Your post brings up another question I have. Why is this administration dragging their feet on abolishing ICE? Has the left changed their opinion about them too or can we still look forward to an ICE free nation?I guess, though not what you seem to imply ominously. Camps where families could stay, accessible to legal and medical practitioners, where they could be adequately screened by ICE. Friends of mine and I visited one such place on the border about 15 months ago. It was an old electronics plant outfitted to house migrants. People were given preliminary asylum screenings by ICE, the Salvation Army provided cots, local church groups sent volunteers to cook special meals, and local artists painted murals on the walls. People were connected with sponsors elsewhere in the US who provided transportation. It embodied the spirit of our country with all its contradictions. Elderly volunteers (us) coming from a distance, local people chipping in to help, ICE notifying the staff how many new faces would arrive in the afternoon. While the president was spreading fear of these people, some of that same president's soldiers from a nearby military base came by to set up a chapel for them. And of course one was Anglo, one Latino, one Vietnamese. What a country!
But this is no different in some ways what has happened in other countries faced with mass migration: some political leaders stoking resentment and fear, while other people do what the better angels of our nature suggest. We could do much the same as what I saw set up with greater masses of migrants, and by doing so efficiently both provide the that law and treaty require and slow migration. But the temptation to demagoguery is strong in these circumstances.
The notion of abolishing ICE was not part of the platform as far as I know. Some reforms perhaps, as have happened in the past after periods of criticism, involving redistribution of functions. But most democratic candidates did not favor outright abolition.Your post brings up another question I have. Why is this administration dragging their feet on abolishing ICE? Has the left changed their opinion about them too or can we still look forward to an ICE free nation?
perhaps???The notion of abolishing ICE was not part of the platform as far as I know. Some reforms perhaps, as have happened in the past after periods of criticism, involving redistribution of functions. But most democratic candidates did not favor outright abolition.
I see you subscribe to the "shithole countries" theory. All lives apparently don't matter to you, despite your little MAGA fist.
All lives apparently don't matter to you, despite your little MAGA fist.
Next time you visit Guatemala and Honduras, check out the pyramids.
How was NAFTA a giveaway, didn't Canada and the US benefit?
Else they would t have signed up.
As I mentioned, redistributing some of its functions. An example from my own work experience in the 1980s: back then, the bureaucrats who decided on visas also decided on asylum cases. Years of protests of their dumb decisions this ended with me, who used to do battle with such decisions, being invited to address the new specialized corps of asylum officers set up when the wierd (in this area) Reagan administration transferred to the Bush one.perhaps???
word games aside, what are these reforms that equate to abolishing ice and when can we expect seeing them implemented?
There is a "legal, safe and rational reason" for them to come here. It derives from the lessons of the holocaust, and is found in the Refugee Act of 1980 and tge Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, laws and treaties that govern us.What, you think there aren't "shithole countries"? You think all nations and cultures are the same? Clearly you are not very observant if you think Calcutta India and Salzburg Austria are comparable.
I never said all lives don't matter. I am quite aware that even people who live in "shithole countries" lives matter. I just don't subscribe to the lunacy that we all have to make our own lives worse so their lives can be better here, unless there is a LEGAL, safe, and rational reason for them to come here.
If I wouldn't go to Egypt and that shithole to see those very interesting and historic pyramids, why would I travel to an even worse shithole that is closer to see theirs?
No, thanks. I'll spend my tourist dollars in Vienna, Oslo, Kobe, or right here in the USA thank you very much. Places where I won't catch the plague or have my throat slashed by someone stealing my shoes.
There is a "legal, safe and rational reason" for them to come here. It derives from the lessons of the holocaust, and is found in the Refugee Act of 1980 and tge Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, laws and treaties that govern us.
You seem like a swell person.Yep, and the fact that they were Japanese and Germans and it was not Hondurs and Guatemala you don't think had a lot to do with success there?
Has Honduras and Guatemala ever produced anything other than those noise maker things you shake while dancing the salsa? You couldn't provide some of these places with the blueprints for a Model T Ford AND the materials, and expect them to be able to assemble them without the wheels attached to the roof. Face it, some places in the world are just a drain on the rest of the planet. How can we fix that? And then why should we be their lifeboat?
You seem like a swell person.
Wasn't that policy started by Obama? I believe so.From their families. Supposedly ~600.
Your screen name is fitting.Thank you!
