HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So aside from missing the point of my post you're saying the Biden administration is being awful to migrants because the law is compelling the administration to be as such. That enforcement isn't a granted power, that enforcement is itself enforced (by what mechanism I have no fucking clue because we just had an administration demonstrate that enforcement and accountability are all about choice).
So aside from missing the point of my post you're saying the Biden administration is being awful to migrants because the law is compelling the administration to be as such. That enforcement isn't a granted power, that enforcement is itself enforced (by what mechanism I have no fucking clue because we just had an administration demonstrate that enforcement and accountability are all about choice).
I didn't miss anything in that post. The Biden administration are being dicks, sure, but they're doing good on immigration, like bills which help millions of immigrants get faster legal approval and moving families out of the camps into hotels. The law is a compelling force when it wants to be, I don't know why this is made to be a suggestion to government employees. The fact an example of what you're talking about wasn't answered speaks volumes of the political reality for government employees. Enforcement is a more complicated subject than you're framing, it's not a simple yes or a no answer. Enforcement with ICE was gone over in a previous post, ICE weren't doing the same activities during Obama's term for a reason - he didn't look the other way while they killed people, Trump did.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Hispanic people and migrants at or through the system / point of entry will be the judges of the administration doing 'good' on immigration (focused on the southern border), first of all.
If you wanted an example you should've plainly asked. And it's easy; the public announcement of "we're turning people away at the border." They don't have to do that. That is a decision they (the administration) made and I'm sure ICE and CBP is happy to comply with it. They could've made other decisions, like letting a queue build up on the other side of the border, or expand resources on our side to let people in temporarily but not sit out in the desert, or coordinate more with the Mexican government / help provide resources on that side for the queue idea,
The vast majority of what the Biden administration is doing at the border (because they decided to keep certain Trump policies in place) is entirely their choice. I guess they find those policies useful, but it's not a question of their hands being bound, it's the gulf between them and Stephen Miller being much smaller than they made it out to be.
Hispanic people and migrants at or through the system / point of entry will be the judges of the administration doing 'good' on immigration (focused on the southern border), first of all.
Yeah, they will. What makes you think they all hate what Biden did in the examples I raised? What's bad about Biden passing a bill for millions of immigrants to get legal citizenship or moving families from the camps into hotels?
If you wanted an example you should've plainly asked. And it's easy; the public announcement of "we're turning people away at the border." They don't have to do that. That is a decision they (the administration) made and I'm sure ICE and CBP is happy to comply with it. They could've made other decisions, like letting a queue build up on the other side of the border, or expand resources on our side to let people in temporarily but not sit out in the desert, or coordinate more with the Mexican government / help provide resources on that side for the queue idea,
etc etc etc
I did. That's moving the goal posts, and yes they do have to turn away people at the border since one Biden was elected America didn't erase its leal stance on having borders, that takes an act of congress even if Biden wanted to do that. ICE hated Obama for putting a leash on them and loved Trump when he let them loose. The Border patrol have their own issues being an inherency racist institution themselves. Those are executive and congress related issues, not in the hands of government employees to do whatever they like at the border. Unless a law is taken away the executive has immense control to enact its will through government employees, like ICE and border patrol.
Biden also has sent envoys to Mexico and Guatemala for assistance with immigration from Latin America.
WASHINGTON/MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - U.S. officials will ask authorities in Mexico and Guatemala to help stem migrant traffic, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday, as the Biden administration struggles to contain a burgeoning humanitarian challenge along the U.S. border with Mexico.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2021
Helping to stem migrant traffic is not the same thing as helping to provide for people at the border while they wait to be legally processed in, Mr. Dresden.
That's literally what Trump kept trying to do, but in a different language. Trying to stop the movement of asylum seekers and immigrants from reaching the southern US border remains the goal, only this time they don't use the word caravans, and will occasionally say the phrase "root causes."
