4 ms·

>> I can't see how this helps improve immigration, In many ways it does the opposite, for reforms to work you need to build coalitions from all political segm

by syshum 6y ago

>> I can't see how this helps improve immigration, In many ways it does the opposite, for reforms to work you need to build coalitions from all political segments of society, vilifying political opponents (the ones that believe in some kind of immigration control and do not support fully open borders) does not build that coalition that is need to fight the unethical and illegal acts. Instead it puts people on the defensive and further divides the nation ensuring no reform can happen at all Today it seems if you believe in anything other than fully open unrestricted borders then you are considered to be a racist authoritarian from mid 1940's Germany

dagnabbit 6y ago
> Today it seems if you believe in anything other than fully open unrestricted borders then you are considered to be a racist authoritarian from mid 1940's Germany It only seems that way to thin-skinned white nationalists who cry and whine whenever somebody doesn't support their attempts to change the fundamental nature of America. These whiny white nationalists are so self-entitled that they portray themselves as horrific victims just because the policies (which they have been actively implementing) get some bad press. Not only do they want to implement horrible policies, they also demand that we pretend to love those policies. Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a whiny, thin-skinned, snowflake of a white nationalist.
tsimionescu 6y ago
If you are in favor (or in the process) of putting large groups of people who have not directly harmed anyone in concentration camps, separating them from their families, keeping children in cages etc, THEN you are considered a racist authoritarian almost akin to mid 1940's Germany.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  What alternative proposals do you have for dealing with people who've unlawfully crossed the border? If your answer is "let them live freely in the US", I think it's fair to characterize that as a a call for open borders.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Personally, I don't think open borders are unthinkable, but I am not necessarily for them either. However, the deportation process must be humane. You can detain people who are to be deported in conditions that respect their human rights. You can allow parents of small children with US citizenship to take their children with them (assuming both parents are deported), or to make other arrangements. The two alternatives are not (1) open borders or (2) concentration camps for illegal immigrants.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Sure, and I think you can get most people on board with the principles of "people in deportation holding should have good conditions", and "parents should be able to keep their kids in deportation holding". But such moderate reforms won't satisfy most people who talk about concentration camps; many people (including multiple in this very comments section) mean that it's simply intolerable for illegal immigration detention centers to exist.
- syshum 6y ago
  My position on immigration has been the same for decades. 1. All persons that are not a danger to others and can prove financial viability (i.e they have a job sponsorship, or other means of self support with out needing social welfare) should be allowed to immigrate on a temporary basis 2. The Immigration process should be limited to only establishment of ID to clear a person from known dangers (i.e medical, criminal or other things that pose a danger to the US population) and financial viability 3. Social Welfare programs should be limited to Citizens Only. Persons can apply for Citizenship after they have lived here for 3 yrs under the temporary immigration program. As far as Separating a person from their family. We do that to citizens every day. If you break the law you will be separated from your family. That argument does not hold any weight with me, nor does it make a person a racist. Do you believe people with children should be immune from criminal prosecution? As to "keeping children in cages" I have been opposed to those programs for as long as they have existed, which is going on at least 3 different presidents now. Where were you when Obama as doing this? Or are you going to pretend that these ICE conditions just magically appeared under Trump like most democrats try to?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I am not a US citizen or resident (I am just an interested observer), and I was in college for much of Obama's presidency. I did look up to him at the time, but have since learned more of the reality behind the PR and have completely turned my opinion against him. He was around as bad as all presidents have lately been, on matters of immigration, external politics and so on (going so far as assassinating one of his own citizens for suspicion of terrorism). And related to breaking the law and separation from your family, the kinds of crimes you need to commit for that to happen are usually much worse than immigration without a permit. Also, I wasn't thinking of the general idea of deporting someone who has children, but specifically to the cases of families who immigrated illegally, had a child in the US, and are now being deported while leaving a small child without care and with little hope of ever reconnecting with their parents. And the solution is not necessarily to let the parents stay, but to allow them to take their child with them. Otherwise, your immigration policy sounds pretty nice. I am assuming you would also carve out exceptions for asylum seekers, but apart from that, it sounds positively utopian compared to anything like current practices, from what I've read.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jmeister 6y ago