How marvelously vague you are being. So when progressives use terms like abolish or defund they don't actually mean to abolish or defund but wont tell any9ne what they do actually mean by their incorrect use of the english language.As I mentioned, redistributing some of its functions. An example from my own work experience in the 1980s: back then, the bureaucrats who decided on visas also decided on asylum cases. Years of protests of their dumb decisions this ended with me, who used to do battle with such decisions, being invited to address the new specialized corps of asylum officers set up when the wierd (in this area) Reagan administration transferred to the Bush one.
You are aware are you not that the vast majority of these from Central America which apply for asylum, and then go through the due process, end up being denied asylum. We don't grant political asylum just because a nation is poor.
++ I haven't seen the stats, but it wouldn't surprise me is what you say is true, for two reasons: first the mingling of economic migrants with legitimate asylum seekers, a problem that has been around for decades here and in other hemispheres. If a hurricane strikes Honduras or Chavez screws up Venezueza's economy, the hunger and joblessness created don't justify an asylum claim. Second that Trump deliberately made asylum seekers fleeing drug gang violence ineligible for asylum. I assume that this will not stand court scrutiny, as it goes against decades of precedent accepted by many administrations.
If we did, then half of South East Asia, most of Africa, and half of India would all be allowed to come here. So my question remains: What makes Central America and Mexico so special? Just because it is easier to get here and game the system? What message does that send to the rest of the world about fairness in our immigration system?
++ Central America and Mexico are not special. The only country that I am aware of that is "special" is Cuba, as those nationals get immigration "benefits" upon arrival. The "message" sent is in US law and treaty obligations. That it is easier to get here is also a factor obviously, but irrelevant, an accident of geography. People being persecuted in Nigeria, say, can't organize a caravan to come here. People fleeing Chile during Pinochet's time might go to a post-Falklands War Argentina. People fleeing Vietnam went to Thailand, Kurds fleeing persecution went to Europe.
I'm not saying that America doesn't need new immigrants; our aging population and our lowered birth rates pretty much indicates we do. But we need to have control of our system and our borders, or we won't have a nation in the future. Plus, with advancements in automation, robotics, and AI, we won't need as many of these people as we may thing we do.
++ We do have control of our borders. I have argued that we could get greater control if we fined employers or had a national ID system, but some conservatives who complain about illegals seeking jobs oppose such things. We also could control things like caravans and discourage ineligible asylum claims if we responded with some other suggestions I have posted, and processed asylum claims more efficiently.
Oh come on. I gave you an example of successful restructuring regarding asylum in the past, and to answer another post, I noted that democratic candidates did not propose abolition or defunding. What's your point in repeating that? Btw, the "abolish ICE" cry was about as accurate -and dumb- a slogan to describe what the left was seeking as was "defund the police." I plead guilty to bad sloganing by the left. The right counters with its own "they want open borders" idiocy.How marvelously vague you are being. So when progressives use terms like abolish or defund they don't actually mean to abolish or defund but wont tell any9ne what they do actually mean by their incorrect use of the english language.
This is why I dont take the words coming from the left seriously.
They kept the kids in cages while the parents were deported. Either deport them both, let both in, or if there is credible charges of human trafficking, send the child through ORR. Trump didnt do either of these.He should just put them back across the border. Illegal is illegal. I hae no problem with anyone who wants a better life, but if you break the law to get it, that's a whole other story. Would you allow someone steal your car and just because the had it rough before should they get to keep it, after all, you did caught them stealing it. So maybe the should get to keep it.
Abolishing ICE was much more on track than defund the police. Abolish ICE and make border control more accountable to justice.Oh come on. I gave you an example of successful restructuring regarding asylum in the past, and to answer another post, I noted that democratic candidates did not propose abolition or defunding. What's your point in repeating that? Btw, the "abolish ICE" cry was about as accurate -and dumb- a slogan to describe what the left was seeking as was "defund the police." I plead guilty to bad sloganing by the left. The right counters with its own "they want open borders" idiocy.
When I lived on the border some years ago, upon crossing to the US I could be checked by an immigration official, a customs official, or public health. Whether those federal agencies were separate or part of one overarching super-agency is/was a matter of structuring. When found with medicine in my trunk - from the clinic I worked with - customs detained me and waited for, I believe, a public health official to look at the pills, and pronounce them vitamins, not downers as the immigration and customs guys had thought. (There was a big problem with Mexican-side youth using what were called "reds" back then.)
Asylum, immigration, health, smuggling, human trafficking, citizenship and economics are all part of the same complex set of situations, made more complex by the relatively unusual situation of an extremely wealthy country with a long peaceful border with a relatively poor one, with Mexico facing even much poorer countries to its southeast.
