The deal we knew wasn’t a deal

[Mr Person]

You don't negotiate with "I'm shutting the entire government down unless I get what I want or unless you meet me in the middle!"

If Trump wants to negotiate he shouldn't do it with a gun up to 800,000 federal employees heads. Period. I can't stress this enough. He can go **** himself until he understands he's the president and can't take hostages just to negotiate.

Even that first sentence is too generous by half. This isn't meeting people in the middle. He's only offering to undo damage he caused (or tried to cause, and is temporarily prevented from causing by court rulings anyway), while also getting something he couldn't now get with Dems gaining power (getting rid of all methods for seeking asylum other than applying in certain Central American locations and waiting for however many years until we get around to ruling on their application, which we may deny anyway, while simultaneously continuing to shrink the total amount that can be granted to 15,000. )


It's absolute slimeball ****. No wonder the usual suspects defend it.

 

[bubbabgone]

:lamo

If YOU want to accuse WaPo of lying because they don't tell you what you want to hear, then you can go look up the proposed compromise 'bill' draft and check.

I'm asking you if you can explain why 700,000 isn't a reasonable number. Can you?

I don't see what's terribly confusing about the article or my summary of it. I'm not wasting time defending it to someone who is happy to insinuate that someone else is lying just because they're a "liberal", especially when that someone has already excused themselves of having to do to the work to proving it wrong.

So is that what you're doing? Conflating asylum seekers with legal immigrants? I think those are your words, not Sargent's, aren't they?

 

[NebraskaFtball]

Beware opinion columns in WAPO by far-left nutballs with a solidly left bio.

Why only 700,000? Did you check?
Where's the massive shrinking of legal immigration? Are characterizing "asylum" seekers as "legal immigrants".

You can read the proposed legislative text yourself. It is all in there and confirms what Washington Post reports. FYI...

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/End%20the%20Shutdown%20and%20Secure%20the%20Border%20Act.pdf

 

[Mr Person]

I'm asking you if you can explain why 700,000 isn't a reasonable number. Can you?

Obviously, because I want a path to citizenship for ALL of the people now eligible for DACA. If they haven't run around committing a bunch of violent crimes, why not let them stay? We don't jail a four year old for punching another kid. Why blame someone who was brought here at 4 by their parents?

Don't worry: I know. A large part of modern conservatism is blind mean-spirited proclamations about how important it is to enforce every law to the absolute maximum without exercise of prosecutorial discretion in order to create an image of oneself as being Tough On Crime and thus morally superior. A second large part is banal cruelty designed to scare people out of attempting to come to this country, well, unless they come from the Swedens of the world...

It won't be admitted, sure, but there are no good reasons to round up and deport DACA-eligible people, whether we're talking pragmatism and morality.



Of course...you're also managing to completely ignore how we got here: Trump shut down the government, said he was proud to do it, then issued demands, and now has offered a compromise part of which is something the courts already provided, and the other part of which is giving him something he wouldn't otherwise be able to wring out of a Dem house.

**** that, and **** the GOP's shutdown tactics. If they want to end this and get the money for the wall that they never bothered to seek when the GOP held the house - and that IS important, no matter how little DP conservatives want to talk about it - then they need to give something to the Dems that they really don't want to give. And if the Dems cave outright, they can go to hell with the GOP.

:shrug:

So is that what you're doing? Conflating asylum seekers with legal immigrants? I think those are your words, not Sargent's, aren't they?

Obtaining asylum IS a form of legal immigration. I'm no more interest in a semantic argument than I am about whether or not the author is lying because he is a liberal as you initially insinuated.

 

[Mycroft]

They can negotiate with the government open.

They won't.

 

[bubbabgone]

Obviously, because I want a path to citizenship for ALL of the people now eligible for DACA. If they haven't run around committing a bunch of violent crimes, why not let them stay? We don't jail a four year old for punching another kid. Why blame someone who was brought here at 4 by their parents?

Don't worry: I know. A large part of modern conservatism is blind mean-spirited proclamations about how important it is to enforce every law to the absolute maximum without exercise of prosecutorial discretion in order to create an image of oneself as being Tough On Crime and thus morally superior. A second large part is banal cruelty designed to scare people out of attempting to come to this country, well, unless they come from the Swedens of the world...

It won't be admitted, sure, but there are no good reasons to round up and deport DACA-eligible people, whether we're talking pragmatism and morality.



