Biden Tells Protester to 'Vote for Trump'

[RaleBulgarian]

'Many' is my take based on the protestors and their assertions.

Another falsehood. The protestors did not make any reference to the frequency or rates of family separations. You asserted your belief as “fact”. You are wrong.

.... the unfortunate fact of the matter is that Obama’s deportations were stringent and did break up many families ....

.... there is no evidentiary basis to say that separations were rare or at least scarce to the point that the separations could not be classified as significant.

And another falsehood. I’ve already provided a link to the HHS report that literally stated that family separations during the Obama administration were “rare”.

.... It has absolutely zero bearing on Obama's indiscretions specifically, which is the subject, even if Obama was less bad. Again, people were concerned about immigration policy during the Obama administration and Biden's involvement, as well as his policy going forward based on that; Trump's record is essentially irrelevant here.

“Obama’s indiscretions”, “if Obama was less bad”? Yeah, sure, you’re not biased. :roll:

Indeed, let's focus on reading comprehension. You were objectively dismissive of it throughout the thread:

Another failure to comprehend (or deliberate obfuscation?) on your part. I replied in a flippant manner to your unsupported and irrelevant assertion that most here, at least “on some level”, agree with your view of Biden’s behavior.

Most certainly implies that you don't disagree with my characterization of your view that Biden didn't behave in an unbecoming way; it wasn't challenged or refuted. Moreover, you asserted here that my opinion that he did act disgracefully was 'erroneous'.

:lamo Your erroneous interpretation of my words according to your own bias is your problem, not mine.

And this simply one example of minimization, dismissal, denial and water carrying for Biden on your behalf.

To be clear, while I did find Biden’s behavior/remark unacceptable, considering the current uncivilized political environment, it wasn’t anywhere near the worst thing I’d heard that day.

I would go through the thread and quote them all if I had more time; perhaps I will later if you insist.

You sure you want to do that? So far in this conversation, you haven’t fared very well.

 

[Surrealistik]

Another falsehood...

And another falsehood. I’ve already provided a link to the HHS report that literally stated that family separations during the Obama administration were “rare”.

The HHS report does not quantify what rare is, nor does it provide numbers, nor does it cite records. Generally, in the absence of any records undermining that, I'm inclined to believe the take of the protestors. I will admit it is possible they are wrong, and it may indeed not be fact that there are 'many'. The bottom line is we have no way of knowing conclusively what the number is because the records simply weren't kept, though in balance I would think the number of separations significant given the protestor focus.

“Obama’s indiscretions”...

First of all, if Obama's record on deportation was good, it obviously wouldn't be a point of concern for the protestors.

Second, despite having better, more nuanced and thoughtful policy than Trump (a low bar to be sure), Obama's deportations were considerable: Biden under fire for mass deportations under Obama - POLITICO

So yes, less bad is appropriate.

Another failure to comprehend (or deliberate obfuscation?) on your part. I replied in a flippant manner to your unsupported and irrelevant assertion that most here, at least “on some level”, agree with your view of Biden’s behavior.

Your erroneous interpretation of my words...

The irony isn't lost on me; if there is a failure of reading comprehension, I assure you, it's on your end. And indeed, most participants in this thread take similar views of Biden's behaviour. For context here is my quotation:

I don't find that there is much in the way of exaggeration in how I described Biden's actions, and others in this thread and elsewhere seem to agree; you're certainly entitled however, to an erroneous opinion that the way Biden acted didn't fit any of those adjectives.

Very clearly we can see here that the 'erroneous opinion' I am referring to is concerned with your opinion that Biden's behaviour didn't match the adjectives I used (rude, disgraceful, arrogant and dismissive)

Here is your quotation:

And others disagree with your description.

And you are also entitled to your erroneous opinion.

To begin, as stated, you do not outright deny or refute my assertion that you feel Biden's behaviour didn't meet that criteria.

Second, your response that others disagreed with my description is obviously separate from your comment on my 'erroneous opinion'; these had nothing to do with each other. Further, the only opinions I specified here are:

A: That my descriptions of Biden's actions weren't exaggerated.

and

B: That your view on Biden's actions does not qualify for those adjectives is erroneous.

Obviously you were asserting that one or both of these opinions were erroneous. Seeing as you don't otherwise seem to object to my characterization of your view of Joe's actions, and that only now have you really made any definitive statement on your distaste for them while spending the majority of your thread involvement minimizing and otherwise covering for Biden, it stands to reason that A is the more likely opinion being alluded to, or as being jointly addressed.

To be clear, while I did find Biden’s behavior/remark unacceptable, considering the current uncivilized political environment, it wasn’t anywhere near the worst thing I’d heard that day.

Most of the press seems to disagree with you, along with most of the responses I've seen to related articles, the majority of reactions in this thread, as well as the top aide that resigned over these comments among Biden's other missteps on the immigration issue.

You sure you want to do that? So far in this conversation, you haven’t fared very well.

If you say so.

Minimization:

Someone who is predisposed to view another in a negative way will often naturally exaggerate in their minds, the perceived severity of any less than perfect behavior. Kinda like how you did in your above assertion.

More obvious feigned indignation.

Deflection/minimization/failed attempts at justification:

There is no argument that Trump’s immigration/deportation policies have been inhumane and abhorrent. Your blatant lies can’t hide the facts.

The (false) premise of this thread is crap. Someone tried to push Biden into committing to halt all deportations. An insultingly stupid request.

Again, thread fail.

Idiotic thread. Faux outrage.

They wanted Biden to commit to stopping all deportations on Day 1 of his administration. An absurd request/expectation.

Thread fail.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The HHS report does not quantify what rare is, nor does it provide numbers, nor does it cite records. Generally, in the absence of any records undermining that, I'm inclined to believe the take of the protestors. I will admit it is possible they are wrong, and it may indeed not be fact that there are 'many'. The bottom line is we have no way of knowing conclusively what the number is because the records simply weren't kept, though in balance I would think the number of separations significant given the protestor focus.

