5 ms·

> The laws haven't changed. But the interpretation of how to enforce them certainly has changed with this administration, that much is undeniable? I don’t reme

> The laws haven't changed. But the interpretation of how to enforce them certainly has changed with this administration, that much is undeniable? I don’t remember prior admins kicking out all foreign Harvard students or sending masked plainclothes ice agents to arrest US citizens protesting outside detention facilities? This isn’t just my opinion - this administration is actively defying a 9-0 Supreme Court decision finding it acted unlawfully, and ordering Noem to return around Mr Garcia no later than April 7th. To say that because “the laws haven’t changed” that it’s all a media invention is crazy to me.

mlindner 1y ago
I mean many laws especially regarding the border were simply abandoned under the previous admin. It was basically an open border. So yes we've returned to the norm. That's not a bad thing. If anything it makes people visiting the US safer.
- mattnewton 1y ago
  If I grant you that, then at the very least we both agree _something_ has changed then and it isn’t just the media. But I don’t think it’s just that- what do you have to say about Noem v Garcia then, where the Supreme Court ruled this administration was not following the law?
- ModernMech 1y ago
  > It was basically an open border. Can you explain this perspective? I consider an open boarder to be something similar to what we have between states. I can go to New Jersey, and back again to New York, and no one asks any questions, no one checks my papers, I don't need a visa or a reason to be in NJ, and I don't need to declare anything I bought in NJ to NY customs. By contrast, the US boarder under Biden was enforced with millions of deportations, expulsions, and legal processing. While it's true more migrants were allowed in under parole and asylum programs, and some Trump-era restrictions were lifted, the US-Mexico boarder did not resemble the open NY-NJ boarder. So given the the checkpoints, border patrol agents, deportations, surveillance systems, legal entry requirements, physical barriers, detention facilities, visa controls, asylum processing, and international boarder agreements, I can't see how it was "basically open".
  - mlindner 1y ago
    Under Biden if you climbed over the border wall illegally, waited to be picked up by border control, and then falsely claimed asylum, you'd be assigned a court date, and then disappear into the country. They'd almost always miss their court date and never be heard from again. Millions of people were entering the country per year in this manner. Yes there were many systems as you mention, but all those systems amounted for naught when the end result is the person still entered and remained in the country illegally.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      But that's not really "basically an open border" though is it? Can you quantify "almost always"? Because here are some data I found: - 83% of nondetained immigrants with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings. - 96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings. - 15% of those who were ordered deported because they did not appear in court successfully reopened their cases and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as 20% of all orders of removal for missing court were later overturned. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-gov... This would seem to indicate the opposite, that they almost always attend the court date. So while it's not perfect, it's clearly not true that the boarder was "basically open" under Biden.
- p_j_w 1y ago
  > It was basically an open border. Open border nowadays means “I don’t know what the word open means.”
onetimeusename 1y ago
Mayorkas got impeached and ignored court orders also. Although an impeachment is seen as purely political now so perhaps it carries no weight. No one on here was fretting about Mayorkas ignoring courts though or ignoring immigration laws on the books. I think that's an interesting point about all this is just speaking like a bureaucrat or laundering an agenda through sympathetic courts makes it more legitimate than how Trump communicates with the public. In reality they both ignored courts.
- mattnewton 1y ago
  That's comparing apples to lemonade. Mayorkas impeachment centered on alleged systemic refusal to comply with immigration laws (ie, basically policy disputes), that the Senate did not agree with. To my knowledge he never refused a court order or defied a court order. Kristi Noem was ordered 9-0 by the supreme court to return a man who lower courts found was unlawfully deported to a foreign supermax prison, and has told anyone who asks that she has no intent to every comply with the ruling to return him because she does not recognize the authority of the court here. This goes well beyond the partisan political maneuvering of Mayorkas impeachment. These are not equivalent cases at all, and this administration's behavior is a marketed departure from the state department's enforcement of the laws before. You could separately argue it's a warranted departure, but I cannot see how arguing it's business as usual and just made to look bad by the media follows.
  - onetimeusename 1y ago
    Regarding Mayorkas there's this: https://homeland.house.gov/2023/06/20/what-they-are-saying-homeland-republicans-launch-mayorkas-investigation-with-preliminary-report-full-committee-hearing/ https://homeland.house.gov/2023/06/20/what-they-are-saying-h... which mentions ignoring court orders. I am not arguing what Trump or Biden/Mayorkas did is business-as-usual. No, I think Trump messed up and he personally seems to disregard the limits of the executive branch. But, according to AI, 8 million people were encountered crossing the border under the last term so let's say at least 8 million people made the journey making it one of the largest human migrations in world history. What I am arguing is that there are people, maybe as many as half the country, who are in favor of it happening and that concerns about immigrant rights to seek asylum and due process are actually an attempt to launder an open borders agenda through legal procedures. Meaning, I think when you get to 8 million arrivals, the concerns about ensuring due process for asylum claims we can kind of tell are bogus that maybe this wasn't just an uncontrollable event and you either committed negligence or... favored it happening and worked to ensure more of it. What happened to Garcia seems like an administrative error, sure. But it also seems like splitting hairs because he was probably going to be deported regardless so comparing the situation to a fascist dictatorship to me is disingenuous. Is it an error? yes. Were his rights denied? Yes, in a technical sense. Are we now a lawless dictatorship? No, and where was anyone saying this for other presidencies? I actually just think people are upset that the migration they favored is being reversed.

