantly more permissive immigration policy, not much room for solidarity. The strongest support comes for policies that the lefty contingent here think are very weak improvements, and there's plenty of appetite among Latinos surveyed for tighter restrictions.
I'm going to spoiler my response because of images and not wanting to eat up space:
You have taken the results as an "up/down" kind of the thing, but that's not what the study was asking. For example, talking about Latino support for dreamers, I assume you are referring to this:
or this:
And if you aren't careful, you would get the impression "nearly half don't like either idea", but that's not at ALL what that says. It says these are the percentage of people who think it's a "VERY important goal". That's WILDLY different, in fact, if you look at the questions used and the breakdown of responses directly (this is linked from your link) https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-NSL-topline_immigration-policy.pdf
You get:
You'll notice that very important still jives with the "52 percent of all latinos" in the graph on the page you linked, however there are 5 levels of this, and very + somewhat important are 84% of the latino population asked, and support is fairly steady from foreign born to 3rd gen+. Worse, did not answer was 2/5 of the number of "not at all important". Saying "nearly half don't like either idea" is, well, misrepresenting the data, though pew did a pretty good job of that themselves. You even get something like 83% supporting a path to legalized status of people already here, not just dreamers.
Your other real point, about party being a bigger indicator is one of those things that yes.. is true, but also requires more info. Of the people they talked to (and I can't get into whether this is selection bias or if it's a real trend among Latinos (well, I can, but it's anecdotal) I'll let this speak for itself when you look at what respondents said their party preference was:
At any rate, based on things you've posted, you don't get to claim that people can't claim solidarity with the group, or that said group isn't showing solidarity within it, to try and score some points here. People shouldn't do that however for other reasons, not the least of which is it leads people who aren't part of that group speaking for that group. Speaking for asylum seekers and desperate people who are caught up by the racist policies of the US? Yeah, folks can speak up for them no problem.
Just so we're clear, the appeals to solidarity with the hispanic / latino minority need to end in this thread, for everybody that cosigned a "sorry you can't have that" sentiment over this page and the last one regarding moderate reforms, the dead bill, or tighter border security in general. You're not in solidarity with the hispanic and latino Americans anymore.
I don't think that changes anyone's argument or shifts their position, but I feel like it's important to note because the broad cloak of unity with minority Americans is strong moral ground to argue from and it simply does not exist for those folks. And I mean, that's not even necessarily a bad thing! There are some compelling moral arguments for extremely permissive immigration policy - they just don't include a claim that you're shoulder to shoulder with hispanics and latinos here in the US. That population is not in agreement with one another on the issue, and y'all are some distance from the majority of them.
I wanted to address this, because you made some leaps that are not at all important. (Also, that study was in the heart of COVID, so I would want to see something much more recent before we really dove too far into it).
But:
There's a lot to digest here, but some takeaways:
- While most Latinos in the US say major change needs to happen, party is a bigger predictor that ethnicity as to whether policy should be more or less restrictive.
- Latino-Americans with legal status are more ambivalent about paths to citizenship or allowing 'dreamers' to stay than non-citizens. Nearly half don't like either idea.
- Progressive attitudes toward border policy fade generationally. US-born Latinos are less likely to support major change to create a more permissive environment.
Lots more data there, not much of it in support of generalizations about Latino support for significantly more permissive immigration policy, not much room for solidarity. The strongest support comes for policies that the lefty contingent here think are very weak improvements, and there's plenty of appetite among Latinos surveyed for tighter restrictions.
I'm going to spoiler my response because of images and not wanting to eat up space:
You have taken the results as an "up/down" kind of the thing, but that's not what the study was asking. For example, talking about Latino support for dreamers, I assume you are referring to this:
or this:
And if you aren't careful, you would get the impression "nearly half don't like either idea", but that's not at ALL what that says. It says these are the percentage of people who think it's a "VERY important goal". That's WILDLY different, in fact, if you look at the questions used and the breakdown of responses directly (this is linked from your link) https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-NSL-topline_immigration-policy.pdf
You get:
You'll notice that very important still jives with the "52 percent of all latinos" in the graph on the page you linked, however there are 5 levels of this, and very + somewhat important are 84% of the latino population asked, and support is fairly steady from foreign born to 3rd gen+. Worse, did not answer was 2/5 of the number of "not at all important". Saying "nearly half don't like either idea" is, well, misrepresenting the data, though pew did a pretty good job of that themselves. You even get something like 83% supporting a path to legalized status of people already here, not just dreamers.
