US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Romey 1878]

The US has now quit the UN Human Rights Council, right?

[Ghoat]

Appear so. I didn't really know too much about until today.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44552304

[Palfy]

Jesus Trump will be buying an iron curtain soon to keep you all in and us all out, I think the time has come for the rest of the G7 and other powers to take him on in a united front and let’s see who wins the trade war and and any other wars he cares to wage. 

[MikeO]

30 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Jesus Trump will be buying an iron curtain soon to keep you all in and us all out, I think the time has come for the rest of the G7 and other powers to take him on in a united front and let’s see who wins the trade war and and any other wars he cares to wage. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44549712

[MikeO]

On 19/06/2018 at 14:36, markjazzbassist said:

its disgusting and the blaming on democrats is stupid.  repubs controls all things house, senate, white house, supreme court, they can change it if they want to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

[markjazzbassist]

Just now, MikeO said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

he flip flops on stuff so much you have to wait till something is actually signed to see where he stands.  

[Palfy]

18 minutes ago, MikeO said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

Looks like some tough times ahead 

[holystove]

On 20/06/2018 at 20:19, Palfy said:

Looks like some tough times ahead 

The rest of the world should just let him blow himself up.  This is a great point by one of Autralia's former trade negotiators (Dmitry Grozoubinski):

Trade 'War' suggests countries shooting at each other. That's not what's going on. The correct analogy for tariff hikes is blowing up your own cities and wafting the resulting smoke across the border in the hopes it will sting their eyes.

[Sibdane]

[Sibdane]

Good move in my opinion. President/VP should be required to release their returns.

https://www.wfla.com/national/bill-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot-unless-he-releases-his-tax-returns/1251559081

 

[Cornish Steve]

If you'd like a really good laugh, spend a little while reading this Twitter feed. It belongs to the Red Hen restaurant in Washington DC, totally unrelated and unaffiliated with the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia that refused to serve the president's press secretary last week. The level of ignorance in this thread is mind-boggling, but the restaurant's representative, through their consistently calm and measured responses, has become something of a cult hero.
 

 

[rubecula]

great read that,  made me laugh silently

[Ghoat]

It's like you know you're going to go to bed stupider than when you woke up some days if you read social media...but you do it anyway. God sometimes I wish Al Gore would uninvent the internet.

[nyblue23]

On 19/06/2018 at 19:37, Ghoat said:

That I don't honestly know Mike. Assuming in your scenario they are in Mexico at the US border, I would think (meaning I don't know) that they would simply be turned away at the border if they didn't have passports and visas. In which cases they are on Mexican soil, because they couldn't cross - technically they would be subject to Mexico's laws. "Mexico's problem not ours" so to speak. 

I would not think that we could possibly split them up, or detain them at all, because we wouldn't have any legal standing or jurisdiction "in" Mexico. Unless there is some formal agreement between Mexico and the US for the US to have jurisdiction over immigration of non-Mexican citizens on the border, then at that point they would be illegal immigrants in Mexico and under jurisdiction of the Federales - even if they were just in transit. 

If they are caught crossing/discovered or whatever the right word is, on US soil without legal right to enter, then obviously it's US law/policy.  

I hope someone knows, otherwise I'm gonna be searching all kinda shit.

Quoted your shorter one just to save time, but this is in response to your previous post.

I see three main problems with your reasoning in the first 12 or so paragraphs:

1. The majority of families being separated were families coming from Central America seeking asylum from gangs. Seeking asylum in the U.S. by crossing the border is not illegal. Knowing this, most of those folks actively sought out border patrol agents, expecting to be met by the same legal process that many others have gone through, and instead were jailed and separated from their children in clear violation of the established legal process for seeking asylum. I repeat: most of these people followed a legal process. They did NOT enter the country illegally.

2. The idea that undocumented immigrants are an economic drain on the U.S. is specious at best. Immigrants, for the most part, pay taxes. From Forbes (not exactly your bastion of progressive economic scholarship): https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/10/06/how-much-tax-do-americas-undocumented-immigrants-actually-pay-infographic/#160573291de0 In my mind, $11.64 billion is no small contribution to our system given the generally low-paying nature of the jobs that undocumented immigrants take. Add to that the fact that they are far less likely to take advantage of most public services out of fear of being discovered and the argument falls apart even further.

3. Finally, much of the rhetoric you’ve used seems to be at least partially informed by some of the hate-mongering of the current administration. Undocumented immigrants are far less likely to be a “criminal or malcontent” than are native born Americans. They are not “illegals;” they are people seeking a better life for themselves. They don’t “hate our country;” they’re afraid that if they stay in their own country, they either won’t be able to provide for their families or they will be murdered by a gang who likely originated in the U.S. and is supplying drugs mostly to Americans. It’s not a huge leap to say that NAFTA and the American government’s willingness to over-subsidize certain crops (corn) with American taxpayer money to the detriment of our own health played a massive part in the collapse of at least the Mexican economy (undocumented immigration from Mexico is on a consistent decline as the Mexican economy recovers), and that it’s a bit evil to turn that back around on them.