I thought the left would learn the need for coalition-building from 2016, but unfortunately they seem to have doubled down on their old hostile ways.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
> vilifying political opponents (the ones that believe in some kind of immigration control and do not support fully open borders) The only vilification happening here is your misrepresentation of the critics of ICE, many of whom do not advocate for "open borders". ICE is not equivalent to "border security", which should be obvious when you consider that this agency was only created in 2002. ICE doesn't even work at the border. That's the Border Patrol (and customs, and the Coast Guard). ICE exclusively works within the US. Since illegal immigrants have little protection, it acts much like any unchecked police force, at least according to its critics. There were 1,200 complaints of sexual assault in ICE custody[0], for example. Less than 2% of these were investigated[1], proving the point about them acting "largely unchecked" that I somehow felt the need to qualify with "according to its critics", above, before looking this up. From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained 1,488 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention.[2] Since it isn't particularly hard to find illegal immigrants in the US, ICE also has a lot of liberty to decide who to go after. That's a recipe for arbitrary enforcement, and there have been complaints about individuals, families, neighbourhoods, or cities being targeted or a variety of reasons, none of which fit most people's idea of justice, from shakedown collecting money from individuals in exchange for sparing them harassment to cities being targeted after incurring the wrath of the current government. [0]: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-se... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Detention_of_U.S._citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E...
- syshum 6y ago
  >>misrepresentation of the critics of ICE, many of whom do not advocate for "open borders". Almost all the vocal critics of ICE I am aware of are Social Democrats that want Open border, Free Everything for Everyone, and curtailment of capitalist systems. They use ICE as an easy target to push their other agenda which is replacing capitalism with Socialism and open borders >ICE exclusively works within the US. Actually they work in 53 nations, and has a active role at many ports of entry but that really is not relevant >>Since illegal immigrants have little protection, it acts much like any unchecked police force Given the context around this discussion I would be hard pressed to pain ICE any worse than every day police Law Enforcement in this nation need MASSIVE reforms, ICE include, as do every level of Law Enforcement. Police Abuse is rampant and not simply a domain of illegal immigration enforcement. >>There were 1,200 complaints of sexual assault in ICE custody[0], for example. Less than 2% of these were investigated[1] lol, your "2 sources" are all the same source... They all reference the same intercept story which is very biased and highlights the problem with Wikipedia today Further The Intercept does not claim that only 2% of the reports were investigated it says that the OIG only shared investigations on 2% of the cases with intercept as s result of the FOIA request, that does not mean there were not investigations on the other 98% only that the investigations were not released under FOIA. That can be for a number of reasons. >From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained 1,488 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention. I would like to know the actual total that spend months or years in detention "many" is a subjective term used to incite an emotional reaction. Not a data driven analysis to understand the scope of the problem That said 1 is too many as as I have said before we need police reform Unfortunately we are at a political impasse for any-kind of real accountability reform because the Social Democrats block any reforms that do not involve complete amnesty and open borders including full access to tax payer funded social welfare for all immigrants. That is a non-starter for most people. I will support open borders in the absence of social welfare, or I will support social welfare in the absence of open borders but I will never support both at the same time as that is not economically feasible.