Your other real point, about party being a bigger indicator is one of those things that yes.. is true, but also requires more info. Of the people they talked to (and I can't get into whether this is selection bias or if it's a real trend among Latinos (well, I can, but it's anecdotal) I'll let this speak for itself when you look at what respondents said their party preference was:
At any rate, based on things you've posted, you don't get to claim that people can't claim solidarity with the group, or that said group isn't showing solidarity within it, to try and score some points here. People shouldn't do that however for other reasons, not the least of which is it leads people who aren't part of that group speaking for that group. Speaking for asylum seekers and desperate people who are caught up by the racist policies of the US? Yeah, folks can speak up for them no problem.
Hey Hydropolo
I think your analysis is pretty solid on this, and my reading wasn't good. Thank you for going back over the data!
No worries, like I said, Pew presented it pretty poorly in the first place and I'm probably over passionate about this issue.
"They're taking our jerbs!"
"You want to debone chickens?"
"Fuck no!"
"We're paying more than double minimum wage*?"
"Fuck no!"
* EDIT - That's Federal Minimum Wage, these are migrants in New York being recruited, where $16 is the minimum wage, but still, my point stands.
I may not have a lot of time for Tyson in particular, but the idea that...
- keeping crappy conditions (starting pay rate is apparently $16/hr, so it's not "bad"), but an annual turnover of 40% indicates it's not for everybody.
- not massively increasing costs by huge increases in pay and conditions
- restricting migrant inflow
... is a sustainable outcome is just dumb as fuck. We already saw it in Georgia more than a decade ago, where they really cracked on migrant farm hands.
"They're taking our jerbs!"
"You want to debone chickens?"
"Fuck no!"
"We're paying more than double minimum wage*?"
"Fuck no!"
* EDIT - That's Federal Minimum Wage, these are migrants in New York being recruited, where $16 is the minimum wage, but still, my point stands.
I may not have a lot of time for Tyson in particular, but the idea that...
- keeping crappy conditions (starting pay rate is apparently $16/hr, so it's not "bad"), but an annual turnover of 40% indicates it's not for everybody.
- not massively increasing costs by huge increases in pay and conditions
- restricting migrant inflow
... is a sustainable outcome is just dumb as fuck. We already saw it in Georgia more than a decade ago, where they really cracked on migrant farm hands.
But that's the Republican platform. Slogans, not solutions.
Chicken plants are fucking disgusting, to the extent that truckers will often flatly refuse pickups or drops for any money because of the smell. 40% turnover honestly doesn't surprise me.
BREAKING: Supreme Court lets Texas enforce SB 4, its immigration law. Two dissenters say the order will “sow chaos”
Beginning this moment, Texas law enforcement officers can arrest any person in the state they believe crossed illegally. And judges can now order people to walk back into Mexico at threat of 20 years in prison if they don't—even if the person has federal permission to be here.
Crucial context: Barrett and Kavanaugh both say they are not making any decision right now because of the weird procedural posture by which it made it to the Court's shadow docket, but say if the 5th Circuit doesn't act ASAP, they may change their minds.
So Barrett and Kavanaugh basically say the 5th Circuit's gamesmanship around issuing an "administrative stay" is unusual but doesn't rise to the point where she thinks they should intervene yet, but she says if the 5th Circuit doesn't rule soon, DOJ should come back to SCOTUS.
SO what does this mean? Well, this means SB4 is in effect—for now. But the case is likely going back to the Supreme Court on an emergency poster within the next month, either because the 5th Circuit rules officially on the stay motion, or because they wait too long and don't.
I agree with this point. Both Barrett and Kavanaugh basically opted out of deciding the merits—and for all we know, so did Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, who gave no indication of why they ruled how they did.
Regardless, the 5th gets leeway.
The bigger point here is that once again, this SCOTUS permits the 5th Circuit to temporarily overturn long-standing immigration law rules—even if they will eventually strike down the law.
They did this with Remain in Mexico in 2021 and the enforcement priorities in 2022.
In both cases, SCOTUS refused a Biden administration request to block enforcement of unprecedented decisions—ordering DHS to restart Remain in Mexico, stripping the DHS Secretary of authority to issue enforcement priorities—only to eventually rule in Biden's favor months later.
Here, we have an even more perverse situation, with SCOTUS letting an unconstitutional law go into effect temporarily, based on a transparent attempt by the 5th Circuit to avoid review.
And yes, Texas will likely lose eventually. But there will be damage done in the meantime.
I obviously have no special knowledge of why the Justices who didn't opine today ruled the way they did.
But with this happening 3 years in a row, the implication is that the Justices are using these shadow docket orders to send a message about the border—and nothing more.