Immigration is a very complex issue, and our system is broken beyond belief. But nationalism nearly always DOES have roots in xenophobia, and clearly lacking from any discussion of immigration from this administration is even the faintest degree of empathy.

 

[holystove]

Well done nyblue23

[MikeO]

I alluded to it before but how does the current US policy fit with the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? It needs to be removed, or policy changed.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

[Cornish Steve]

3 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Quoted your shorter one just to save time, but this is in response to your previous post.

I see three main problems with your reasoning in the first 12 or so paragraphs:

1. The majority of families being separated were families coming from Central America seeking asylum from gangs. Seeking asylum in the U.S. by crossing the border is not illegal. Knowing this, most of those folks actively sought out border patrol agents, expecting to be met by the same legal process that many others have gone through, and instead were jailed and separated from their children in clear violation of the established legal process for seeking asylum. I repeat: most of these people followed a legal process. They did NOT enter the country illegally.

2. The idea that undocumented immigrants are an economic drain on the U.S. is specious at best. Immigrants, for the most part, pay taxes. From Forbes (not exactly your bastion of progressive economic scholarship): https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/10/06/how-much-tax-do-americas-undocumented-immigrants-actually-pay-infographic/#160573291de0 In my mind, $11.64 billion is no small contribution to our system given the generally low-paying nature of the jobs that undocumented immigrants take. Add to that the fact that they are far less likely to take advantage of most public services out of fear of being discovered and the argument falls apart even further.

3. Finally, much of the rhetoric you’ve used seems to be at least partially informed by some of the hate-mongering of the current administration. Undocumented immigrants are far less likely to be a “criminal or malcontent” than are native born Americans. They are not “illegals;” they are people seeking a better life for themselves. They don’t “hate our country;” they’re afraid that if they stay in their own country, they either won’t be able to provide for their families or they will be murdered by a gang who likely originated in the U.S. and is supplying drugs mostly to Americans. It’s not a huge leap to say that NAFTA and the American government’s willingness to over-subsidize certain crops (corn) with American taxpayer money to the detriment of our own health played a massive part in the collapse of at least the Mexican economy (undocumented immigration from Mexico is on a consistent decline as the Mexican economy recovers), and that it’s a bit evil to turn that back around on them.

Immigration is a very complex issue, and our system is broken beyond belief. But nationalism nearly always DOES have roots in xenophobia, and clearly lacking from any discussion of immigration from this administration is even the faintest degree of empathy.

 

Very well put on all counts. 

[Ghoat]

20 hours ago, nyblue23 said:

Quoted your shorter one just to save time, but this is in response to your previous post.

I see three main problems with your reasoning in the first 12 or so paragraphs:

1. The majority of families being separated were families coming from Central America seeking asylum from gangs. Seeking asylum in the U.S. by crossing the border is not illegal. Knowing this, most of those folks actively sought out border patrol agents, expecting to be met by the same legal process that many others have gone through, and instead were jailed and separated from their children in clear violation of the established legal process for seeking asylum. I repeat: most of these people followed a legal process. They did NOT enter the country illegally.

2. The idea that undocumented immigrants are an economic drain on the U.S. is specious at best. Immigrants, for the most part, pay taxes. From Forbes (not exactly your bastion of progressive economic scholarship): https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/10/06/how-much-tax-do-americas-undocumented-immigrants-actually-pay-infographic/#160573291de0 In my mind, $11.64 billion is no small contribution to our system given the generally low-paying nature of the jobs that undocumented immigrants take. Add to that the fact that they are far less likely to take advantage of most public services out of fear of being discovered and the argument falls apart even further.

3. Finally, much of the rhetoric you’ve used seems to be at least partially informed by some of the hate-mongering of the current administration. Undocumented immigrants are far less likely to be a “criminal or malcontent” than are native born Americans. They are not “illegals;” they are people seeking a better life for themselves. They don’t “hate our country;” they’re afraid that if they stay in their own country, they either won’t be able to provide for their families or they will be murdered by a gang who likely originated in the U.S. and is supplying drugs mostly to Americans. It’s not a huge leap to say that NAFTA and the American government’s willingness to over-subsidize certain crops (corn) with American taxpayer money to the detriment of our own health played a massive part in the collapse of at least the Mexican economy (undocumented immigration from Mexico is on a consistent decline as the Mexican economy recovers), and that it’s a bit evil to turn that back around on them.