by syshum 6y ago

dagnabbit 6y ago

> Today it seems if you believe in anything other than fully open unrestricted borders then you are considered to be a racist authoritarian from mid 1940's Germany It only seems that way to thin-skinned white nationalists who cry and whine whenever somebody doesn't support their attempts to change the fundamental nature of America. These whiny white nationalists are so self-entitled that they portray themselves as horrific victims just because the policies (which they have been actively implementing) get some bad press. Not only do they want to implement horrible policies, they also demand that we pretend to love those policies. Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a whiny, thin-skinned, snowflake of a white nationalist.

tsimionescu 6y ago

If you are in favor (or in the process) of putting large groups of people who have not directly harmed anyone in concentration camps, separating them from their families, keeping children in cages etc, THEN you are considered a racist authoritarian almost akin to mid 1940's Germany.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
What alternative proposals do you have for dealing with people who've unlawfully crossed the border? If your answer is "let them live freely in the US", I think it's fair to characterize that as a a call for open borders.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Personally, I don't think open borders are unthinkable, but I am not necessarily for them either. However, the deportation process must be humane. You can detain people who are to be deported in conditions that respect their human rights. You can allow parents of small children with US citizenship to take their children with them (assuming both parents are deported), or to make other arrangements. The two alternatives are not (1) open borders or (2) concentration camps for illegal immigrants.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Sure, and I think you can get most people on board with the principles of "people in deportation holding should have good conditions", and "parents should be able to keep their kids in deportation holding". But such moderate reforms won't satisfy most people who talk about concentration camps; many people (including multiple in this very comments section) mean that it's simply intolerable for illegal immigration detention centers to exist.
syshum 6y ago
My position on immigration has been the same for decades. 1. All persons that are not a danger to others and can prove financial viability (i.e they have a job sponsorship, or other means of self support with out needing social welfare) should be allowed to immigrate on a temporary basis 2. The Immigration process should be limited to only establishment of ID to clear a person from known dangers (i.e medical, criminal or other things that pose a danger to the US population) and financial viability 3. Social Welfare programs should be limited to Citizens Only. Persons can apply for Citizenship after they have lived here for 3 yrs under the temporary immigration program. As far as Separating a person from their family. We do that to citizens every day. If you break the law you will be separated from your family. That argument does not hold any weight with me, nor does it make a person a racist. Do you believe people with children should be immune from criminal prosecution? As to "keeping children in cages" I have been opposed to those programs for as long as they have existed, which is going on at least 3 different presidents now. Where were you when Obama as doing this? Or are you going to pretend that these ICE conditions just magically appeared under Trump like most democrats try to?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I am not a US citizen or resident (I am just an interested observer), and I was in college for much of Obama's presidency. I did look up to him at the time, but have since learned more of the reality behind the PR and have completely turned my opinion against him. He was around as bad as all presidents have lately been, on matters of immigration, external politics and so on (going so far as assassinating one of his own citizens for suspicion of terrorism). And related to breaking the law and separation from your family, the kinds of crimes you need to commit for that to happen are usually much worse than immigration without a permit. Also, I wasn't thinking of the general idea of deporting someone who has children, but specifically to the cases of families who immigrated illegally, had a child in the US, and are now being deported while leaving a small child without care and with little hope of ever reconnecting with their parents. And the solution is not necessarily to let the parents stay, but to allow them to take their child with them. Otherwise, your immigration policy sounds pretty nice. I am assuming you would also carve out exceptions for asylum seekers, but apart from that, it sounds positively utopian compared to anything like current practices, from what I've read.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jmeister 6y ago

I thought the left would learn the need for coalition-building from 2016, but unfortunately they seem to have doubled down on their old hostile ways.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

> vilifying political opponents (the ones that believe in some kind of immigration control and do not support fully open borders) The only vilification happening here is your misrepresentation of the critics of ICE, many of whom do not advocate for "open borders". ICE is not equivalent to "border security", which should be obvious when you consider that this agency was only created in 2002. ICE doesn't even work at the border. That's the Border Patrol (and customs, and the Coast Guard). ICE exclusively works within the US. Since illegal immigrants have little protection, it acts much like any unchecked police force, at least according to its critics. There were 1,200 complaints of sexual assault in ICE custody[0], for example. Less than 2% of these were investigated[1], proving the point about them acting "largely unchecked" that I somehow felt the need to qualify with "according to its critics", above, before looking this up. From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained 1,488 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention.[2] Since it isn't particularly hard to find illegal immigrants in the US, ICE also has a lot of liberty to decide who to go after. That's a recipe for arbitrary enforcement, and there have been complaints about individuals, families, neighbourhoods, or cities being targeted or a variety of reasons, none of which fit most people's idea of justice, from shakedown collecting money from individuals in exchange for sparing them harassment to cities being targeted after incurring the wrath of the current government. [0]: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-se... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Detention_of_U.S._citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E...

syshum 6y ago
>>misrepresentation of the critics of ICE, many of whom do not advocate for "open borders". Almost all the vocal critics of ICE I am aware of are Social Democrats that want Open border, Free Everything for Everyone, and curtailment of capitalist systems. They use ICE as an easy target to push their other agenda which is replacing capitalism with Socialism and open borders >ICE exclusively works within the US. Actually they work in 53 nations, and has a active role at many ports of entry but that really is not relevant >>Since illegal immigrants have little protection, it acts much like any unchecked police force Given the context around this discussion I would be hard pressed to pain ICE any worse than every day police Law Enforcement in this nation need MASSIVE reforms, ICE include, as do every level of Law Enforcement. Police Abuse is rampant and not simply a domain of illegal immigration enforcement. >>There were 1,200 complaints of sexual assault in ICE custody[0], for example. Less than 2% of these were investigated[1] lol, your "2 sources" are all the same source... They all reference the same intercept story which is very biased and highlights the problem with Wikipedia today Further The Intercept does not claim that only 2% of the reports were investigated it says that the OIG only shared investigations on 2% of the cases with intercept as s result of the FOIA request, that does not mean there were not investigations on the other 98% only that the investigations were not released under FOIA. That can be for a number of reasons. >From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained 1,488 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention. I would like to know the actual total that spend months or years in detention "many" is a subjective term used to incite an emotional reaction. Not a data driven analysis to understand the scope of the problem That said 1 is too many as as I have said before we need police reform Unfortunately we are at a political impasse for any-kind of real accountability reform because the Social Democrats block any reforms that do not involve complete amnesty and open borders including full access to tax payer funded social welfare for all immigrants. That is a non-starter for most people. I will support open borders in the absence of social welfare, or I will support social welfare in the absence of open borders but I will never support both at the same time as that is not economically feasible.