I think we had widespread agreement in this thread that we wanted to see journalistic access to the situation in these centres and that we did not necessarily trust the government's statement on conditions at face value without that scrutiny
I seem to remember that lots of people agreed with that and thought that would be a good idea
We now have a situation where journalists have shown that yes, the conditions in these centres is not adequate. It is therefore disappointing to see people defending the Biden administration's actions on this. Ultimately ICE and the condition of these centres are the responsibility of the President's subordinate offices who are the responsibility of the President. There is plenty to criticise about both and very little action from the Biden admin it seems to alleviate these problems or conditions.
People who were very happy to call ICE fascistic racist thugs when Trump was in charge should remember that those same staff are still there. So either they were never fascistic racist thugs (unlikely) or Biden's admin is failing to deal with these people in the ranks of the organisations they are responsible for. I feel like the latter is clearly the case. The Biden Admin does not need defending on this matter IMO, and much of the defence comes from partisan support of a Dem admin rather than a clear eyed view of what is happening.
The problem with arguing the law is the law is that it avoids questions as to whether or not the law itself has been just or not.
Those are two separate arguments. Acknowledging the administration must follow the law is objectively pointing out a fact, since the laws don't all disintegrate legally when a new president is elected. You can't change something properly if you're not willing to acknowledge the full depth of what the situation is, and that includes how the law is maintained. It's not about avoiding anything, if anything ignoring how the law effects immigration would be avoiding realities of governing.
So far the law has packed thousands of non-white immigrants into camps and similar detainment facilities, over capacity by hundreds of percentage points, in cruel and deplorable conditions, while for months lawyers were denied access and media was forbidden from documenting the conditions.
The law also is moving immigrant families out of those concentration camps into hotels, which people wanted I'll add, and also how we got programs like DACA. "The law" does lots of terrible shit, but that's not all the law does. The law was also much worse during Trump, and much of what ICE did was deliberately avoiding following lawful protocols - they were sabotaging it from within and they got away with it because Trump's administration looked the other way. I agree the media should have full access to those facilities and documenting what's going on, btw. And are we getting into making the borders open? Is that included in this, because its heavily implied and a big conversation in itself.
Again the quote from No Country For Old Men echoes in my head as defenses of the administration’s handling of this are put forward: “If the rule you followed brought you here, of what use was the rule?”
IIRC that's exactly what the government lawyers are doing at the moment.
Of what use have these laws been? Truly been? Because all I see are desperate people being told to get out of this country because they did it “wrong,” a process instituted for the cause of white supremacy in the 19th century and today gives bigots the excuse that our immigration laws are for filtering out those who pose no benefit to the nation, and those whom we have yet to deport are held under restrictions that any of us, subjected to them ourselves, would consider nightmarish and intolerable.
Which laws? Laws by itself are meaningless because there are so many laws which covers immigration, some laws are horrible, some have merit and some who knows. Do you want to get into specifics? Generalising gets us nowhere and theres needs to be more to do than shitting on the government. Right wingers do that, too, y'know.
Of what use is this rule?
Which rule? This could mean anything from closing the borders to moving families into hotels to what crazy evil shit ICE did when Trump was president. What exactly are you talking about?
Edit: "Rules" and "the law" are neutral terms, they mean anything and everything unless it's narrowed down.
Harry, it’s the immigration thread. Our collection of immigration laws and policies are the ones under discussion here. Especially when the entire system is broken because it’s entire foundation was created not on the betterment of the country, but on limiting immigration to prevent a white majority from being overridden. Strides were taken to make it, on it’s face, less racist, but the entire foundation of limiting immigration to the United States was specifically to keep those numbers down. All we’ve done since then is white wash the whole thing in order to seem less racist than we are on a systematic level.
As well, as always applicable to this debate, Dr. King:
There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Our immigration laws are unjust, and I see no fitness in accepting the explanation that the president must execute laws even if they are unjust as a reasonable answer to the ethical questions that lay before us in handling immigration, particularly as applied to those immigrants crossing from the southern border.
Just because power is granted by law does not mean it requires the execution there of. The office of the executive can make selective decisions about doing things for humane reasons.
