361–370 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still think it is foolish to write off the current administration as if it's just another iteration of back and forth corruption You are deeply, deeply misunderstanding my point if this is what you got from my post. "Our guys" was tongue in cheek.
Care to elaborate on your point then? Reading what you have written, I do agree with the abstract thrust of where you're coming from. But I have also observed that the destructionists appeal to similar lofty ideas to justify what is currently going on - eg accelerationism. (I also don't know what difference "tongue in cheek" makes. I've never looked at the government and thought anything like "these people represent…
My point can be read as a recognition that ratcheting happens within the boring minutia and work is rarely done to recover from those ratchetings. Things like continuation of prosecution policies, legislation changes, staff changes, etc. There's a very strong tendency to consider those sorts of ratcheting effects as "just how things are" rather than recognizing that no, it hasn't always been that way.
Like, progressive politicians love to talk a big game about transparency, but when it comes down to it, they themselves contribute to systemic transparency failures. See Chicago's past two mayors' campaign transparency promises. Both have done a complete 180 on those promises and use never-losing lawyers to enforce that sort of thing. Chicago's mayor's office once asked me to do analysis of parking tickets' effects on poor folk... then a few months later accused my wanting a data dictionary of the parking tickets system so that I could modify the parking ticket system's data. That led to bad case law at the IL supreme court.
It's shit like that. The small-but-not-really-small things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem I was listening to a historian discuss the other day is that we're stuck in a cycle of: > 1. Republican breaks norms/laws > 2. Democrat cleans up after, but by not breaking norms, doesn't go far enough to actually undo all the damage > 3. We end up with a more broken governmental configuration, and head back to (1) > They said this pattern goes back to Nixon. This is set to continue, else they wouldn't…
Suggesting that republicans break, democrats overlook is biased and inaccurate. Obama attempted and got away with plenty of "creative" interpretations of the law. There's a clear partisan tendency to overlook oversteps that are in the favor of one's "team". Party politics is a disease.
Democrats often go for “creative” interpretations that fit the existing legal framework just fine. Defining CO2 as pollution is upsetting for what it does but is within the spirit of what the law was intended and fits what it actually says just fine. Much of the civil rights movement operated on such principles because the laws where on the books it was the systems that didn’t keep up.
Republicans tend to find creative interpretations that depend on ill defined principles like executive power or corporate personhood which have about as much to do with the actual law as sovereign citizens and are open to unlimited abuse.
Failing to differentiate between each type of interpretation misses the inherent limitations of the first type.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a couple of these points are getting mixed together. On the “crimes aren’t prosecuted” issue: that’s a broader criminal justice question, not really an immigration one. Whether someone is a citizen, documented immigrant, or undocumented immigrant, the question of prosecution policy is the same. If people think prosecutors are being too lenient, that’s something to take up locally through elections, town halls…
> Immigration status doesn’t really change that dynamic. Yes and no. It raises the question of how this specific crime could have been prevented. And it is very hard to argue against that with proper border enforcement, there is a good chance that some crime would have never happened. The issue of social justice driven prosecution, while not related to the act of entering without inspection, just amplifies all these…
We need to solve the problem of prosecution and punishment of crimes. And we need to solve the problem of improper border enforcement. But this ain't the way. This just seems like a huge waste of resources.
And just another thought -- when non-white US citizens such as myself, my relatives, my in-laws, feel the need to carry their passports on them to prove citizenship and even then are fearful of being roughhoused and detained for no reason, the system is obviously broken. Or, maybe it's working exactly as intended.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/georgia-army-veteran-go...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-citizens have constitutional rights as well. The DHS having the ability to produce subpoenas without judicial oversight is definitely a bad thing.
Sure, their rights will not be violated. They will not be jailed for their activism just removed/banned from the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only because we made the "overstaying" an illegal offense. But there's no reason to -- if the guy was paying taxes the whole time, and never committed a serious crime, then we should be happy to welcome such guys, ramping up our GDP. Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k. Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a c…
You make it sound like deportations happen because of some mistaken legal wording. That's distortion of reality. A significant amount of US citizens voted for them to happen. I'm sure they heard about GDP many times and still found other reasons more important. It wouldn't be a wild guess to assume that they won't buy Spain as a good example.
I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept, with arbitrary timelines, and is not explainable by any rational considerations of the state. Otherwise they'd neglect it.
Or, as I saw myself in another country, a border guy is like "Wow, you overstayed your visa by N years! Don't worry, let me correct that. I recommend getting a permanent residency, would be easier for you to pay taxes and use our government systems. Welcome!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Immigration status doesn’t really change that dynamic. Yes and no. It raises the question of how this specific crime could have been prevented. And it is very hard to argue against that with proper border enforcement, there is a good chance that some crime would have never happened. The issue of social justice driven prosecution, while not related to the act of entering without inspection, just amplifies all these…
What problem are we trying to solve here? I agree that we need to have proper border enforcement. But deporting people because they got a traffic citation[1]? Am I supposed to feel safer from "dangerous immigrants" now? We need to solve the problem of prosecution and punishment of crimes. And we need to solve the problem of improper border enforcement. But this ain't the way. This just seems like a huge waste of reso…
So what is the “thing” that justifies deporting in your view?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem I was listening to a historian discuss the other day is that we're stuck in a cycle of: > 1. Republican breaks norms/laws > 2. Democrat cleans up after, but by not breaking norms, doesn't go far enough to actually undo all the damage > 3. We end up with a more broken governmental configuration, and head back to (1) > They said this pattern goes back to Nixon. This is set to continue, else they wouldn't…
It's called the ratchet effect, and it has been extremely obvious since at least Obama. In recent years it's become far worse again. Continuing a $20 trillion war on terror. Torturing people. Smearing whistleblowers. Killing millions with sanctions. Arming genocide and vetoing ceasefires. Keeping millions of files with details of the most horrific crimes imaginable sealed, while the perpetrators hang out on islands a…
I think one reason why this is especially bad in the US is because of its cultural optimism, which inherently leads to extreme shorttermism. People are vouching to support Clinton/Biden/Harris/... because of blind optimism that somehow after 4 years thing will get better, to an extent of willingly completely ignoring the previous decades and somewhere deep down knowing that doing it is probably worse in the long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What problem are we trying to solve here? I agree that we need to have proper border enforcement. But deporting people because they got a traffic citation[1]? Am I supposed to feel safer from "dangerous immigrants" now? We need to solve the problem of prosecution and punishment of crimes. And we need to solve the problem of improper border enforcement. But this ain't the way. This just seems like a huge waste of reso…
> But deporting people because they got a traffic citation So what is the “thing” that justifies deporting in your view?
My point is that we have people at the top levels of government and corporation who have associated with a known sex trafficker. We have crimes literally right in front of our faces. Why are we spending resources on building a secret police of masked thugs who are basically doing whatever they want however they want, to deport people hanging outside of Home Depot?
Again, what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we just looking for people to deport, or are we trying to reduce crime? If we are looking for people to deport, then they should just say that instead of pretending like they are going after violent criminals and gangbangers, but then deporting gardeners.
If we are trying to reduce crime, there's some obvious places to start, and it isn't at the local Home Depot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this. Reminds me of a certain ideology, can't quite put my finger on it. I think it starts with F
I find it funny how many people think that Capitalism and Fascism are compatible or the same... completely disregarding the fact that Fascism is a form of Socialism borne out of the limitations of Communism.