They want Biden to crack down harder. Which is a fundamentally political kind of thing they're not allowed to have any say on, so instead they're letting these orders go into effect for now.
It's a show of power.
Final note: I want to emphasize again that this is NOT the end of the story.
The 5th Circuit will either convert its administrative stay into a formal stay in the next few weeks, after which DOJ goes back to SCOTUS, or they won't, in which case DOJ goes back to SCOTUS.
So we should expect to be back here again in a matter of weeks, and we'll find out whether or not SB4 is a short-lived law which was only in effect for a brief period of time, or whether it gets to last for longer.
Utter nightmare for anyone arrested in the next few weeks tho!
A top Mexican official says Mexico's government will not accept migrant repatriations from the state of Texas:
Update: Mexico says no.
Fucking shit helling Christ
Lanz on
+15
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Disgusting horse shit
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Now I have to wonder if this is why we're starting to see talk of just passing Ukraine funding as a separate bill. The fuckers have decided they'll let Texas do all the fuck awful shit they wanted to do. Racist MAGA fuckers probably still don't want to give Ukraine aid because they are tank for a fellow fascist white supremacist like Putin, but know that enough of their caucus wants that funding that they can't win. That said, they aren't going to go along with the current border bill because it was as fuck awful as they wanted it to be, the worst shit was set to expire in a year and it did have some actual fucking solutions to of the issues with the current immigration system. Of course, they really didn't like many of those fixes because asshole fascists and authoritarians need shit to be broken if they want to have a reason shot at staying in power and solutions means less things to distract people away from how fuck awful their policies are.
Predictably Mexico is already saying "Hahaha, fuck no". Because even Mexico knows this is horseshit and makes no sense and they have zero reason to not leave this as the US's problem if they can.
So the SCOTUS's hackery is now causing foreign relations problems.
Record-level migration has brought record-breaking death to Maverick County, a border community that is ground zero in the feud between Texas and the Biden administration over migration. Whereas in a typical month years ago, officials here might have recovered one or two bodies from the river, more recently they have handled that amount in a single day. While border crossings draw the most attention in the national debate about immigration, the rising number of deaths in the Rio Grande has gone largely unnoticed.
First responders have run out of body bags and burial plots. Their rescue boats and recovery trucks are covered in dents and scratches, scars from navigating through the brush to retrieve floating bodies. County officials say they don’t have the training or supplies to collect DNA samples of each unidentified migrant as required by state law, meaning bodies are sometimes left in fridges for months or even buried with scant attempt to identify them.
At one point in 2022 as the body count rose, officials buried migrants in a potter’s field, their graves marked with crosses made out of PVC pipes. Over the past month, the number of deaths has dropped as migrant crossings dip, but officials are still girding themselves for another increase later this spring.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection rescues along the nation’s southwest border have been skyrocketing, jumping from 2,920 in fiscal 2019 to 37,323 in 2023. Current data for the Del Rio sector, which includes Maverick County, isn’t available, but older records show the number of migrants in need of help has been on the rise. There were 2,000 rescues in fiscal 2021, compared with 480 in 2019.
Meanwhile, the number of deaths is also mounting. Border Patrol agents documented 281 fatalities along the southwest border in 2018; that figure had climbed to 895 in 2022, the last year for which data is available. Those numbers are an undercount because agents are not called to every incident. The Del Rio sector reported more deaths than any other.
Obviously pretty horrible.
And while deaths are certainly undercounted (as noted) they are also the kind of thing that can't be fabricated either. And so are a good sign of actual surges in crossings at the border.
Posts
Why do you think those are hypotheticals? That's stuff being considered for law *right now*
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
You are taking my post and forcibly grafting it onto a very different argument and now confused why it doesn't make sense. Allow me to help you by having written that sentence. Because the bolded IS my point and IS what was being discussed in the quote tree. The argument put forth was that the collapsed negotiations could be used to make against Republicans in future negotiations. That is absolutely false, and I do not appreciate attempting to change the context of my words to fit whatever new argument you are making.
No, the argument was that you use the collapsed negotiations to make Republicans look bad to the sort of turbo-credulous swing voter who prioritizes bipartisan sentiment over everything else. If you can peel a couple votes for Ukraine aid from Republicans disgusted with their own caucus so much the better, but that's gravy.
I have tried to follow along in good faith, and I have no idea what your point is, even now.
So I'm going to bow out. Have fun storming the castle!
Yeah. I don't know where the hell this other stuff is coming from. The whole idea, which has been said multiple times at this point, is that you use the Republicans refusing to support the bipartisan deal they negotiated to attack them for not being interested in solving problems in order to help you in the election coming up. This is a strategy that's already been apparently successfully employed too. It's not some secret what the plan is.