The law isn't a suggestion, Henroid. Police do have the capacity to avoid basic responsibilities but that's upheld by the law it's not something they just do without any legal precedent. In practice the only times we hear about government doing that are when they're harming people, like immigrants. The law system has political weight, not every government employee are free to just ignore the law when they feel like it. Where have you heard of this ever happening in immigration? Te executive isn't toothless and isn't this isn't one of its weaknesses where good people are rewarded. If they are, I'd love to hear an example. When the executive does have the power to do this, it comes from above with executive orders - which has limits.
And if Republicans want to sue to try and force those things bring it the fuck on, it's their money to waste.
They don't need to sue. All they need is congress to block bills, SCOTUS to cripple bills further and have their people embedded in the courts and police, and places like immigration, to fuck it up from the inside. Millions have been hurt by their activities succeeding, this is why DACA is not as strong as it should have been when it was created. This is how Republicans gain credibility in government, it's not wasted money for them. They get horrific results.
The executive has, regularly, utilized prioritization as a means of effectively skirting around aspects of law before as a way of making the systems they govern less harsh. In immigration, you had this happen with Obama announcing it’s prioritization of violent offenders versus the non-violent regarding deportation (though given immigration activists work on the matter, nowhere near far enough, apparently).
As for your second part, you’ve seemed to misunderstood the point. They would sue because the course of action is the aforementioned prioritization. Presumably, then the Republicans would respond like you have here, arguing that the law must be followed, and sue the administration for failing to follow through. This isn’t a congressional question, it’s a topic of the authority of the executive in how it executes the law. Hence, why it would be “their money to waste” as they’d have to wage a legal challenge to the executive authority to pursue less harsh measures against immigrants who have crossed without following our immigration regs
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
So what laws would allow the family separation
You have framed the question incorrectly. The purpose of the immigration laws, and the organizations that enforce them, are to discourage those deemed "undesirable" from coming to America. Implementing a policy to further discourage them from coming to America is therefore a logical extension of those existing laws and their intended purpose.
What you're looking for is any particular laws that would specifically prohibit Trump from implementing family separation.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
So what laws would allow the family separation
You have framed the question incorrectly. The purpose of the immigration laws, and the organizations that enforce them, are to discourage those deemed "undesirable" from coming to America. Implementing a policy to further discourage them from coming to America is therefore a logical extension of those existing laws and their intended purpose.
What you're looking for is any particular laws that would specifically prohibit Trump from implementing family separation.
I can also be looking for laws that implicitly ban Trump from family separation due to previously agreed upon treaty statute or legal interpretation.
Basically someone said that it was illegal.
You responded that it was just generalized American policy and whether it's illegal or not didn't matter. Also that it could be a logical outgrowth of previous legal policies.
I want to know who actually has the law on their side.
Family separations are a microcosm within the larger issue of immigration.
Even if Trump had never implemented the policy of family separation, what was being done at the border and nation-wide by ICE, DHS, et al., operating under the powers and authority granted to them by previous administrations would still be appalling and unacceptable.
Just a couple years ago, I was under the impression that there was essentially a consensus on these forums with regards to abolishing ICE. But I cannot square that with how vociferously people have been defending an essentially unchanged immigration policy stance by the Biden administration.
I don't think there's American law against genocide specifically (as separate from other overlapping crimes like murder, slavery, etc.), let alone law against separating detained non-citizens. Constitutional rights don't do a whole lot here because the whole framing of enlightenment human rights is hyper individualistic. The argument seems that it would have to be that separating contradicts international treatise we have signed on to and you would need to convince some judicial authority of that connection, likely up to the supreme court.
I don't think there's American law against genocide specifically (as separate from other overlapping crimes like murder, slavery, etc.), let alone law against separating detained non-citizens. Constitutional rights don't do a whole lot here because the whole framing of enlightenment human rights is hyper individualistic. The argument seems that it would have to be that separating contradicts international treatise we have signed on to and you would need to convince some judicial authority of that connection, likely up to the supreme court.
I did a quick wiki and it looks like every judicial decision was that no this is actually illegal against constitutional process against general constitutional requirements and you've got to knock this s*** out.