Immigration is a very complex issue, and our system is broken beyond belief. But nationalism nearly always DOES have roots in xenophobia, and clearly lacking from any discussion of immigration from this administration is even the faintest degree of empathy.

 

1. I honest have no idea what the breakdown of numbers are that you reference, I haven't seen anything either way.  But I do not disagree that there is a huge difference between seeking asylum through the legal process vs illegally entering - and they should be handled differently

2. You can google to death, because there is not a consensus of the cost, not even by federal studies. You will see it cited anywhere from $10 Billion to $100 Billion per year. I don't think anyone can put a figure on it. The vast majority of the economic impact comes from sales/consumption tax. It is estimated that about 50% do contribute via payroll taxes, the balance works untaxed, but still contribute via consumption taxes of course. But to say they are far less likely to take advantage of public services...I disagree. Mom gets up takes the kids to school, goes to work, picks the kids up and comes home. Who pays for the roads, the repairs, the traffic signals, the police that provide protection, direct traffic, the fire coverage, the ambulances that scramble in case of accident, the city parks that are built and maintained - and the schools. My wife teaches 3rd grade. Every year she gets a couple of new students in that speak no English. But it's a public school, so they try to educate them as they learn the language. A significant number of them get free breakfast and lunch as well. Unrelated, by and large my wife says they tend to be some of the better behaved students, and tend to do better than average as the grasp of the language increases. Regardless, I think you are overlooking a lot of what falls under "public services" because we just take them for granted - but there is most certainly a cost. I'm not even going to get into health care, ER services etc, because that's a whole different debate.

3. Rhetoric? Hate mongering? That's a great way to try to invalidate anything said by using emotional words to deflect a  differing opinion. Kinda of like saying "they are not illegals" - yeah they are. If you entered the country illegally, any country, you are in fact an illegal immigrant.  You can call them undocumented immigrants if you wish, but they are still illegal aliens, and simply changing the verbage doesn't suddenly make them less illegal, regardless of how noble their reason are.  I agree, with most of the rest of your points however - for safety, better life, drugs, NAFTA, less likely to commit crimes etc.  As far as "hating American", that's more likely to come from other parts of the world, not Central America. 

Our system is badly broken and needs an overhaul. The conservatives have a lot of ideas, but seemingly no answers. And the liberals are no different in that regard. Personally I think there should be a path for anyone who wishes to move to America to live and work, but opening the floodgates is irresponsible because it's unmanageable.  If you feel that makes me a xenophobe or hate monger, I'll respect your opinion and agree to disagree  

[Cornish Steve]

I seriously wonder what would have happened if President Trump and his supporters had been in power during the Irish potato famine. How many more would have died in the name of protecting borders and reducing welfare spending? Relative to the population, that immigration wave was much bigger than what’s happening today, yet the country embraced the words of the New Colossus that Mike quoted above. 

[nyblue23]

On 30/06/2018 at 13:56, Ghoat said:

1. I honest have no idea what the breakdown of numbers are that you reference, I haven't seen anything either way.  But I do not disagree that there is a huge difference between seeking asylum through the legal process vs illegally entering - and they should be handled differently

2. You can google to death, because there is not a consensus of the cost, not even by federal studies. You will see it cited anywhere from $10 Billion to $100 Billion per year. I don't think anyone can put a figure on it. The vast majority of the economic impact comes from sales/consumption tax. It is estimated that about 50% do contribute via payroll taxes, the balance works untaxed, but still contribute via consumption taxes of course. But to say they are far less likely to take advantage of public services...I disagree. Mom gets up takes the kids to school, goes to work, picks the kids up and comes home. Who pays for the roads, the repairs, the traffic signals, the police that provide protection, direct traffic, the fire coverage, the ambulances that scramble in case of accident, the city parks that are built and maintained - and the schools. My wife teaches 3rd grade. Every year she gets a couple of new students in that speak no English. But it's a public school, so they try to educate them as they learn the language. A significant number of them get free breakfast and lunch as well. Unrelated, by and large my wife says they tend to be some of the better behaved students, and tend to do better than average as the grasp of the language increases. Regardless, I think you are overlooking a lot of what falls under "public services" because we just take them for granted - but there is most certainly a cost. I'm not even going to get into health care, ER services etc, because that's a whole different debate.

3. Rhetoric? Hate mongering? That's a great way to try to invalidate anything said by using emotional words to deflect a  differing opinion. Kinda of like saying "they are not illegals" - yeah they are. If you entered the country illegally, any country, you are in fact an illegal immigrant.  You can call them undocumented immigrants if you wish, but they are still illegal aliens, and simply changing the verbage doesn't suddenly make them less illegal, regardless of how noble their reason are.  I agree, with most of the rest of your points however - for safety, better life, drugs, NAFTA, less likely to commit crimes etc.  As far as "hating American", that's more likely to come from other parts of the world, not Central America. 