I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth. You are incorrect. Please do not insist I am saying something especially when I am not saying it. It is very rude, and contributes nothing but hostility to threads.
I will reiterate very plainly one final time for people. It was asserted that failed negotiations around the immigration bill could be used to bully the Republicans in future negotiations due to it collapsing from their own actions. This is incorrect as they do not argue in good faith. The collapsed negotiations will not impact their stance in future ones at all as evidenced by their negotiating tactics presently.
What the actual fuck are you talking about
I'm not going to go back and read a dozen pages of this thread's inanity again but I'm pretty sure this wasn't actually said and you misinterpreted the actual argument
No.
It was argued that the Republicans nixing their own deal makes them look stupid and like they don't actually want to solve the problem, and that democrats should hammer them on this point to boost their chances in the upcoming election.
To which there are already Democrats trying to work with them on doing something more awful after blowing up their own immigration deal. I cannot be more clear what I am talking about here. Which is the entire point I am trying to make. I do not know why people are trying to spiral this out into something else. I have not mentioned voters anywhere. I have not mentioned voting anywhere.
I am sticking to the topic of the thread which is immigration including current pending legislation. It appears that people are attempting to twist this into an election argument which was extremely recently said to not be the best use of this thread.
Edit: I will say this mirrors a pattern across this forum to attribute others statements to me assuming I am part of this forum gang war you all engage in to pass the time. Allow me to reiterate I am not. Please try to remember what I have actually said and not inject others arguments into mine. I think my posts will make more sense at that point.
Use this particular failing as a chance to pound Republicans. If they come back to the table later and demand more, we tell them to pound sand and remind them of this. By muffing this the way they did, they've established a hard limit on what they can even ask for before we get to lolnope them, and even if they ask for the same thing, we could still lolnope them because we know they aren't good faith actors.
Maybe we WON'T use their failure this way, but we COULD and we SHOULD.
And I would say the actions of a couple shitty democrats is pretty meaningless until the party as a whole starts taking it as direction.
Whatever they are saying or planning doesn't matter
I wouldn't say meaningless, but their actions are the focus of the point. Republicans are beginning negotiations with "and we want more," because that is how literally every negotiation has gone since the Freedom Caucus became a thing and beyond it. They negotiate in bad faith, and you cannot shame them out of it. They will set the lines they set, and there is little any Democrat can forcibly do about it since the bill is dead without even a record of voting unless the discharge position happens. They have a great deal of leverage here they are using.
I also don't know if it would or wouldn't be to talk about the electoral implications. As you know, I am not a mod. I am trying to keep my comments focused because of how it spiraled recently, and people keep trying to force my statements to that framework. Understandably, I get frustrated having to repeatedly point out I am only saying what I have actually said.
Edit: To clarify in a second thread in as many days, I am not talking about the entire Democratic caucus. They don't agree on a lunch order. I am talking about the stuff that is being done by members of their caucus. I do not enjoy the super position often used to shout down arguments where the Democratic leadership is the only voice that matters when that is convenient, and then switching to we are beholden to the idiot wing when that is convenient. Democratic leadership has chosen to continue to associate with those members and thus their actions are actions taken by Democrats.
The problem solvers caucus is literally "centrism: the caucus" and their primary function is to occasionally fuck things up in Congress.
I mean, leadership seems to basically be ignoring them and showing that they are not controlling the terms of negotiation.
I assume you're implying by "continuing to associate" that the DNC should kick them out of the party?
I dont understand what you’re trying to say.
Is it “nothing matters so we might as well not fight” or is it “we can’t win because when we fight republicans will win anyway”?
Like. I understand that Republicans are bad but I don’t understand how that means them making mistakes isn’t good for democrats and good for policy.
I am reading your posts. But maybe it’s you who is confused or unable to express themselves?
Well you said that you would not trade those rights for anything. Such that there is nothing that you could possibly trade immigration reform for not even those things in the asinine hypothetical
Edit: to be clear. “You have A and B you may pick A or B to keep”. And “you have A you may trade A tor B” are equivalent statements.
And? I don’t give a shit that “republicans” are asking for more and neither does house leadership and neither does senate leadership. It has nothing to do with the thing that was quoted or the thing that the quoted was in reply to. Which was a question of “where is the line”? And the answer was “the line is better now because we have an advantage”. And then you’re back with “but discharge petition” and I am like “are you a nihilist?” Because I cannot possibly read it in any other context.