It looks like there was a general ruling that had been in place for 20 years and that the Trump people decided to disregard that.
You are not going to have an unfiltered immigration system without massive internal support. America has been clamping down on immigration for generations and the empowered population considers this the expected norm. No party capable of getting into office is going to throw open the borders without a massive change in the attitudes of voters.
It's worth noting that no new immigration laws were passed under the previous administration. All of the ire directed at Trump and the execturive from 2017-2020 were due to their implementation and interpretation of existing law. 'He's just following the law' was not a justifiable defense then, nor should it be now.
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
But it was illegal. I mentioned that it was genocide (because it's true) but the operative concept was that it was illegal (which is also true.)
You are not going to have an unfiltered immigration system without massive internal support. America has been clamping down on immigration for generations and the empowered population considers this the expected norm. No party capable of getting into office is going to throw open the borders without a massive change in the attitudes of voters.
Are you trying to draw a line from "abolish ICE" to "open borders?" Certainly that's a path some people would like to peruse but abolishing all immigration laws is a different debate than abolishing ICE. America was able to have racist and restrictive immigration laws and policies just fine before the invention of ICE, if that's anyone's concern.
You are not going to have an unfiltered immigration system without massive internal support. America has been clamping down on immigration for generations and the empowered population considers this the expected norm. No party capable of getting into office is going to throw open the borders without a massive change in the attitudes of voters.
Are you trying to draw a line from "abolish ICE" to "open borders?" Certainly that's a path some people would like to peruse but abolishing all immigration laws is a different debate than abolishing ICE. America was able to have racist and restrictive immigration laws and policies just fine before the invention of ICE, if that's anyone's concern.
Family separations are a microcosm within the larger issue of immigration.
Even if Trump had never implemented the policy of family separation, what was being done at the border and nation-wide by ICE, DHS, et al., operating under the powers and authority granted to them by previous administrations would still be appalling and unacceptable.
Just a couple years ago, I was under the impression that there was essentially a consensus on these forums with regards to abolishing ICE. But I cannot square that with how vociferously people have been defending an essentially unchanged immigration policy stance by the Biden administration.
Because you are confusing "abolish ICE" with "not having rules and restrictions on immigration". Just because people think ICE is a shit organization run and staffed by xenophobes doesn't mean they don't want there to exist people who process and regulate immigration and border crossings. It just means they want it done more humanely by an organization that would actually be capable of doing that.
This is honestly almost exactly the broader disconnect between what a lot of people here say and thing immigration activists like to say and the general public. The general public is mostly either "less immigrants" or "more immigrants with a more humane immigration system and a path to citizenship for people who are already here". And much more the second then the first. Groups pushing for more broader overhauls of how immigration is treated are much louder then they are numerous.
Which is to say both that people see Biden trying to do better and some are more willing to cut them slack on the logistical problems with dealing with the current situation right now and that Biden is broadly trying to execute on the thing he said he'd do and the thing the general public mostly wants, which is a broadly similar immigration framework but more humane and with more immigrants and more ways for undocumented people already in the US to become citizens.
What is it that Biden said he would do, and how is he broadly trying to execute upon it?
Because as it stands all I can see is him having said he would end family separations and that's basically happened but as I already said that's a microcosm within the actual problem which has not much changed since before Trump took office.
His stated position, which I fucking quoted him on the previous page of this thread, is to discourage people from coming to the country. Treating migrants more humanely is going to achieve the exact opposite of discouraging people from coming here, so sorry, but no, what he is trying to achieve does not line up with those of us advocating for humane treatment of migrants and broad overhaul of our immigration system.
We cannot, in a rush to absolve Biden of any sin, forget to acknowledge that a lot of what Trump was doing was merely a continuation and extension of established policy under Obama.
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.
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.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Including an attempt to put a moratorium on immigration, which was prevented by the courts in a preliminary step of a lawsuit from the Attorney General of Texas.
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.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Supposedly, at a pace MANY of us consider WAAAAY to slow.
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.
