3 ms·

It's actually a far less effective enforcement scheme than even Obama used both in absolute numbers and in priority. The Trump admin is stuffing the processing

by estearum 11mo ago

It's actually a far less effective enforcement scheme than even Obama used both in absolute numbers and in priority. The Trump admin is stuffing the processing queue (which is normally overwhelmed with high-priority cases) with thousands of low-priority cases, which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been high-priority) in the country longer. Just what you'd expect from a totally braindead manager. Looks great if you're a malicious moron though!

constantcrying 11mo ago
Targeting "innocent" people is the point. It makes sure that nobody wants to come in. >which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been high-priority) in the country longer. I agree. The processing should be much faster. The detentions are so stupid, just get them on a plane.
- estearum 11mo ago
  > targeting innocent people is the point > the processing should be much faster And what do you call it if you slow down the processing, fill it with innocent people, and also get yourself bogged down in thousands of extremely costly (time, money, and focus) civil rights lawsuits? Answer: a very stupid policy.
  - blell 11mo ago
    Why did you remove the quotes around the word "innocent" that implied sarcasm? You can't quote things and modify the contents.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Perhaps these people committed crimes or administrative violations, perhaps not, but until they've been determined as such, they're correctly called innocent with no quotes. GP is speaking specifically about that subset of people when they use the word innocent.
      - constantcrying 11mo ago
        >In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. Total nonsense. This only applies to the state. Individuals are totally free to believe that a person not convicted of a crime or even proclaimed innocent by the state, is in fact not innocent. If your legalistic fiction of innocence was correct, then individuals would have to believe that the law is the infallible representation of morality, which is an abhorrent claim. What I meant by the quotes around innocent is that the state has not yet deemed them criminal, but I disagree with the state on that assessment.
        estearum 11mo ago
        Is deportation a state action or no?
        constantcrying 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        estearum 11mo ago
        I just cannot imagine how gobsmackingly dumb one has to be to consciously advocate for a government unrestrained by laws. Just true mud-farmer level intellect.
        constantcrying 11mo ago
        I am sorry, but "you are dumb" is not an argument. I just do not care about the law at all+. Far too often have I seen justice abused in the name of the law. Any appeal to some supposed legality just rings entirely hollow. Either the government acts justly and I support their actions or it acts unjustly and I will oppose that action. Whatever some piece of paper says or does not say I do not mind. + Of course I care about it in so far I have to understand how getting into conflict with the prevalent interpretation of it will have consequence for me or my family or my friends. I pay my taxes, after all.
  - constantcrying 11mo ago
    Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. Right now I think these measures are extremely effective, especially at deterrence and I do not see what your arguments against this being an effective deterrence really is. One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      > One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately. You mean the Constitution's 5th Amendment? No thank you, I'll keep that one around. > Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. A little known fact is that the Constitution is actually meant to make life difficult for the government. It is not up to the rest of us to come up with Constitutionally valid alternatives to the administration's preferred course of action. That's their job.
      - constantcrying 11mo ago
        As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". I just hope that the EU learns how effective immigration deterrence looks and can make the appropriate legal changes, here in Europe we do not have attachments to centuries old legal concepts, so I think this issue just does not appear here. One idea which should be explored, both in the US and the EU, is that all lawsuits against immigration decisions have to be paid, either ongoing or up front, by the person who would be affected by the immigration enforcement.
        UncleMeat 11mo ago
        > As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". Given that the topic is US immigration policy it sure seems like it is relevant.

constantcrying 11mo ago

Targeting "innocent" people is the point. It makes sure that nobody wants to come in. >which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been high-priority) in the country longer. I agree. The processing should be much faster. The detentions are so stupid, just get them on a plane.

estearum 11mo ago
> targeting innocent people is the point > the processing should be much faster And what do you call it if you slow down the processing, fill it with innocent people, and also get yourself bogged down in thousands of extremely costly (time, money, and focus) civil rights lawsuits? Answer: a very stupid policy.
- blell 11mo ago
  Why did you remove the quotes around the word "innocent" that implied sarcasm? You can't quote things and modify the contents.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. There are thousands of innocent people being deported. Perhaps these people committed crimes or administrative violations, perhaps not, but until they've been determined as such, they're correctly called innocent with no quotes. GP is speaking specifically about that subset of people when they use the word innocent.
    - constantcrying 11mo ago
      >In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. Total nonsense. This only applies to the state. Individuals are totally free to believe that a person not convicted of a crime or even proclaimed innocent by the state, is in fact not innocent. If your legalistic fiction of innocence was correct, then individuals would have to believe that the law is the infallible representation of morality, which is an abhorrent claim. What I meant by the quotes around innocent is that the state has not yet deemed them criminal, but I disagree with the state on that assessment.
      - estearum 11mo ago
        Is deportation a state action or no?
        constantcrying 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        estearum 11mo ago
        I just cannot imagine how gobsmackingly dumb one has to be to consciously advocate for a government unrestrained by laws. Just true mud-farmer level intellect.
        constantcrying 11mo ago
        I am sorry, but "you are dumb" is not an argument. I just do not care about the law at all+. Far too often have I seen justice abused in the name of the law. Any appeal to some supposed legality just rings entirely hollow. Either the government acts justly and I support their actions or it acts unjustly and I will oppose that action. Whatever some piece of paper says or does not say I do not mind. + Of course I care about it in so far I have to understand how getting into conflict with the prevalent interpretation of it will have consequence for me or my family or my friends. I pay my taxes, after all.
- constantcrying 11mo ago
  Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. Right now I think these measures are extremely effective, especially at deterrence and I do not see what your arguments against this being an effective deterrence really is. One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    > One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately. You mean the Constitution's 5th Amendment? No thank you, I'll keep that one around. > Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well. A little known fact is that the Constitution is actually meant to make life difficult for the government. It is not up to the rest of us to come up with Constitutionally valid alternatives to the administration's preferred course of action. That's their job.
    - constantcrying 11mo ago
      As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". I just hope that the EU learns how effective immigration deterrence looks and can make the appropriate legal changes, here in Europe we do not have attachments to centuries old legal concepts, so I think this issue just does not appear here. One idea which should be explored, both in the US and the EU, is that all lawsuits against immigration decisions have to be paid, either ongoing or up front, by the person who would be affected by the immigration enforcement.
      - UncleMeat 11mo ago
        > As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". Given that the topic is US immigration policy it sure seems like it is relevant.