|
Post by Jasi on Jan 28, 2017 17:36:29 GMT
Deportations were up but one of those sources indicates that the majority are leaving voluntarily because the jobs aren't what they used to be before the recession. It seems to me therefore that illegal immigration right now just isn't that big of an issue.
The wall therefore is an insanely expensive monument to racism and xenophobia that will damage our relationship with our neighbors. Paying for the wall with a tariff is paying for the wall with the dollars of the American people. The negatives so vastly outweigh the meager positives.
I don't know how to solve illegal immigration, that's way out of my wheelhouse. But honestly that discussion is a red herring. The fact that that this entire project is just a waste of money whose main "advantage" is that it panders to the paranoia of racist voters.
See also: banning Muslim immigrants.
|
|
Wolf O'Donnell
Member
I am alive!
Posts: 36
Original Join Date: 14 Sep 2004
|
Post by Wolf O'Donnell on Jan 29, 2017 15:43:18 GMT
Deportations were up but one of those sources indicates that the majority are leaving voluntarily because the jobs aren't what they used to be before the recession. It seems to me therefore that illegal immigration right now just isn't that big of an issue. The wall therefore is an insanely expensive monument to racism and xenophobia that will damage our relationship with our neighbors. Paying for the wall with a tariff is paying for the wall with the dollars of the American people. The negatives so vastly outweigh the meager positives. I don't know how to solve illegal immigration, that's way out of my wheelhouse. But honestly that discussion is a red herring. The fact that that this entire project is just a waste of money whose main "advantage" is that it panders to the paranoia of racist voters. See also: banning Muslim immigrants. Out of interest, does your country put the onus of checking an employee's right to work on the employer? In the UK, the employer is fined £5,000 per illegal employee. In practice, this means a UK employer demands to see an employee's passport, and always takes a photocopy, as proof that the employer at least did the bare minimum of checks. It's not a foolproof system, but it clearly acknowledges that the problem is employers trying to seek the cheapest labour possible. It's why I think Brexit, and to be more on topic, Trump's Wall, are misguided. They're not really tackling the problem at the root. They keep coming, because obviously, a lot of people are getting jobs/benefits/what have you. There are, therefore, two solutions: one, imrpove conditions in Mexico; two, find a way to stop illegal immigrants from getting jobs.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 29, 2017 17:22:35 GMT
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Jan 29, 2017 17:47:23 GMT
Focusing more on current events, sounds like a federal judge put a stay (temporary hold) on Trump's order. On the grounds that it violated law. Department of Homeland Security and other border patrol agents are supposedly ignoring the judge's order, saying "We take our orders from Trump." Not necessarily en masse, but enough to make it an issue. ACLU is fighting the order with a lot of intensity.
The ban was also put into effect immediately, and included legal immigrants with green cards and visas which were legally and properly obtained. Legal immigrant families separated at airports or prevented from returning to the United States.
And now there are massive protests at major national airports.
Even if you think that an immigration ban is a good thing, there's no getting around the fact that this was implemented in the sloppiest manner. Instant chaos.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 29, 2017 21:49:41 GMT
Seriously, not even people who were in the air when Trump signed the order were grandfathered in. Then he's compromising on his policies after the fact, consistently. The man is governing by chaos.
|
|
JRPomazon
Member
Posts: 162
Original Join Date: 14 Jul 2003
|
Post by JRPomazon on Jan 29, 2017 22:02:36 GMT
The sad part is that this isn't just Trump's usual nonsense, he has the power to bar people because of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 signed in by Obama. (Link here: www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 ) I won't be surprised if a number of the things Trump does in the near future are possibly by salvaged parts of the previous administration. If I haven't stated, I'm not a Trump fan and I had my skeptic beliefs about Obama during his eight years. But what I can say is that the garbage we're seeing now is a god awful shit show.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Feb 1, 2017 0:11:18 GMT
It's actually worse than that; removing the filibuster for Presidential nominations was done by none other than Harry Reid. I hope we can all agree now that this was a terrible idea. As eroding the rights of the minority always is. Large swaths of the regulations various government agencies wrote are also technically illegal because government agencies are supposed to inform the House of these policies to get an approval vote...which they haven't been doing for some time. I imagine they were waiting for a Democrat controlled congress again before they passed the approval notes...but then Trump happened. The bottom line is that Democrats got very cocky and a lot of hard work is about to either be turned against them or written off with one law from congress. Travel ban time; - It's a ban for refugees from 7 countries in deep unrest at the moment for 90 days. Syria is the only exception; that's indefinite...although I don't see that staying that way. These terms are obvious temporary measures or the expiration date wouldn't be put on it. 90 days is three months; by the time objectors will put together solid political opposition the ban will have largely expired.
- The legislation does give preference to Christians. This is a good idea, as Christians are definitely being murdered in these nations. That said, I think this list should include Shiite muslims, as well. In proportion to the population Christian deaths in these regions might be higher, but Shiite muslims are still the majority of deaths and Suuni muslims are the majority perpetrators. You either accept the reality ISIS is attempting religious cleansing or you don't.
- Major complaints include that it violates due process or that the preferential treatment of Christians violates the separation of church and state. I find both of these arguments dubious; due process only applies to citizens--definitely not refugees with other potential destinations--and there is no case law defining separation of church and state to apply to non-nationals, either; it's mostly to limit government from restricting practicing belief among people already within our borders.