This is the immigration thread, though, not the Biden promises tracker thread. And several of us find his standards to be far below a humane, ethical line.
Hence the argument: we don’t find his handling of the situation sufficient, his prioritization is lacking and we find his messaging on saying he doesn’t want the immigrants to come here abhorrent and, I would argue, founded in the same racist miasma that has been the core of US immigration policy since the Chinese exclusion act, only superficially excused by being in place for well over a century and white washed to the point most folk don’t understand where restrictions on US immigration began or why.
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.
Why is this a problem? We routinely criticize politicians for not doing things they didnt say theyd do.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Is there any actual evidence for this or is this just blind faith? Like, what concrete steps has Biden's admin taken so far?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Supposedly, at a pace MANY of us consider WAAAAY to slow.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Is there any actual evidence for this or is this just blind faith? Like, what concrete steps has Biden's admin taken so far?
His administration is spending millions to temporarily house some migrants in hotels, which is a thing I believe people here were saying he should. That’s one thing. It’s not perfect and I’m sure more could be done. But they are trying.
Marathon, I'm not even sure where you are going with this conversation anymore, it reads like you are arguing both sides. Biden spending millions is peanuts against the bigger problems. It's trying to put a bandaid on the latest laceration we've gotten from trying to climb over razor wire. Yes it's something, no it's not enough and it's just treating a symptom. He should be using this situation to rile up public support for an actual solution. As a reminder to folks, leaders, even politicians aren't just beholden to the "will" of the public. They have a duty to also try and lead and drive the will of the public.
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.
Marathon, I'm not even sure where you are going with this conversation anymore, it reads like you are arguing both sides. Biden spending millions is peanuts against the bigger problems. It's trying to put a bandaid on the latest laceration we've gotten from trying to climb over razor wire. Yes it's something, no it's not enough and it's just treating a symptom. He should be using this situation to rile up public support for an actual solution. As a reminder to folks, leaders, even politicians aren't just beholden to the "will" of the public. They have a duty to also try and lead and drive the will of the public.
I’m acknowledging that while things are trying to improve there is still a ways to go. There’s a middle ground between denying anything is wrong and being relentlessly negative. I don’t believe either extreme is accurate and am just voicing that opinion. People are free to disagree, but I’m not going to be berated into agreeing with people.
Posts
I didn't miss anything in that post. The Biden administration are being dicks, sure, but they're doing good on immigration, like bills which help millions of immigrants get faster legal approval and moving families out of the camps into hotels. The law is a compelling force when it wants to be, I don't know why this is made to be a suggestion to government employees. The fact an example of what you're talking about wasn't answered speaks volumes of the political reality for government employees. Enforcement is a more complicated subject than you're framing, it's not a simple yes or a no answer. Enforcement with ICE was gone over in a previous post, ICE weren't doing the same activities during Obama's term for a reason - he didn't look the other way while they killed people, Trump did.
If you wanted an example you should've plainly asked. And it's easy; the public announcement of "we're turning people away at the border." They don't have to do that. That is a decision they (the administration) made and I'm sure ICE and CBP is happy to comply with it. They could've made other decisions, like letting a queue build up on the other side of the border, or expand resources on our side to let people in temporarily but not sit out in the desert, or coordinate more with the Mexican government / help provide resources on that side for the queue idea,
etc etc etc
Yeah, they will. What makes you think they all hate what Biden did in the examples I raised? What's bad about Biden passing a bill for millions of immigrants to get legal citizenship or moving families from the camps into hotels?
I did. That's moving the goal posts, and yes they do have to turn away people at the border since one Biden was elected America didn't erase its leal stance on having borders, that takes an act of congress even if Biden wanted to do that. ICE hated Obama for putting a leash on them and loved Trump when he let them loose. The Border patrol have their own issues being an inherency racist institution themselves. Those are executive and congress related issues, not in the hands of government employees to do whatever they like at the border. Unless a law is taken away the executive has immense control to enact its will through government employees, like ICE and border patrol.