It’s fascinating watching you vacillate between positions. First, you claimed as a “fact” that many families were separated during the Obama administration, and when confronted with an HHS report that directly contradicted your story, you then falsely claimed that you took the notion of many separations from protestors (who did not complain about numerous family separations in OP’s linked video). Switching stories, trying to come up with one that doesn’t acknowledge the simple truth, that you were wrong in your first assertion and have been lying since then because you’re unwilling to admit being wrong.

Really pathetic.

First of all, if Obama's record on deportation was good, it obviously wouldn't be a point of concern for the protestors.

Second, despite having better, more nuanced and thoughtful policy than Trump (a low bar to be sure), Obama's deportations were considerable: Biden under fire for mass deportations under Obama - POLITICO

So yes, less bad is appropriate.

What a silly, nonsensical argument. Of course a group of Mexican/Honduran/Gautamalen and El Salvadoran immigrants (legal and illegal) would complain about deportations of their countrymen and women. Duh.

That does not mean Obama was wrong, and it damned sure doesn’t mean that Biden should make the ridiculous promise of stopping all deportations if he’s elected.

The irony isn't lost on me; if there is a failure of reading comprehension, I assure you, it's on your end. And indeed, most participants in this thread take similar views of Biden's behaviour.

“On some level” as you said, right? :lamo

Regardless, the opinions of a handful of respondents in this forum isn’t representative of the entire country.

Very clearly we can see here that the 'erroneous opinion' I am referring to is concerned with your opinion that Biden's behaviour didn't match the adjectives I used (rude, disgraceful, arrogant and dismissive)

To begin, as stated, you do not outright deny or refute my assertion that you feel Biden's behaviour didn't meet that criteria.

Second, your response that others disagreed with my description is obviously separate from your comment on my 'erroneous opinion'; these had nothing to do with each other. Further, the only opinions I specified here are:

A: That my descriptions of Biden's actions weren't exaggerated.

and

B: That your view on Biden's actions does not qualify for those adjectives is erroneous.

Obviously you were asserting that one or both of these opinions were erroneous. Seeing as you don't otherwise seem to object to my characterization of your view of Joe's actions, and that only now have you really made any definitive statement on your distaste for them while spending the majority of your thread involvement minimizing and otherwise covering for Biden, it stands to reason that A is the more likely opinion being alluded to, or as being jointly addressed.

You’re beating a dead horse here ^. Already discussed and answered. You’re terribly upset by Biden’s comment. Got it. Wipe your tears and move on.

Most of the press seems to disagree with you .....

Most of the press that you follow in your country?

As I said before, thread fail.

 

[Surrealistik]

It’s fascinating watching you vacillate between positions. First, you claimed as a “fact” that many families were separated during the Obama administration, and when confronted with an HHS report that directly contradicted your story, you then falsely claimed that you took the notion of many separations from protestors (who did not complain about numerous family separations in OP’s linked video). Switching stories, trying to come up with one that doesn’t acknowledge the simple truth, that you were wrong in your first assertion and have been lying since then because you’re unwilling to admit being wrong.

My position on separations was always in sync with the stance and viewpoint of the protestors; unfortunately, due to a lack of record keeping, there is no way to confirm the frequency or relative rarity of separations (the HHS report also has no factual backing for any claims of rarity as a result, nor did it quantify separations), and I erred specifically in claiming 'many' as fact, yes.

Having said that, you're clearly wrong about the protestors not complaining about family separations; in fact, this specific point literally came up during the exchange between Biden and the protestor that confronted him.

What a silly, nonsensical argument. Of course a group of Mexican/Honduran/Gautamalen and El Salvadoran immigrants (legal and illegal) would complain about deportations of their countrymen and women. Duh.

That does not mean Obama was wrong, and it damned sure doesn’t mean that Biden should make the ridiculous promise of stopping all deportations if he’s elected.

Except the protest movement doesn't consist exclusively of immigrants, and there are many non-immigrants who object to mass deportation which Obama engaged in.

Further, whether or not Biden should agree to a moratorium (not an indefinite, and perpetual end to deportation) has exactly nothing to do with whether or not Obama's record was good or bad, nor is that record being used to justify it; it is a distinct and separate demand being pursued over apprehension regarding how deportation is currently conducted.

Obama's legacy is obviously brought up out of concern over Biden's involvement with his deportation/immigration policies, and the possibility he might continue them.

“On some level” as you said, right? :lamo

Regardless, the opinions of a handful of respondents in this forum isn’t representative of the entire country.

Yes, it is certainly true that a majority of people responding in the thread generally agree with my position on Biden's actions.

Again, you're welcome to tally the views of others; it is definitely the case that there have been material and deserved consequences for Biden thus far in terms of a top aide quitting over this in part, and that the reaction to his behaviour from what I've seen has been largely negative, including most press outlets covering the story.

You’re beating a dead horse here ^. Already discussed and answered. You’re terribly upset by Biden’s comment. Got it. Wipe your tears and move on.

I was making it abundantly clear that you were wrong, which I suppose is indeed to beat a dead horse.

Most of the press that you follow in your country?

As I said before, thread fail.

You're welcome to google search. The general views of the press I've seen that has covered it generally features some mix of perplexity, astonishment and/or disgust, or opining on probable political costs, especially with the Latino demographic.

 

[Surrealistik]

You're welcome to google search. The general views of the press I've seen that has covered it generally features some mix of perplexity, astonishment and/or disgust, or opining on probable political costs, especially with the Latino demographic.

And to be perfectly clear on this, I'm speaking about editorial, commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, not simple event reporting (which should be obvious, but just in case).

 

[RaleBulgarian]

My position on separations was always in sync with the stance and viewpoint of the protestors; unfortunately, due to a lack of record keeping, there is no way to confirm the frequency or relative rarity of separations (the HHS report also has no factual backing for any claims of rarity as a result, nor did it quantify separations), and I erred specifically in claiming 'many' as fact, yes.

About time you acknowledged your “error”.

To be clear, your position is that all deportations of illegal immigrants in the United States should stop. No legal reasoning or justification. Just allow eleven million plus people who have already violated our immigration laws to remain here.