Of course...you're also managing to completely ignore how we got here: Trump shut down the government, said he was proud to do it, then issued demands, and now has offered a compromise part of which is something the courts already provided, and the other part of which is giving him something he wouldn't otherwise be able to wring out of a Dem house.

**** that, and **** the GOP's shutdown tactics. If they want to end this and get the money for the wall that they never bothered to seek when the GOP held the house - and that IS important, no matter how little DP conservatives want to talk about it - then they need to give something to the Dems that they really don't want to give. And if the Dems cave outright, they can go to hell with the GOP.

:shrug:

Suggesting 700,000 was just an arbitrary number as the writer did was dishonest. It represents those who registered for the DACA program. Nothing wrong with that.
And btw, regarding the term "morally superior"? ... it's another way to say "virtue signalling" and it was created to describe one of the left's tactics. I could give you an example that's real close at hand.

Obtaining asylum IS a form of legal immigration. I'm no more interest in a semantic argument than I am about whether or not the author is lying because he is a liberal as you initially insinuated.

If requesting asylum was the same as legal immigration there wouldn't be tracked differently, have separate requirements, and they'd both result in citizenship when granted.
It's more than semantics and characterizing them as being the same is dishonest too.

 

[Nickyjo]

They won't.

They already did. They produced legislation on the border. If Trump doesn’t like it, he can veto it like a grownup. No need to shut down the government. There is no emergency, except in Trump’s mind.

 

[poweRob]

Tell that to Nancy.

She knows. She's putting up with trump's extortion right now.

 

[polgara]

Beware opinion columns in WAPO by far-left nutballs with a solidly left bio.

Why only 700,000? Did you check?
Where's the massive shrinking of legal immigration? Are characterizing "asylum" seekers as "legal immigrants".

Greetings, bubbabgone. :2wave:

When it's apparent that there is zero trust in the other party on both sides of the aisle, why continue with this particular immigrant game? For one thing, I have never understood how we can have "sanctuary" cities in this Country - which means that illegal immigrants are protected from our laws because new laws are made to protect them. Huh? WTH? Also, is voting allowed in sanctuary cities?

People not too long ago used to joke that we should do what Mexico does - shoot or incarcerate illegals on sight, which did seem extreme - but since Mexico no longer has that problem since everyone now seems to understand that Mexico is just a country that allows Central Americans to go through on their way to the US border, and if they're not able to cross the border they will return to their own country since they know Mexico will not permit them to stay and become permanent "squatters" in Mexico! :no: I've read that President Roosevelt passed a law in 1906 that attempted to "tighten up" immigration rules for the benefit of the American people, but that was over 100 years ago and lots has changed since then that mostly benefits the illegals. :shrug:

 

[Mr Person]

Suggesting 700,000 was just an arbitrary number as the writer did was dishonest. It represents those who registered for the DACA program. Nothing wrong with that.
And btw, regarding the term "morally superior"? ... it's another way to say "virtue signalling" and it was created to describe one of the left's tactics. I could give you an example that's real close at hand.


If requesting asylum was the same as legal immigration there wouldn't be tracked differently, have separate requirements, and they'd both result in citizenship when granted.
It's more than semantics and characterizing them as being the same is dishonest too.

1. The article does not say the 700,000 was arbitrary. It says, in part, this about it:

The New York Times recently reported that Miller privately “intervened” to ensure that the bill dramatically downsizes the number of dreamers who would get protections. He cut that number from 1.8 million to 700,000 (the number Trump referenced). The bill text confirms this and illustrates how it was done. It grants three years of protected lawful status plus work authorization only to those who are currently on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, not to all of those who are eligible for it, a much larger pool. It cannot be renewed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...n-unmasked-total-sham/?utm_term=.4650ef30741e


2. The word "arbitrary" is used as to the 15,000 cap of asylum-seekers that will be allowed into the country no matter the circumstances. There's no reason to think that any additional asylum seekers do not need asylum, and the purpose of asylum is described thus:

. . . the basic values at the core of our asylum program — values in keeping with international human rights norms holding that if people who had good reason to flee horrible civil conditions at home present themselves at borders and appeal for refuge, they have the right to have their claims heard.


They just picked the number out of their ass, not based on any fact-finding.


3. "Virtue signalling" is indeed a term created to describe the left. However, it wasn't created to honestly describe the left. It was created for and employed in the RW media campaign to deny that racism had anything to do with any particular potentially racist event, which itself ties into the broader RW media campaign to foster perpetual agitation in the base by creating a meta-narrative in which white people, men, Christians, and especially conservatives, are the only real remaining victims of racial discrimination and are in fact the victims of a far broader everything by the left.