Biden also has sent envoys to Mexico and Guatemala for assistance with immigration from Latin America.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-biden-idUSKBN2BE28T
I seem to remember that lots of people agreed with that and thought that would be a good idea
We now have a situation where journalists have shown that yes, the conditions in these centres is not adequate. It is therefore disappointing to see people defending the Biden administration's actions on this. Ultimately ICE and the condition of these centres are the responsibility of the President's subordinate offices who are the responsibility of the President. There is plenty to criticise about both and very little action from the Biden admin it seems to alleviate these problems or conditions.
People who were very happy to call ICE fascistic racist thugs when Trump was in charge should remember that those same staff are still there. So either they were never fascistic racist thugs (unlikely) or Biden's admin is failing to deal with these people in the ranks of the organisations they are responsible for. I feel like the latter is clearly the case. The Biden Admin does not need defending on this matter IMO, and much of the defence comes from partisan support of a Dem admin rather than a clear eyed view of what is happening.
Harry, it’s the immigration thread. Our collection of immigration laws and policies are the ones under discussion here. Especially when the entire system is broken because it’s entire foundation was created not on the betterment of the country, but on limiting immigration to prevent a white majority from being overridden. Strides were taken to make it, on it’s face, less racist, but the entire foundation of limiting immigration to the United States was specifically to keep those numbers down. All we’ve done since then is white wash the whole thing in order to seem less racist than we are on a systematic level.
As well, as always applicable to this debate, Dr. King:
Our immigration laws are unjust, and I see no fitness in accepting the explanation that the president must execute laws even if they are unjust as a reasonable answer to the ethical questions that lay before us in handling immigration, particularly as applied to those immigrants crossing from the southern border.
The executive has, regularly, utilized prioritization as a means of effectively skirting around aspects of law before as a way of making the systems they govern less harsh. In immigration, you had this happen with Obama announcing it’s prioritization of violent offenders versus the non-violent regarding deportation (though given immigration activists work on the matter, nowhere near far enough, apparently).
As for your second part, you’ve seemed to misunderstood the point. They would sue because the course of action is the aforementioned prioritization. Presumably, then the Republicans would respond like you have here, arguing that the law must be followed, and sue the administration for failing to follow through. This isn’t a congressional question, it’s a topic of the authority of the executive in how it executes the law. Hence, why it would be “their money to waste” as they’d have to wage a legal challenge to the executive authority to pursue less harsh measures against immigrants who have crossed without following our immigration regs
The executive and its departments are given a very wide scope in regards to how it interprets, enforces, or how it enforces written statues, and this is by design. There is no mandate; much of what they do, is done at their whim.
Trump was very much not "just following the law". For one, they implemented a policy of family separations that was a form of genocide. It was very much illegal.
The government of the United States of America has a long and storied history of committing genocide, sometimes committed under adherence to its own laws and sometimes committed in knowing and spiteful defiance of them.
Frankly speaking, the former is a more common occurrence than the latter. The policy of family separation being a form of genocide does not preclude it from being a logical application of laws already in place when Trump took office.
So what laws would allow the family separation
You have framed the question incorrectly. The purpose of the immigration laws, and the organizations that enforce them, are to discourage those deemed "undesirable" from coming to America. Implementing a policy to further discourage them from coming to America is therefore a logical extension of those existing laws and their intended purpose.
What you're looking for is any particular laws that would specifically prohibit Trump from implementing family separation.
I can also be looking for laws that implicitly ban Trump from family separation due to previously agreed upon treaty statute or legal interpretation.
Basically someone said that it was illegal.
You responded that it was just generalized American policy and whether it's illegal or not didn't matter. Also that it could be a logical outgrowth of previous legal policies.
I want to know who actually has the law on their side.
Even if Trump had never implemented the policy of family separation, what was being done at the border and nation-wide by ICE, DHS, et al., operating under the powers and authority granted to them by previous administrations would still be appalling and unacceptable.
Just a couple years ago, I was under the impression that there was essentially a consensus on these forums with regards to abolishing ICE. But I cannot square that with how vociferously people have been defending an essentially unchanged immigration policy stance by the Biden administration.