Not going to happen and Biden was correct for immediately shutting down any discussion of doing so.

Does your country allow all illegal immigrants to stay there, permanently? I’ll bet not.

Except the protest movement doesn't consist exclusively of immigrants, and there are many non-immigrants who object to mass deportation which Obama engaged in.

1. The only people addressing Biden (translated through a Cosecha leader) were immigrants whose own legal status, based on their comments, is dubious.
Our Movement

2. There was no “indiscretion” involved in the Obama administration’s enforcement of existing immigration laws. If Americans want the laws changed, they need to contact their representatives and vote for those who share their view.

Further, whether or not Biden should agree to a moratorium (not an indefinite, and perpetual end to deportation) has exactly nothing to do with whether or not Obama's record was good or bad, nor is that record being used to justify it; it is a distinct and separate demand being pursued over apprehension regarding how deportation is currently conducted.

Obama's legacy is obviously brought up out of concern over Biden's involvement with his deportation/immigration policies, and the possibility he might continue them.

Self contradictory nonsense. First you say Obama’s record has nothing to do with the protestors demand to stop deportations of illegal immigrants and isn’t used as a justification for such, and then you say that Obama’s record is brought up out of concern that Biden might continue those same practices.

Regardless, the protesters demand has no legal merit. People who illegally enter our country have no right to demand that they, or any other illegal immigrant, remain here.

Yes, it is certainly true that a majority of people responding in the thread generally agree with my position on Biden's actions.

Again, you're welcome to tally the views of others; it is definitely the case that there have been material and deserved consequences for Biden thus far in terms of a top aide quitting over this in part, and that the reaction to his behaviour from what I've seen has been largely negative, including most press outlets covering the story.

I was making it abundantly clear that you were wrong, which I suppose is indeed to beat a dead horse.

Childish nonsense. Popularity of an opinion does not determine “right” or “wrong”.

The general views of the press I've seen that has covered it generally features some mix of perplexity, astonishment and/or disgust, or opining on probable political costs, especially with the Latino demographic.

The majority of press organizations have a liberal bent so it is no surprise that Biden’s remark has been criticized. And of course many in the Latino community aren’t happy either. Biden’s comment/position is counter to theirs.

I don’t approve of how Biden responded either (and have already said so), but I do concur with his refusal to stop, even temporarily, enforcing existing immigration laws, and am certain that however pissed Latinos may be with Biden’s remarks, they would still vote for him if he becomes the Dem nominee.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I assume Biden meant that if deporting a felon split a family, he would still pursue the deportation of felons.

The most heinous of Trumpian policies regarding Immigration was Zero Tolerance because it completely tossed Prosecutorial Discretion on its ear. As long as we eliminate Zero Tolerance thus going back to a Prosecutorial Discretion environment I don't see a problem in Biden's comment. I have no reason to believe Biden would continue Zero Tolerance for any Immigration or Border issue.

What, exactly, is the difference between "prosecutorial discretion" based on something not included in the law, changing the law (unilaterally by the executive) and violating equal protection of the law?

Would it make sense to declare blanket amnesty (yet calling it prosecutrial discretion, of course) for violating any other misdemeanor statute(s) unless the (alleged?) perp had also committed a felony (or two)?

The concept that foreign nationals illegally present inside the US shall not be deported unless they have been convicted of committing some other felony is not stated in federal immigration law no matter what the POTUS may feel is "the right thing to do".

 

[Surrealistik]

About time you acknowledged your “error”.

To be clear, your position is that all deportations of illegal immigrants in the United States should stop...

I'm a dual citizen, so America is also my country.

Further, no, my position is not that all deportations of illegal immigrants should stop permanently (though I do agree with a temporary moratorium on Trump's horrid immigration policies), nor do the protesters believe that.

1. The only people addressing Biden (translated through a Cosecha leader) were immigrants whose own legal status, based on their comments, is dubious.
Our Movement

2. There was no “indiscretion” involved in the Obama administration’s enforcement of existing immigration laws. If Americans want the laws changed, they need to contact their representatives and vote for those who share their view.

#1: I am obviously not speaking of the people addressing Biden specifically and exclusively, nor do they form the entirety of the movement (nor have I seen evidence they are all immigrants, nevermind that they have dubious legal status). The protest movement, and indeed objection to Obama's immigration policies are not exclusive to immigrants.

#2: That's your opinion, and it is certainly far from a universal one as we've clearly seen. The fact is that Obama had significant sway and power over immigration policy, and to his credit, he did change it for the better several years into his administration, but considerable damage had already been done. As to lobbying for change, that's precisely what this protest group, among other pressure and political groups are doing.

Self contradictory nonsense. First you say Obama’s record has nothing to do with the protestors demand to stop deportations of illegal immigrants and isn’t used as a justification for such, and then you say that Obama’s record is brought up out of concern that Biden might continue those same practices.

Regardless, the protesters demand has no legal merit...

If you can follow a basic line of thought, it's really not contradictory at all. You seem to be confusing an action which would alleviate concerns of the protesters regarding Biden's record with the actual justification and basis for the moratorium. Allow me to explain since it's obviously necessary:

#1: There is concern regarding the execution and effects of ongoing policy that has nothing to do with Obama. A temporary moratorium is thought to be beneficial to help limit the harm being done by those policies until better, more humane ones can be put into place. This is the underlying justification and imperative.

#2: There is also a distinct and separate concern regarding Obama's less than stellar record on deportations; as Biden was party to that record, and had direct involvement with it, they brought it up: they are nervous about him pursuing similar, overtly stringent policies.

The only possible dovetailing between the two is that a moratorium would be clear assurance of Biden's stance softening, but the bottom line is that Obama's record is not in any way being cited to justify the moratorium nor did it directly inspire or motivate it, which is concerned exclusively with the horrid current policy and stopping it; hopefully that is clear.

Childish nonsense. Popularity of an opinion does not determine “right” or “wrong”.

Sure, but it does tend to indicate on matters of decorum who is right or wrong, and the court of public opinion in political optics at least, is judge, jury and executioner.