You and others are claiming that abolish really means changes. Im asking for someone, anyone, to specify what changes means and when we can expect to see them implement whatever these changes are. Is it a secret?Oh come on. I gave you an example of successful restructuring regarding asylum in the past, and to answer another post, I noted that democratic candidates did not propose abolition or defunding. What's your point in repeating that? Btw, the "abolish ICE" cry was about as accurate -and dumb- a slogan to describe what the left was seeking as was "defund the police." I plead guilty to bad sloganing by the left. The right counters with its own "they want open borders" idiocy.
When I lived on the border some years ago, upon crossing to the US I could be checked by an immigration official, a customs official, or public health. Whether those federal agencies were separate or part of one overarching super-agency is/was a matter of structuring. When found with medicine in my trunk - from the clinic I worked with - customs detained me and waited for, I believe, a public health official to look at the pills, and pronounce them vitamins, not downers as the immigration and customs guys had thought. (There was a big problem with Mexican-side youth using what were called "reds" back then.)
Asylum, immigration, health, smuggling, human trafficking, citizenship and economics are all part of the same complex set of situations, made more complex by the relatively unusual situation of an extremely wealthy country with a long peaceful border with a relatively poor one, with Mexico facing even much poorer countries to its southeast.
Why does ICE need abolishing rather than making changes in structure or responsibilities as done in the pastAbolishing ICE was much more on track than defund the police. Abolish ICE and make border control more accountable to justice.
I repeat that when I looked it up, almost no candidates said they wanted to abolish ICE. On the subject of changes, one suggested in the past has been to separated out border and visa enforcement from other services. I alluded to this in other posts, but years ago the same official who handled visa grants or extensions and all of the other stuff connected to immigration requests also did reviews of political asylum cases. For decisions on the latter, they relied very heavily on Reagan’s state dept opinions, which were notoriously biased against people fleeing right-wing countries. Years of objections from advocates brought about changes in the first Bush administration, which had far less myopia in its analysis of human rights, and the specialized corps of asylum officers was established. That not only made things better for asylum seekers, it had the added effect of reducing the burden on immigration courts. But my impression is that there is sonmuch variety and often at the same time interconnectedness under the one roof of immigration, that changes and reforms are two edged swords, producing unforeseen consequences.You and others are claiming that abolish really means changes. Im asking for someone, anyone, to specify what changes means and when we can expect to see them implement whatever these changes are. Is it a secret?
Sorry, not sure I understand. My habit for a while now when responding to a long post with many points made therein, has been to respond to each point separately, inserting my comments using double crosses (++) to separate out my words from the paragraphs or grouping of sentences I am responding to. Then I use a carriage return, so that the poster’s words are distinguished from mine. Sorry if that causes confusion, but i was trying to do the opposite, as it allows me to make clearer which point I am responding to. And especially when on my phone, I thus don’t have to scroll up and down again to insure that I have available to me accurately what the poster has said. If I deleted parts of your posts it would not have been intentional, unless the total response was too long for DP and I was required to. I will try to be more careful in the future.To Nickyjo:
Regarding post #91 in this thread.
When you quote another member but then edit in your comments inside their 'quote tags' to make your comments seem as if they said them. That is a very wrong thing to do and why I have reported you to the mods.
Maybe you didn't mean to do that, and maybe it was just you being sloppy. But for the record your recent quoting of my remarks were edited by you and were not my words, just so everyone here is aware of that.
You can say anything you like to about my positions, or about me personally, but when misquote me, or seemingly alter my words in a post, then we have a big problem.
Here is an interesting article that talks about how VP rejects the word abolish but also wants to completely dismantle the current agency and defund it.I repeat that when I looked it up, almost no candidates said they wanted to abolish ICE. On the subject of changes, one suggested in the past has been to separated out border and visa enforcement from other services. I alluded to this in other posts, but years ago the same official who handled visa grants or extensions and all of the other stuff connected to immigration requests also did reviews of political asylum cases. For decisions on the latter, they relied very heavily on Reagan’s state dept opinions, which were notoriously biased against people fleeing right-wing countries. Years of objections from advocates brought about changes in the first Bush administration, which had far less myopia in its analysis of human rights, and the specialized corps of asylum officers was established. That not only made things better for asylum seekers, it had the added effect of reducing the burden on immigration courts. But my impression is that there is sonmuch variety and often at the same time interconnectedness under the one roof of immigration, that changes and reforms are two edged swords, producing unforeseen consequences.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?