I did a quick wiki and it looks like every judicial decision was that no this is actually illegal against constitutional process against general constitutional requirements and you've got to knock this s*** out.
It looks like there was a general ruling that had been in place for 20 years and that the Trump people decided to disregard that.
But it was illegal. I mentioned that it was genocide (because it's true) but the operative concept was that it was illegal (which is also true.)
Are you trying to draw a line from "abolish ICE" to "open borders?" Certainly that's a path some people would like to peruse but abolishing all immigration laws is a different debate than abolishing ICE. America was able to have racist and restrictive immigration laws and policies just fine before the invention of ICE, if that's anyone's concern.
No, I am not.
Because you are confusing "abolish ICE" with "not having rules and restrictions on immigration". Just because people think ICE is a shit organization run and staffed by xenophobes doesn't mean they don't want there to exist people who process and regulate immigration and border crossings. It just means they want it done more humanely by an organization that would actually be capable of doing that.
This is honestly almost exactly the broader disconnect between what a lot of people here say and thing immigration activists like to say and the general public. The general public is mostly either "less immigrants" or "more immigrants with a more humane immigration system and a path to citizenship for people who are already here". And much more the second then the first. Groups pushing for more broader overhauls of how immigration is treated are much louder then they are numerous.
Which is to say both that people see Biden trying to do better and some are more willing to cut them slack on the logistical problems with dealing with the current situation right now and that Biden is broadly trying to execute on the thing he said he'd do and the thing the general public mostly wants, which is a broadly similar immigration framework but more humane and with more immigrants and more ways for undocumented people already in the US to become citizens.
Because as it stands all I can see is him having said he would end family separations and that's basically happened but as I already said that's a microcosm within the actual problem which has not much changed since before Trump took office.
His stated position, which I fucking quoted him on the previous page of this thread, is to discourage people from coming to the country. Treating migrants more humanely is going to achieve the exact opposite of discouraging people from coming here, so sorry, but no, what he is trying to achieve does not line up with those of us advocating for humane treatment of migrants and broad overhaul of our immigration system.
We cannot, in a rush to absolve Biden of any sin, forget to acknowledge that a lot of what Trump was doing was merely a continuation and extension of established policy under Obama.
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.
Children's shelters 1700% overloaded during a pandemic (and that's when they FINALLY allowed a reporter in, 3 months later) is a large part of what he's being criticized for.
To be clear, if it was that bad prior to those 3 months, and he didn't have the resources to fix it, he should have been blasting that out saying "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED FUNDS TO FIX THIS FAST"
And they are working to make it better. Nobody thinks what’s happening is acceptable, even Biden. We all wish it was happening faster.
Including an attempt to put a moratorium on immigration, which was prevented by the courts in a preliminary step of a lawsuit from the Attorney General of Texas.
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.
Supposedly, at a pace MANY of us consider WAAAAY to slow.
This is the immigration thread, though, not the Biden promises tracker thread. And several of us find his standards to be far below a humane, ethical line.
Hence the argument: we don’t find his handling of the situation sufficient, his prioritization is lacking and we find his messaging on saying he doesn’t want the immigrants to come here abhorrent and, I would argue, founded in the same racist miasma that has been the core of US immigration policy since the Chinese exclusion act, only superficially excused by being in place for well over a century and white washed to the point most folk don’t understand where restrictions on US immigration began or why.
Biden’s standards are horrid, hence the criticism
Why is this a problem? We routinely criticize politicians for not doing things they didnt say theyd do.
Is there any actual evidence for this or is this just blind faith? Like, what concrete steps has Biden's admin taken so far?
Me too!
His administration is spending millions to temporarily house some migrants in hotels, which is a thing I believe people here were saying he should. That’s one thing. It’s not perfect and I’m sure more could be done. But they are trying.
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.
I’m acknowledging that while things are trying to improve there is still a ways to go. There’s a middle ground between denying anything is wrong and being relentlessly negative. I don’t believe either extreme is accurate and am just voicing that opinion. People are free to disagree, but I’m not going to be berated into agreeing with people.