The majority of press organizations have a liberal bent so it is no surprise that Biden’s remark has been criticized. And of course many in the Latino community aren’t happy either. Biden’s comment/position is counter to theirs.

I don’t approve of how Biden responded either (and have already said so), but I do concur with his refusal to stop, even temporarily, enforcing existing immigration laws, and am certain that however pissed Latinos may be with Biden’s remarks, they would still vote for him if he becomes the Dem nominee.

Well you can bet your ass that his remarks have certainly cost him some degree of Latino support; I don't think there's any question on that.

And Biden's behaviour is worthy of critique and was overwhelmingly critiqued by the press precisely because it was so politically toxic and egregious, not due to any sort of systemic bias.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm a dual citizen, so America is also my country.

Do you live in America? Pay taxes in America? Vote in America? Or are you a semi-American in name only?

Further, no, my position is not that all deportations of illegal immigrants should stop permanently (though I do agree with a temporary moratorium on Trump's horrid immigration policies), nor do the protesters believe that.

The protestors do believe they have the right to keep all eleven million plus illegal immigrants in the United States, permanently. For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?

It’s really easy for you to pass judgment from Canada (assuming that is where you live), where illegal immigration doesn’t impact your society anywhere near as much as here in the United States.

#1: I am obviously not speaking of the people addressing Biden specifically and exclusively, nor do they form the entirety of the movement (nor have I seen evidence they are all immigrants, nevermind that they have dubious legal status). The protest movement, and indeed objection to Obama's immigration policies are not exclusive to immigrants.

#2: That's your opinion, and it is certainly far from a universal one as we've clearly seen. The fact is that Obama had significant sway and power over immigration policy, and to his credit, he did change it for the better several years into his administration, but considerable damage had already been done. As to lobbying for change, that's precisely what this protest group, among other pressure and political groups are doing.

#1: No, I won’t (and my government won’t) never mind the legal status of those protesting our laws. Illegals, by definition, have no say, or sway, in American immigration law. Americans who wish to support the illegal immigrants objectives are, of course, free to do so, and can speak with their votes too.

#2: Here, you’re wrong. The majority of Americans want our borders secured, and our immigration laws enforced.

Sure, but it does tend to indicate on matters of decorum who is right or wrong, and the court of public opinion in political optics at least, is judge, jury and executioner.

And reality is public opinion in America does not support amnesty/ permanent inclusion of eleven million illegal immigrants.

Well you can bet your ass that his remarks have certainly cost him some degree of Latino support; I don't think there's any question on that.

And Biden's behaviour is worthy of critique and was overwhelmingly critiqued by the press precisely because it was so politically toxic and egregious, not due to any sort of systemic bias.

:lamo And you can bet your ass that if Biden is the Dem nominee next year, the Latino community will support him.

 

[Surrealistik]

Do you live in America? Pay taxes in America? Vote in America? Or are you a semi-American in name only?

I mostly live in Toronto, but come down to NY.

And yes to all of those other things save being 'semi-American', which is a ridiculous mischaracterization of dual citizenship.

The protestors do believe they have the right to keep all eleven million plus illegal immigrants in the United States, permanently. For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?

It’s really easy for you to pass judgment from Canada (assuming that is where you live), where illegal immigration doesn’t impact your society anywhere near as much as here in the United States.

First of all, it is completely baseless and ridiculous paranoia to essentially accuse the protesters of grand conspiracy to forever, permanently and indefinitely suspend immigration enforcement.

Second, I believe in rule of law and humane immigration enforcement; I support a moratorium precisely because Trump policy doesn't match the latter.

#1: No, I won’t (and my government won’t) never mind the legal status of those protesting our laws. Illegals, by definition, have no say, or sway, in American immigration law. Americans who wish to support the illegal immigrants objectives are, of course, free to do so, and can speak with their votes too.

#2: Here, you’re wrong. The majority of Americans want our borders secured, and our immigration laws enforced.

#1: Again, the protest movement alone doesn't consist exclusively of 'illegal immigrants' nor immigrants of any stripe or origin, nevermind the overall movement for more progressive immigration policy.

#2: First of all, we're talking about Obama's policies specifically, not whether people agree to rule of law on immigration, and even if it were true that a majority supported Obama's policies (which I haven't seen evidence of), it still wouldn't make that opinion universal (it clearly and explicitly isn't, so no, not wrong).

And reality is public opinion in America does not support amnesty/ permanent inclusion of eleven million illegal immigrants.

Complete shifting of the goal posts/strawmanning; we're not talking about amnesty for all, or permanent moratoriums.

And you can bet your ass that if Biden is the Dem nominee next year, the Latino community will support him.

When the alternative is Trump? Obviously, but I have no doubt that he's contributed towards disenfranchisement. Meanwhile contrary to what he seems to believe, he still has to win the nomination, and this has probably hurt his chances.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I mostly live in Toronto, but come down to NY.

And yes to all of those other things save being 'semi-American', which is a ridiculous mischaracterization of dual citizenship.

I didn’t mischaracterize your citizenship status. Having legal status as an American citizen is not the same as being an American.

Having said that, you deserve respect for your contributions and involvement in our republic. Many who have dual citizenship do not contribute or participate

First of all, it is completely baseless and ridiculous paranoia to essentially accuse the protesters of grand conspiracy to forever, permanently and indefinitely suspend immigration enforcement.

Not at all what I said, or implied.

Second, I believe in rule of law and humane immigration enforcement; I support a moratorium precisely because Trump policy doesn't match the latter.

I also believe in rule of law and the humane treatment of illegal immigrants. I have repeatedly commented on my disgust for Trump’s black hearted “zero tolerance” immigrant policy.

#1: Again, the protest movement alone doesn't consist exclusively of 'illegal immigrants' nor immigrants of any stripe or origin, nevermind the overall movement for more progressive immigration policy.

I didn’t say otherwise.

#2: First of all, we're talking about Obama's policies specifically, not whether people agree to rule of law on immigration, and even if it were true that a majority supported Obama's policies (which I haven't seen evidence of), it still wouldn't make that opinion universal (it clearly and explicitly isn't, so no, not wrong).

