5 ms·

Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't p

Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.

dmitrygr 7y ago
Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
- human20190310 7y ago
  If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
  - koolba 7y ago
    > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
    - etchalon 7y ago
      There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- Andrex 7y ago
  The key phrase in the comment you're replying to is "perceived to be." Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
- etchalon 7y ago
  As another commenter said, "perceived to be" is the key phrase. This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust. Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on. Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it. By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people. But the second one is the guy who gets fired.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Punching people in the face is called "assault" and it is illegal. Accidentally stepping on people's feet is not a crime. Your analogy is thus crap. Also, under Trump, the US is enforcing its laws and nothing more. It's the media that has filled your head with ideas about how awful this all is. There is nothing xenophobic about doing what literally every other country on the planet does, which is protect its own borders. Bombastic? Obama was never bombastic? We got saddled with the ACA because of that twit and his Chicago political machine corruption.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Previous adm deported more people Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.) Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama. There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization, and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) and not enforcing immigration laws. Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      >The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama. Shutting down the legal border crossings to legal asylum seekers was not an Obama policy. Even if all the other treatment of detained persons crossing other than at designated border crossings were a continuation of Obama policies (which it's not), that alone would change the entire equation because the population targeted had changed because people who never would have crossed anywhere but at a designated crossing for the purpose for applying for asylum are now subjected to it. OTOH, family separation was an outcome that the Obama administration chose to avoid by not detaining families with children after the court orders that forced that as the outcome of detention > There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization Not the function of border enforcement, just the current agency given the function, parceling the function out elsewhere as a way of destroying broken organizational culture. > and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) Using civil enforcement (including deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, sanction) for illegal border crossing, as is done for most immigration violations (most of which are not criminal) is not “open borders”. > and not enforcing immigration laws. No one is talking about not enforcing border laws as a desired end state. Some people are talking about changing laws, but that is a different thing. > Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly. No, your description is (more than kind of) silly, and more the point simply a regurgitation of false and misleadig talking points used repeatedly against anyone criticizing the current administration on immigration.

dmitrygr 7y ago

Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...

human20190310 7y ago
If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
- koolba 7y ago
  > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
  - etchalon 7y ago
    There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Andrex 7y ago
The key phrase in the comment you're replying to is "perceived to be." Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
etchalon 7y ago
As another commenter said, "perceived to be" is the key phrase. This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust. Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on. Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it. By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people. But the second one is the guy who gets fired.
- turk73 7y ago
  Punching people in the face is called "assault" and it is illegal. Accidentally stepping on people's feet is not a crime. Your analogy is thus crap. Also, under Trump, the US is enforcing its laws and nothing more. It's the media that has filled your head with ideas about how awful this all is. There is nothing xenophobic about doing what literally every other country on the planet does, which is protect its own borders. Bombastic? Obama was never bombastic? We got saddled with the ACA because of that twit and his Chicago political machine corruption.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Previous adm deported more people Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.) Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
- tracker1 7y ago
  The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama. There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization, and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) and not enforcing immigration laws. Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    >The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama. Shutting down the legal border crossings to legal asylum seekers was not an Obama policy. Even if all the other treatment of detained persons crossing other than at designated border crossings were a continuation of Obama policies (which it's not), that alone would change the entire equation because the population targeted had changed because people who never would have crossed anywhere but at a designated crossing for the purpose for applying for asylum are now subjected to it. OTOH, family separation was an outcome that the Obama administration chose to avoid by not detaining families with children after the court orders that forced that as the outcome of detention > There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization Not the function of border enforcement, just the current agency given the function, parceling the function out elsewhere as a way of destroying broken organizational culture. > and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) Using civil enforcement (including deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, sanction) for illegal border crossing, as is done for most immigration violations (most of which are not criminal) is not “open borders”. > and not enforcing immigration laws. No one is talking about not enforcing border laws as a desired end state. Some people are talking about changing laws, but that is a different thing. > Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly. No, your description is (more than kind of) silly, and more the point simply a regurgitation of false and misleadig talking points used repeatedly against anyone criticizing the current administration on immigration.