Our system is badly broken and needs an overhaul. The conservatives have a lot of ideas, but seemingly no answers. And the liberals are no different in that regard. Personally I think there should be a path for anyone who wishes to move to America to live and work, but opening the floodgates is irresponsible because it's unmanageable.  If you feel that makes me a xenophobe or hate monger, I'll respect your opinion and agree to disagree  

1. It’s hard to find official statistics when the administration has zero systems in place for enacting and documenting the enforcement of its policies, but this can give you a better idea: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6e2f76de1b0

2. It’s not about googling to death; it’s about citing legitimate sources. Yes, there are organizations that say undocumented immigrants cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, but some of them are classified as hate groups by the ACLU, who defend the rights of even neo-nazis to organize. The fact is that most undocumented immigrants are very poor, and that the contributions of very poor people into the system never match what they take out. That said, the people who benefit most from the systems and infrastructures that you cite are not poor undocumented immigrants, but massive corporations whose semi-trucks tear those same roads apart, native born white folks who benefit from systemic violence in policing, etc. etc. Undocumented immigrants don’t often call the police. They are not often able to use Social Security or Medicare.

You say it’s unrelated that the non-English speaking students try harder, but it’s not. Those immigrant children are inarguably a net gain to the American economy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/campaign-stops/what-does-immigration-actually-cost-us.amp.html

We won’t get into healthcare because it’s beyond complex and those numbers have not at all been fleshed out and it’s all rhetoric on both sides... which brings me to...

3. Yes, fucking rhetoric. Yes, hate-mongering. No, these are not emotional words. When Trump says that Mexicans are bringing rapists and criminals, he is appealing to emotion and fear. And he’s not being truthful in the least, as native born Americans are far more likely to commit crimes in the U.S. than undocumented immigrants. It’s amazing that Trump, the politicians around him and his supporters so consistently call progressives snowflakes and accuse them of emotional appeals, yet the minute they are called out for saying things that are factually untrue, they cry invalidation. I never called you a xenophobe.

It’s not about deflection. It’s about humanization. These are human issues. People, by definition, cannot be illegal unless being alive is illegal. Their presence in a given country may be against the law, but to call that person an “illegal” (which, by the way, is not a fucking noun), is to deflect and invalidate their humanity. That’s what rhetoric is. That’s what hate-mongering and appealing to emotion, as Trump and his administration consistently do, does to people seeking a better life.

You can decide that immigration should be curbed and not be racist. You can believe that borders are inane and meaningless and still understand that the issue is complex and has real effects on economies. But to advance rhetoric that dehumanizes and paints a completely false picture is dishonest and evil.

Your conclusion is sensible and empathetic, especially if you mean to say that such a path should be much easier. Why you’d choose to persist with the rhetoric that Trump and his cronies prefer, I won’t understand.

[Elston Gunnn]

I appreciate nyblue23’s measured response to Ghoat, including its key point re “citing legitimate sources.”  And while I cannot be certain that not a single liberal has ever advocated “opening the floodgates” (a loaded phrase used by Ghoat), I deny that that’s either the explicit or implicit “pro-immigrant” position of Trump’s critics.

Trying to converse about multifarious American issues in 2018, we are bedeviled by an historically rare if not unique conundrum: the current President neither understands nor has any interest in understanding complicated policy issues.  Proud of his ignorance, he boasts about his visionary intuition.  He believes that making America great again is principally a function of his own narcissistic self-promotion.  A sloganeering huckster (FAKE NEWS! WITCH HUNT! MAGA!), he encourages legions of followers to adopt simple definitions of and solutions to every problem.  He is a scofflaw, a sociopath, and a pathological liar.  He parades his boorishness, his contempt for law, and his various pathologies multiple times each week.

[holystove]

Happy 4th of July.

[MikeO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754

[MikeO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44688337

[MikeO]

Josh just saw a tweet that said Trump doesn't need to build a wall, he just needs to sign Jordan Pickford.

[Romey 1878]

18 hours ago, MikeO said:

Josh just saw a tweet that said Trump doesn't need to build a wall, he just needs to sign Jordan Pickford.

Not sure Pickford is American enough for him.

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Romey 1878 said:

Not sure Pickford is American enough for him.

Perhaps he has some Russian heritage.

[Matt]

6 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Not sure Pickford is American enough for him.

He’s white with a funny accent, you think he’d be able to tell?

[MikeO]

https://www.stoptrump.org.uk/events/

[MikeO]

Oh no he's here! Bet he wasn't impressed by his reception committee..

"The US President and First Lady were greeted by International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, the Queen's representative and the chief operating officer of Stansted Airport..."