What “Obama policies” are you referring to? DACA is the only Obama policy (EO, actually) still in effect that I’m aware of. And universal approval isn’t the standard of any law.

Complete shifting of the goal posts/strawmanning; we're not talking about amnesty for all, or permanent moratoriums.

Apparently you didn’t review the link I provided earlier. One of the protest group’s stated goals is permanent resident status/citizenship for the 11 million plus illegal immigrants currently living in the United States.
“Cosecha is a nonviolent movement fighting for permanent protection, dignity, and respect for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.”

When the alternative is Trump? Obviously, but I have no doubt that he's contributed towards disenfranchisement. Meanwhile contrary to what he seems to believe, he still has to win the nomination, and this has probably hurt his chances.

Any of the Dem candidates would be a much, much better choice than four more years of Trump. And I do agree that Biden’s statement and demeanor were the opposite of helpful to the Latino community or their support of him. At least until the DNC formally nominates their candidate.

 

[Surrealistik]

I didn’t mischaracterize your citizenship status. Having legal status as an American citizen is not the same as being an American.

Having said that, you deserve respect for your contributions and involvement in our republic. Many who have dual citizenship do not contribute or participate

It may be different, but it doesn't make me less American. Your compliments are appreciated otherwise.

Not at all what I said, or implied.

I dunno, saying that you feel the end game of a moratorium is literally to weaken laws and let illegal immigrants stay here permanently sounds pretty conspiratorial and unwarranted:

The protestors do believe they have the right to keep all eleven million plus illegal immigrants in the United States, permanently. For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?

I didn’t say otherwise.

#1: No, I won’t (and my government won’t) never mind the legal status of those protesting our laws. Illegals, by definition, have no say, or sway, in American immigration law. Americans who wish to support the illegal immigrants objectives are, of course, free to do so, and can speak with their votes too.

Generally the implication here seems to be that the protesters or people protesting the laws are all illegals. If you meant otherwise, then fine.

What “Obama policies” are you referring to? DACA is the only Obama policy (EO, actually) still in effect that I’m aware of. And universal approval isn’t the standard of any law.

Will The 2020 Democrats Reject Obama’s Immigration Legacy? | FiveThirtyEight

The bulk of these removals were concentrated in Obama’s first term, when his administration rapidly expanded a program that created partnerships between local and state law enforcement and federal immigration authorities — the one Harris criticized during the first debate. Under the program, any immigrant taken into state or local custody would have his immigration status checked against a federal database. If he was unauthorized, the police would hold him for additional time so federal agents could come pick him up. “2011 and 2012 were high-water marks of immigration enforcement and a good chunk of that happened through our criminal justice system,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at NYU School of Law. Critics argued that rather than targeting dangerous criminals for deportation, the program mostly identified low-level offenders or even people without criminal records, while scaring other undocumented immigrants out of reporting crimes.

Obama’s immigration policy shifted later in his presidency — but he was still criticized
But toward the end of Obama’s first term, his approach to immigration enforcement began to shift, although immigration advocates and experts are still divided about what this means for his legacy. In the summer of 2012, facing increasing political pressure from immigrant rights groups, he issued the DACA executive order, which shielded some young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allowed them to apply for work permits. And starting in 2011, his administration issued a series of memos that gradually narrowed the types of immigrants who were priorities for deportation, so that by the end of his second term, deportations from the interior of the country had fallen significantly.

Basically Obama had to be heavily pressured and guilted into reforming his policies mid-presidency.

Of course universal approval isn't the standard of law; the point is that your opinion on the matter wasn't universal. Moreover, at the very least his handling of immigration early was particularly unpopular to the point he was pushed to soften his stance multiple times in significant ways since the beginning of his administration.

Apparently you didn’t review the link I provided earlier. One of the protest group’s stated goals is permanent resident status/citizenship for the 11 million plus illegal immigrants currently living in the United States...

I read that part; what is unclear to me is what 'permanent protection' means: protection from summary and uprooting deportation? Severance of families? Any and all forms of deportation no matter how legitimate or forgiving? Ultimately if they mean the latter I'm no fan.

Any of the Dem candidates would be a much, much better choice than four more years of Trump...

Well yes of course.

Having said that, I think it is a mistake to believe that people can be relied upon to vote in a certain way after alienating them, even if your opposition is worse; it happened with Hillary and it can happen with Biden.

 

[trouble13]

Joe Biden lashes out at protesters, telling one to '''vote for Trump''' - Business Insider

Biden says, ‘Vote for Trump,’ to immigration activist



Incredible. Of course it wasn't even given a single mention on CNN or MSNBC (not to my knowledge after some searching), showing up literally everywhere else in the media.

The sheer arrogance (or idiocy) of Biden is simply staggering; from the sound of things, you might figure he had already won the nomination, and there isn't a broad field of superior alternatives to a scarcely articulate man with probable dementia high on his own hubris.

I will grant you his response was a bit condescending but thats not really an unusual from a progreesive when they disagree with someone. Its pretty much par for the course.

It was unique that instead of pandering to a far left sect he pushed back. Biden is trying to stay in the moderate lane which he really isnt all that moderate but that seems to be what he is trying to project.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

He was asking for a moratorium on deportations that separate families. Beyond that, you don't see the problem with telling someone who clearly is a Democratic voter and who volunteered for Obama in 2008, to in so many words **** off and vote for Trump after he respectfully articulated disappointment over the immigration policy Biden presided over in the 8 years of Obama's administration, and politely asked him whether he would enact said moratorium?

Even if Biden won the nomination and was literally the only alternative to Trump this would be awful, but being as this is still a primary he can easily opt for any other candidate in the field, it is indicative of obvious arrogance, idiocy or both.

He could of been more polite about it but no i dont see a problem with him truthfully telling the guy that he isnt a candidate that supports ending deportations. He told the guy what he would do. If the guy does not like that, he should vite for someone else, if he is eligible to vote.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I dunno, saying that you feel the end game of a moratorium is literally to weaken laws and let illegal immigrants stay here permanently sounds pretty conspiratorial and unwarranted:.