mlindner 1y ago

I mean many laws especially regarding the border were simply abandoned under the previous admin. It was basically an open border. So yes we've returned to the norm. That's not a bad thing. If anything it makes people visiting the US safer.

mattnewton 1y ago
If I grant you that, then at the very least we both agree _something_ has changed then and it isn’t just the media. But I don’t think it’s just that- what do you have to say about Noem v Garcia then, where the Supreme Court ruled this administration was not following the law?
ModernMech 1y ago
> It was basically an open border. Can you explain this perspective? I consider an open boarder to be something similar to what we have between states. I can go to New Jersey, and back again to New York, and no one asks any questions, no one checks my papers, I don't need a visa or a reason to be in NJ, and I don't need to declare anything I bought in NJ to NY customs. By contrast, the US boarder under Biden was enforced with millions of deportations, expulsions, and legal processing. While it's true more migrants were allowed in under parole and asylum programs, and some Trump-era restrictions were lifted, the US-Mexico boarder did not resemble the open NY-NJ boarder. So given the the checkpoints, border patrol agents, deportations, surveillance systems, legal entry requirements, physical barriers, detention facilities, visa controls, asylum processing, and international boarder agreements, I can't see how it was "basically open".
- mlindner 1y ago
  Under Biden if you climbed over the border wall illegally, waited to be picked up by border control, and then falsely claimed asylum, you'd be assigned a court date, and then disappear into the country. They'd almost always miss their court date and never be heard from again. Millions of people were entering the country per year in this manner. Yes there were many systems as you mention, but all those systems amounted for naught when the end result is the person still entered and remained in the country illegally.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    But that's not really "basically an open border" though is it? Can you quantify "almost always"? Because here are some data I found: - 83% of nondetained immigrants with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings. - 96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings. - 15% of those who were ordered deported because they did not appear in court successfully reopened their cases and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as 20% of all orders of removal for missing court were later overturned. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-gov... This would seem to indicate the opposite, that they almost always attend the court date. So while it's not perfect, it's clearly not true that the boarder was "basically open" under Biden.
p_j_w 1y ago
> It was basically an open border. Open border nowadays means “I don’t know what the word open means.”

onetimeusename 1y ago

Mayorkas got impeached and ignored court orders also. Although an impeachment is seen as purely political now so perhaps it carries no weight. No one on here was fretting about Mayorkas ignoring courts though or ignoring immigration laws on the books. I think that's an interesting point about all this is just speaking like a bureaucrat or laundering an agenda through sympathetic courts makes it more legitimate than how Trump communicates with the public. In reality they both ignored courts.

mattnewton 1y ago
That's comparing apples to lemonade. Mayorkas impeachment centered on alleged systemic refusal to comply with immigration laws (ie, basically policy disputes), that the Senate did not agree with. To my knowledge he never refused a court order or defied a court order. Kristi Noem was ordered 9-0 by the supreme court to return a man who lower courts found was unlawfully deported to a foreign supermax prison, and has told anyone who asks that she has no intent to every comply with the ruling to return him because she does not recognize the authority of the court here. This goes well beyond the partisan political maneuvering of Mayorkas impeachment. These are not equivalent cases at all, and this administration's behavior is a marketed departure from the state department's enforcement of the laws before. You could separately argue it's a warranted departure, but I cannot see how arguing it's business as usual and just made to look bad by the media follows.
- onetimeusename 1y ago
  Regarding Mayorkas there's this: https://homeland.house.gov/2023/06/20/what-they-are-saying-homeland-republicans-launch-mayorkas-investigation-with-preliminary-report-full-committee-hearing/ https://homeland.house.gov/2023/06/20/what-they-are-saying-h... which mentions ignoring court orders. I am not arguing what Trump or Biden/Mayorkas did is business-as-usual. No, I think Trump messed up and he personally seems to disregard the limits of the executive branch. But, according to AI, 8 million people were encountered crossing the border under the last term so let's say at least 8 million people made the journey making it one of the largest human migrations in world history. What I am arguing is that there are people, maybe as many as half the country, who are in favor of it happening and that concerns about immigrant rights to seek asylum and due process are actually an attempt to launder an open borders agenda through legal procedures. Meaning, I think when you get to 8 million arrivals, the concerns about ensuring due process for asylum claims we can kind of tell are bogus that maybe this wasn't just an uncontrollable event and you either committed negligence or... favored it happening and worked to ensure more of it. What happened to Garcia seems like an administrative error, sure. But it also seems like splitting hairs because he was probably going to be deported regardless so comparing the situation to a fascist dictatorship to me is disingenuous. Is it an error? yes. Were his rights denied? Yes, in a technical sense. Are we now a lawless dictatorship? No, and where was anyone saying this for other presidencies? I actually just think people are upset that the migration they favored is being reversed.