Roughly yes. You can't stop someone from claiming they are a Democrat, but you can express that you would like to distance yourself from them in that action. Much as I have said repeatedly that Republicans are engaging in this negotiation on the discharge petition I would say the same about Democrats. Interestingly, no one is objecting to the use of Republicans despite Speaker Johnson, and Senate Minority Leader McConnel (I think I have that right but I am having a weird dyslexia moment) stating they want it dead. I struggle to find a good faith interpretation of why that disparity exists, but I am not in the minds of other posters so I will not speculate. I will point out the inconsistency.
Given the number of times people have injected entire arguments into my posts, yourself included, that have no basis in the text I find that difficult to believe. If it were the case I would expect people asking for clarification rather than making up entirely different arguments that conveniently fit the narrative they would like to argue against.
Case in point. You understood what I was saying, but want it to say more. It is solid evidence I am not being unclear as much as people aren't listening to what I am saying. The negotiating point does not change as you claimed. That is all I have said to you, and all I have intended to say.
You do not have to respond I paragraph form. I will accept sentence fragments with labels.
You say “the negotiating point does not change as you claim” and I don’t know what the negotiating point is. I don’t know where I claimed it changed. I don’t know why I would have claimed it “changing”.
Look. In the MENA thread you said “No one is claiming it[the aid] is performative because it is inadequate”, when you had also said, not one day earlier “ In this case the aide[sic] is performative because it is inadequate.” So maybe you can cut me some slack if I am having a hard time parsing what you mean. Since either you have no clue what you’re saying or you don’t have sufficient consistency of thought over a 24 hour period to keep a cogent argument through multiple posts.
This is the second time you have chosen to insult me rather than engage with my point. If you truly wish to get responses then I suggest that change. Otherwise my words will have to stand on their own, and your inability to stick to the arguments I have made will not be something I can help with more. I have repeatedly exactly stated everything you are looking for should you choose to read for content, and not for a way to insult me further.
How is that different then the status quo for cops? A different tangent mostly I know, but worth pointing out that I don't think that part is actually anything.
QI doesn't protect against criminal charges *and* doesn't protect against everything. Trump's idea of immunity probably includes things like "kettle anyone who resists then shoot them all".
Actively encouraging violence against immigrants will absolutely increase the level of violence against them. There is no bottom.
Oh that part is not in doubt. My question is limited in scope for a very specific reason.
In my head for a moment it did, and I can't tell you why exactly. Probably just the lack of accountability overall. I have more to say, but nothing relevant here so I will stop.
Removing the tiny, tiny, tiny chance of justice will also make things worse.
And right now there’s at least the illusion that they might be held accountable. If you tell a bunch of racist cops they are completely immune from any consequences you will see some shocking levels of violence.
Hey @Hydropolo
I think your analysis is pretty solid on this, and my reading wasn't good. Thank you for going back over the data!
No worries, like I said, Pew presented it pretty poorly in the first place and I'm probably over passionate about this issue.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-03-11/tyson-uses-migrants-to-fill-unpleasant-jobs?utm_source=press.coop
"They're taking our jerbs!"
"You want to debone chickens?"
"Fuck no!"
"We're paying more than double minimum wage*?"
"Fuck no!"
* EDIT - That's Federal Minimum Wage, these are migrants in New York being recruited, where $16 is the minimum wage, but still, my point stands.
I may not have a lot of time for Tyson in particular, but the idea that...
- keeping crappy conditions (starting pay rate is apparently $16/hr, so it's not "bad"), but an annual turnover of 40% indicates it's not for everybody.
- not massively increasing costs by huge increases in pay and conditions
- restricting migrant inflow
... is a sustainable outcome is just dumb as fuck. We already saw it in Georgia more than a decade ago, where they really cracked on migrant farm hands.
https://www.al.com/wire/2011/10/crackdown_on_illegal_immigrant.html
Crackdown on illegal immigrants left crops rotting in Georgia fields, ag chief tells US lawmakers (2011)
But that's the Republican platform. Slogans, not solutions.
Chicken plants are fucking disgusting, to the extent that truckers will often flatly refuse pickups or drops for any money because of the smell. 40% turnover honestly doesn't surprise me.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1770152886028144830.html
Fucking shit helling Christ
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So the SCOTUS's hackery is now causing foreign relations problems.
Why is the @$^% 5th the voice of reason (at least for the stay)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/texas-immigration-law-blocked-appeals/index.html
An increased number of crossings is leading to an increased number of people dying during the crossing. To the point that it's also overwhelming local resources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2024/texas-border-eagle-pass-migrant-deaths/ Obviously pretty horrible.
And while deaths are certainly undercounted (as noted) they are also the kind of thing that can't be fabricated either. And so are a good sign of actual surges in crossings at the border.