Again, not what I said or implied.

First of all, it is completely baseless and ridiculous paranoia to essentially accuse the protesters of grand conspiracy to forever, permanently and indefinitely suspend immigration enforcement.

My reply was to your above ^ comment.

Generally the implication here seems to be that the protesters or people protesting the laws are all illegals. If you meant otherwise, then fine.

You highlighted and commented on the first sentence in the paragraph and ignored the (answer to your question) in the second sentence.

Basically Obama had to be heavily pressured and guilted into reforming his policies mid-presidency.

I know that already, and it wasn’t the point. Obama’s “policies” were essentially enforcing certain existing laws over others. The only actual/original Obama policy was DACA.

I read that part; what is unclear to me is what 'permanent protection' means: protection from summary and uprooting deportation? Severance of families? Any and all forms of deportation no matter how legitimate or forgiving? Ultimately if they mean the latter I'm no fan.

Aside from keeping illegal immigrants in the United States, what other “permanent protections” do you think that could possibly imply? What permanent protections can/would the United States offer to illegal immigrants who are already deported out of our country? Of course they mean permanent protections as in “remain in the United States, permanently”.

Having said that, I think it is a mistake to believe that people can be relied upon to vote in a certain way after alienating them, even if your opposition is worse; it happened with Hillary and it can happen with Biden.

Hillary didn’t lose Latino support for supposedly alienating that group. Factually, Latinos overwhelmingly supported the Dem candidate, same as past elections.

Biden may have ticked off a handful of Latinos, but you’re kidding yourself if you think it will make any difference come next November.

 

[trouble13]

Biden may have ticked off a handful of Latinos, but you’re kidding yourself if you think it will make any difference come next November.

I think his comments may of hurt him in the primary but if he is the nominee it may help him in the general. It appeals to moderates and the people on the left will vote for anyone not named Trump regardless of their immigration position.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Surrealistik]

Again, not what I said or implied.

My reply was to your above ^ comment.

As before, I'm not sure why you feel that your words "For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?" doesn't at least imply a conspiratorial end game to permanently suspend or otherwise cripple/eliminate effective immigration enforcement.

You highlighted and commented on the first sentence in the paragraph and ignored the (answer to your question) in the second sentence.

I didn't ignore the second sentence so much as I was focusing on the first, because I didn't like what was being implied about the protesters, dismissing them all as illegals, or inferring that the core of immigration protests and immigration reform pressure groups are illegals and illegitimate.

I know that already, and it wasn’t the point. Obama’s “policies” were essentially enforcing certain existing laws over others. The only actual/original Obama policy was DACA.

Here's the problem though: choosing to do nothing (except of course, enforce with an iron fist) is still a choice; doubly so when you promised immigration reform, and you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. You may not be actively creating new policy, but continuity and vigourous enforcement of bad existing policy is still ultimately policy and a stance in the end.

Aside from keeping illegal immigrants in the United States, what other “permanent protections” do you think that could possibly imply? What permanent protections can/would the United States offer to illegal immigrants who are already deported out of our country? Of course they mean permanent protections as in “remain in the United States, permanently”.

Why would it necessarily mean that?

Is it really so inconceivable that, with respect to the undocumented workers specifically in the United States they mean permanent protection from the inhumane sort of policies Trump is pushing, and their consequences?

Hillary didn’t lose Latino support for supposedly alienating that group. Factually, Latinos overwhelmingly supported the Dem candidate, same as past elections.

Biden may have ticked off a handful of Latinos, but you’re kidding yourself if you think it will make any difference come next November.

RE: Hillary, I'm speaking more generally of course, not specifically about Latinos. In other words, what could happen with Hillary broadly could happen in Biden's case with Latinos specifically. And yes, I expect the difference to be small, but even small differences can matter in the case of swing states with the EC being winner take all. Having said that, Biden does have time to make amends.

Hopefully though, we don't get stuck with someone whose mind is clearly going.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

As before, I'm not sure why you feel that your words "For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?" doesn't at least imply a conspiratorial end game to permanently suspend or otherwise cripple/eliminate effective immigration enforcement..

It only reads as conspiratorial to someone who looks for conspiracies. Tell me, what do you think the end goal of a moratorium would be for Consecha (the same group that advocates for allowing the eleven million plus illegal immigrants already living in the United States to be allowed to stay here permanently)?

I didn't ignore the second sentence so much as I was focusing on the first, because I didn't like what was being implied about the protesters, dismissing them all as illegals, or inferring that the core of immigration protests and immigration reform pressure groups are illegals and illegitimate.

So, you already knew the answer, but asked anyway?

Why would it necessarily mean that?

Is it really so inconceivable that, with respect to the undocumented workers specifically in the United States they mean permanent protection from the inhumane sort of policies Trump is pushing, and their consequences?

This answer is humorous, coming from someone who believes they can read into other people’s posts words that were not used.

C’mon, if the goal was protections against “inhumane” policies, “permanent” wouldn’t have been a necessary qualifier. Surely you’re smarter than that.

RE: Hillary, I'm speaking more generally of course, not specifically about Latinos. In other words, what could happen with Hillary broadly could happen in Biden's case with Latinos specifically. And yes, I expect the difference to be small, but even small differences can matter in the case of swing states with the EC being winner take all. Having said that, Biden does have time to make amends.

Hopefully though, we don't get stuck with someone whose mind is clearly going.

1. Biden doesn’t need to make amends. Just don’t say stupid **** (which is a big enough challenge for him).
2. Biden is slipping.

 

[Surrealistik]

It only reads as conspiratorial to someone who looks for conspiracies. Tell me, what do you think the end goal of a moratorium would be for Consecha (the same group that advocates for allowing the eleven million plus illegal immigrants already living in the United States to be allowed to stay here permanently)?

The end game? Laws and legislation that codify that what Trump is doing will never be done again, or will make reinstatement of such policy difficult at the least. I think it is conspiratorial to suggest that their ultimate aim is to eliminate any kind of meaningful capacity for immigration law and enforcement.

So, you already knew the answer, but asked anyway?