I don't think the travel ban is perfect, but I think it was better than taking all the refugees unvetted, either. And I don't want the refugees left out in the cold, but again no one is providing better ideas.
The mess of implementing it, however, strikes me more as political power-play, with people passing laws and then people refusing to enforce or otherwise making noise about it. I see problems, but I don't see a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 1, 2017 2:18:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jasi on Feb 2, 2017 1:53:16 GMT
The constitution definitely applies to non-citizens ( 1, 2, 3). It's wacko to suggest that we can just do whatever we want to people as long as they're not US citizens. re: "within our borders," what about people that *were* in our borders, went on vacation, and now are suddenly not allowed to come back in to return to their jobs, pets, and families? Egann please at least get your facts straight before posting. Just making stuff up is not really what this forum is about imo. someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Feb 4, 2017 12:18:26 GMT
A quick note on the cases which one of the articles Jasi mentioned cites, because two of the three don't really deal with case-law.
Zadvydas v. Davis; established that people in the United States illegally had due process rights. (If you think that's grounds alone to call the point, skip to the bottom.)
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States; gives the same search and seizure, self-incrimination, and trial by jury rights to illegal residents as legal ones.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is used to provide a supporting statement, not a ruling. (Being a race case, knocking down segregation largely made Yick Wo v. Hopkins obsolete.)
...But the real kicker comes from one of the articles own supporting citations;
I'll give you that I badly stated things when I said in blanket terms due process doesn't apply to non-citizens. However, if you haven't noticed the common thread, I'll give it to you; people here illegally are not the same as people legally outside of our borders. Non-national non-residents do not have the right to cross our borders. It's a privilege our government usually extends to people without criminal records during peacetime. Due process does not apply here because a right is not being infringed; a privilege is being rescinded. The issue of Americans outside of the country--or more specifically, dual citizens trying to return--is one which will need to be fixed, but otherwise this is well within the authority of the executive branch to enact.
|
|
|
Post by Jasi on Feb 6, 2017 20:16:51 GMT
You ignored Boumediene v. Bush, in which it was ruled that even non-citizens outside the US have a right to habeas corpus and can't be detained without cause. That's pretty relevant here.
The problem is that people who are residents are not being allowed inside the borders. People who have already gone through the process to be approved to enter the country—i.e., have gotten visas—have a right to be here and keep going to their jobs, taking care of their pets, living with their families, etc. Suddenly revoking that visa based on religious grounds or based on national origin is a violation of that right and counts as illegal discrimination. The judges that have weighed in on this so far all seem to agree.
It's important not to conflate this with refugees or new immigrants, which are a different question (although international law makes these legally problematic to ban, also).
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Feb 6, 2017 21:14:09 GMT
This is a very helpful site to do basically what I intended here. whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/Big headlines from the last couple business days: * Top staff looking to blame someone for "poor reception" of travel ban. * Sounds like there's considerable infighting between Trump's top advisers. * Basically, like an episode of the Apprentice when he's about to fire someone. Ugh. * Travel restrictions once again put on hold after a WA judge intervenes. * Trump using twitter to discredit and outright demonize the court system. * Trump still insisting that any news publication that criticizes him is "fake news." * Various senators stating that the senate has become dysfunctional and chaotic. * Rumor has it that Ivanka and her husband successfully convinced Trump to not sign a "religious freedom" executive order that would have had bad ramifications for LGBT citizens (especially in red states where there are no state-level protections for them). Definitely a Pence law, if true. * Solidarity marches and activism campaigns seem to be working, at least indirectly, as nobody in power likes massive uproar. And Trump is very vain about his poll numbers and popularity ratings and whatnot. TV star, after all. Trump's constant antagonizing of judges is worrisome. There are checks and balances for a reason. If checked, you have to go through the process to make sure everything is legal. You don't start treating the courts as "the opposition." Same with the news media. It's encouraging already fanatic supporters to further dedicate themselves to their leader rather than the full scope of the government. You can argue, I suppose, that it's a political thing because the judge who intervened was from the Ultra Liberal Soviet Republic of Washington -- but a weak case based on political opinion alone wouldn't hold up under scrutiny, so the administration shouldn't be freaking out about it.
|
|
JRPomazon
Member
Posts: 162
Original Join Date: 14 Jul 2003
|
Post by JRPomazon on Feb 9, 2017 8:20:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jasi on Feb 10, 2017 2:39:19 GMT
So the 9th circuit has determined the "travel ban" is unlawful too, because yes, it does violate the due process rights of permanent residents, visa-holders, and refugees. The court did not rule on whether it violated other aspects of the constitution, since they felt it was enough that "the government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal." In other words, Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on, because it's absolutely a violation of due process.
|
|
|
Post by Jasi on Feb 23, 2017 14:09:10 GMT
People are flooding town halls to demand that ACA not be repealed or replaced unless it's with something that provides more coverage and benefits than ACA. Civic engagement is through the roof in my neck of the woods, anyway. Our representative Yvette Clarke had a town hall and the line stretched down multiple blocks and many people were turned away because there was no more room. I couldn't find any documentation of numbers in how this compares to the town halls that the Tea Party took over in 2009–2010 but to me this seems much more massive.
|
|