I wanted to be clear that the protesters, protest groups and immigration lobby are not solely or predominantly illegals with no rightful say over American policy.

This answer is humorous, coming from someone who believes they can read into other people’s posts words that were not used.

C’mon, if the goal was protections against “inhumane” policies, “permanent” wouldn’t have been a necessary qualifier. Surely you’re smarter than that.

Inhumane policies come and go though; assuming a democrat wins and overturns what Trump has done, what's stopping the next Republican monster from doing much the same?

1. Biden doesn’t need to make amends. Just don’t say stupid **** (which is a big enough challenge for him).
2. Biden is slipping.

Given that Biden still has a primary to win, and needs Latino support to stand a reasonable chance, he should. Even if it were down to Trump and Biden this would be bad and readily exploitable optics.

And yes, thank god that Biden's candidacy is currently going nowhere but down.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The end game? Laws and legislation that codify that what Trump is doing will never be done again, or will make reinstatement of such policy difficult at the least. I think it is conspiratorial to suggest that their ultimate aim is to eliminate any kind of meaningful capacity for immigration law and enforcement.

You may consider immigration reform a “game”. I don’t.

You ought to know that laws are passed and repealed on a regular basis, so there can be no guarantee that what Trump has done can “never” happen again, or even be made more difficult to do in the future.

Bearing in mind the correct definition of conspiracy, please explain why/how you consider it conspiratorial to suggest that Cosecha’s goal is

.... to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?

.

I wanted to be clear that the protesters, protest groups and immigration lobby are not solely or predominantly illegals with no rightful say over American policy.

Of course not. I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Inhumane policies come and go though; assuming a democrat wins and overturns what Trump has done, what's stopping the next Republican monster from doing much the same?

Nothing. It’s how our republic works.

Given that Biden still has a primary to win, and needs Latino support to stand a reasonable chance, he should. Even if it were down to Trump and Biden this would be bad and readily exploitable optics.

And yes, thank god that Biden's candidacy is currently going nowhere but down.

1. Again, disagree. The public isn’t calling for an apology and the opposition would use it against him.
2. We’ll see what happens with Biden’s campaign soon enough. Regardless of who the Dems nominate, I will be voting for him/her. Any of the Dems currently running would be infinitely better than having Trump for another four years.

 

[Surrealistik]

You may consider immigration reform a “game”. I don’t.

You ought to know that laws are passed and repealed on a regular basis, so there can be no guarantee that what Trump has done can “never” happen again, or even be made more difficult to do in the future.

Bearing in mind the correct definition of conspiracy, please explain why/how you consider it conspiratorial to suggest that Cosecha’s goal is

Nothing. It’s how our republic works.

The definition of conspiracy is a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful; conspiratorial is relating or suggestive to as much. To say that a request for a moratorium which is by definition temporary is merely a precursor to a wholesale dismantling or neutering of immigration enforcement is pretty much on the nose so far as alleging conspiracy and being conspiratorial.

Having said that, it is possible to make it more difficult to rescind humane immigration policies via the avenue of legislation, or otherwise make passing inhumane ones more difficult. While it is certainly true that any law not subject to explicit constitutional protection can be overturned and dismantled, doing so can come with political costs, and the more of them there are, generally the harder it is to do; after all just look at the difficulty the Republicans had getting rid of ACA. Further, as demographics continue to change, repealing laws advocating for humane treatment of immigrants will become increasingly difficult.

1. Again, disagree. The public isn’t calling for an apology and the opposition would use it against him.
2. We’ll see what happens with Biden’s campaign soon enough. Regardless of who the Dems nominate, I will be voting for him/her. Any of the Dems currently running would be infinitely better than having Trump for another four years.

1. There are certainly many elements of the public calling for an apology, and this event is already exploitable, whereas I don't think apologizing for his outburst (not Biden's policy stance) is readily leveraged.

2. Sure. I just hope to god we're not stuck with the man in early stage dementia.

EDIT: Oh my god, please not this man:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The definition of conspiracy is a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful; conspiratorial is relating or suggestive to as much. To say that a request for a moratorium which is by definition temporary is merely a precursor to a wholesale dismantling or neutering of immigration enforcement is pretty much on the nose so far as alleging conspiracy and being conspiratorial.

Good that you know the definition of conspiracy. Too bad you misused it.

I did not say, or even imply, that Cosecha’s goal is the “wholesale dismantling or neutering of immigration enforcement”. You overreacted to my actual comments, inferring an exaggerated (read; false) meaning.

Having said that, it is possible to make it more difficult to rescind humane immigration policies via the avenue of legislation, or otherwise make passing inhumane ones more difficult.

Of course it’s easier to rescind a policy than it is to repeal a law. The first can be done with an EO, whereas the second literally takes an act of Congress.

How could it be made more difficult to pass “inhumane” (by your standards) laws? As there is almost always a pro and con argument for proposed legislation, how exactly would you propose making it even more difficult?

While it is certainly true that any law not subject to explicit constitutional protection can be overturned and dismantled, doing so can come with political costs, and the more of them there are, generally the harder it is to do; after all just look at the difficulty the Republicans had getting rid of ACA. Further, as demographics continue to change, repealing laws advocating for humane treatment of immigrants will become increasingly difficult.

There is often a political cost to new legislation. Nothing new there.

FYI, the Republicans haven’t gotten rid of ACA.

I agree that as time goes on, it will become more and more difficult to pass perceived harsh immigration laws.

1. There are certainly many elements of the public calling for an apology, and this event is already exploitable, whereas I don't think apologizing for his outburst (not Biden's policy stance) is readily leveraged.

2. Sure. I just hope to god we're not stuck with the man in early stage dementia.

EDIT: Oh my god, please not this man:

1. Please provide links that support your assertion. Of course Biden’s gaff is exploitable. I can already see a Trump 2020 campaign with the snippet where Biden says “vote for Trump”. Biden apologizing at this point just gives Trump another thing to bash Biden for; weakness for kowtowing to “the far left”.

2. Like I said, I’d take any of the current candidates over Trump, everyday and twice on Sunday.

 

[Surrealistik]

Good that you know the definition of conspiracy. Too bad you misused it.

I did not say, or even imply, that Cosecha’s goal is the “wholesale dismantling or neutering of immigration enforcement”. You overreacted to my actual comments, inferring an exaggerated (read; false) meaning.

That's not a misuse; even if you find that my characterization of your words is hyperbole, what you allege fits the definition of conspiratorial: a secret plot to unduly weaken immigration enforcement and keep all undocumented immigrants here permanently regardless of their circumstance.

Of course it’s easier to rescind a policy than it is to repeal a law. The first can be done with an EO, whereas the second literally takes an act of Congress.

How could it be made more difficult to pass “inhumane” (by your standards) laws? As there is almost always a pro and con argument for proposed legislation, how exactly would you propose making it even more difficult?

In the case of the latter, you create existing legal/legislative barriers to the passage of inhumane law, such that you have to engage in the repeal and revision of those laws first, which is also politically costly

There is often a political cost to new legislation. Nothing new there.

FYI, the Republicans haven’t gotten rid of ACA.

I agree that as time goes on, it will become more and more difficult to pass perceived harsh immigration laws.

Precisely; if you erect legislative barriers that need to be taken down, you will exact a political cost (because as a politician you will be seen voting for heinous legislation) and thus create deterrence.

As to ACA not yet having been gotten rid of despite it once being a top GOP priority, exactly.

1. Please provide links that support your assertion. Of course Biden’s gaff is exploitable. I can already see a Trump 2020 campaign with the snippet where Biden says “vote for Trump”. Biden apologizing at this point just gives Trump another thing to bash Biden for; weakness for kowtowing to “the far left”.

2. Like I said, I’d take any of the current candidates over Trump, everyday and twice on Sunday.

1. Apologizing for obviously terrible behaviour is not kowtowing. To be honest though, I'd prefer if he didn't as it'd mean he's that much more likely to lose the nomination.

2. Sure. My concern here is that Biden will lose and will be a liability if he wins the nomination.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That's not a misuse; even if you find that my characterization of your words is hyperbole, what you allege fits the definition of conspiratorial: a secret plot to unduly weaken immigration enforcement and keep all undocumented immigrants here permanently regardless of their circumstance.

Your lying is getting old.

Cosecha’s public website (link already provided) specifically states their objective is to help the eleven plus million illegal immigrants already in the United States stay here. NO SECRET PLOT = NO CONSPIRACY. Also, nothing “unduly” asserted or implied.

For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?

It’s perfectly clear that your below exaggerations/falsehoods referencing my above comment do not match up.

First of all, it is completely baseless and ridiculous paranoia to essentially accuse the protesters of grand conspiracy to forever, permanently and indefinitely suspend immigration enforcement.

I think it is conspiratorial to suggest that their ultimate aim is to eliminate any kind of meaningful capacity for immigration law and enforcement.

To say that a request for a moratorium which is by definition temporary is merely a precursor to a wholesale dismantling or neutering of immigration enforcement is pretty much on the nose so far as alleging conspiracy and being conspiratorial.

In the case of the latter, you create existing legal/legislative barriers to the passage of inhumane law, such that you have to engage in the repeal and revision of those laws first, which is also politically costly

Precisely; if you erect legislative barriers that need to be taken down, you will exact a political cost (because as a politician you will be seen voting for heinous legislation) and thus create deterrence.

You’re suggesting we pass laws to prevent the passing of other laws?

Not how our Constitution/legal system works. Maybe in Canada, but not in America.

As to ACA not yet having been gotten rid of despite it once being a top GOP priority, exactly.

No, not “exactly”. You falsely asserted that the Republicans had gotten rid of ACA. Your assertion was factually incorrect.

Apologizing for obviously terrible behaviour is not kowtowing. To be honest though, I'd prefer if he didn't as it'd mean he's that much more likely to lose the nomination.

2. Sure. My concern here is that Biden will lose and will be a liability if he wins the nomination.

1. In a normal America, I’d agree with you however, Trump has turned America into Bizarro World, where manners/politeness/honesty are now looked upon as weakness by most on the right.

2. Huh? Biden would have to be nominated before he could lose.

 

[Surrealistik]

Your lying is getting old.

Cosecha’s public website (link already provided) specifically states their objective is to help the eleven plus million illegal immigrants already in the United States stay here. NO SECRET PLOT = NO CONSPIRACY. Also, nothing “unduly” asserted or implied.

It’s perfectly clear that your below exaggerations/falsehoods referencing my above comment do not match up.

It's not lying.

First of all, as we've discussed previously you're interpreting protection in a way that isn't necessarily merited.

Second, yes, to assert that "For what purpose do you think they want a moratorium, other than to seek to weaken our laws and allow even more illegal immigrants to stay here, permanently?" is to imply that their ultimate aim with a moratorium is as a first step towards a substantive undermining of the ability of this country to deport and enforce immigration law.

If you actually meant to say that they're looking to get the Trump laws and policy stricken and overturned, well yes, obviously; that's very much the point of the moratorium.

You’re suggesting we pass laws to prevent the passing of other laws?

Not how our Constitution/legal system works. Maybe in Canada, but not in America.

Laws can make the effective passage or enforcement of other contradicting laws more difficult.

No, not “exactly”. You falsely asserted that the Republicans had gotten rid of ACA. Your assertion was factually incorrect.

That's not what I meant at all.

The obvious point is that despite clearly prioritizing the removal of ACA, they've failed to do it.

1. In a normal America, I’d agree with you however, Trump has turned America into Bizarro World, where manners/politeness/honesty are now looked upon as weakness by most on the right.

2. Huh? Biden would have to be nominated before he could lose.

1. I simply disagree that an apology for objectionable behaviour is tantamount to a liability, and even if it somehow was, it probably wouldn't even make the GOP radar in terms of weaponization given the utter litany of far more damaging things for the Republicans to focus on RE: Biden.

2. What I am saying is that, though one should obviously vote for Biden over Trump, Biden would be a liability were he to win.