It's just another term they created so people would use it to deflect from potential racism: go on, conservative base, just call accuse those liberals of "virtue signalling", declare yourself morally superior for not doing it, and then ignore the event without considering it. That's the message.



4. Requesting asylum IS a form of "legal immigration". There are many forms. Silly semantic quibble.

 

[Mr Person]

Greetings, bubbabgone. :2wave:

When it's apparent that there is zero trust in the other party on both sides of the aisle, why continue with this particular immigrant game? For one thing, I have never understood how we can have "sanctuary" cities in this Country - which means that illegal immigrants are protected from our laws because new laws are made to protect them. Huh? WTH? Also, is voting allowed in sanctuary cities?

"Sanctuary cities" can exist because the federal government cannot order state government officials to enforce federal law. It does not refer to any active protection or voting. It means that if ICE learns an illegal is about to get released from jail, they have to send an agent to pick up that illegal. They don't get to order the state to hold that illegal beyond the expiration of his lawful prison sentence. But on the same token, the state officials can't block ICE agents from entering the jail to get the guy as he's released.

I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's really not all that huge of a deal. I'd be much more concerned about areas that decide to give drivers' licenses to illegals, and the like.

 

[bubbabgone]

1. The article does not say the 700,000 was arbitrary. It says, in part, this about it:

The New York Times recently reported that Miller privately “intervened” to ensure that the bill dramatically downsizes the number of dreamers who would get protections. He cut that number from 1.8 million to 700,000 (the number Trump referenced). The bill text confirms this and illustrates how it was done. It grants three years of protected lawful status plus work authorization only to those who are currently on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, not to all of those who are eligible for it, a much larger pool. It cannot be renewed.

But the article didn't give the reason for 700,000. I did.
Without giving you the real reason the writer left you to conclude Stephen Miller was the reason when there was an actual reason.

2. The word "arbitrary" is used as to the 15,000 cap of asylum-seekers that will be allowed into the country no matter the circumstances. There's no reason to think that any additional asylum seekers do not need asylum, and the purpose of asylum is described thus:

. . . the basic values at the core of our asylum program — values in keeping with international human rights norms holding that if people who had good reason to flee horrible civil conditions at home present themselves at borders and appeal for refuge, they have the right to have their claims heard.


They just picked the number out of their ass, not based on any fact-finding.

You don't know that either. Here's a thought for you to consider.
Asylum is not automatic. It has to be granted. What you quoted were not the requirements for being granted asylum. Given those requirements and given how may applicants are denied asylum, perhaps the number chosen was an attempt to reflect genuine cases deserving asylum ... rather than those on a job search.

3. "Virtue signalling" is indeed a term created to describe the left. However, it wasn't created to honestly describe the left. It was created for and employed in the RW media campaign to deny that racism had anything to do with any particular potentially racist event, which itself ties into the broader RW media campaign to foster perpetual agitation in the base by creating a meta-narrative in which white people, men, Christians, and especially conservatives, are the only real remaining victims of racial discrimination and are in fact the victims of a far broader everything by the left.

It's just another term they created so people would use it to deflect from potential racism: go on, conservative base, just call accuse those liberals of "virtue signalling", declare yourself morally superior for not doing it, and then ignore the event without considering it. That's the message.

Is a false accusation of racism racist?

4. Requesting asylum IS a form of "legal immigration". There are many forms. Silly semantic quibble.

Immigration and asylum are both legal but they're not the same ... are they.

 

[Mr Person]

But the article didn't give the reason for 700,000. I did.
Without giving you the real reason the writer left you to conclude Stephen Miller was the reason when there was an actual reason.

You don't know that either. Here's a thought for you to consider.
Asylum is not automatic. It has to be granted. What you quoted were not the requirements for being granted asylum. Given those requirements and given how may applicants are denied asylum, perhaps the number chosen was an attempt to reflect genuine cases deserving asylum ... rather than those on a job search.

Is a false accusation of racism racist?

Immigration and asylum are both legal but they're not the same ... are they.

1. Oh, give me a break. Stephen Miller didn't give some reasoned explanation of why he did it. He did the thing that Trump had been talking about: 700,000.

2. No, asylum is not automatic. That's the point. Courts rule on it. They want to do two things:

- Set an arbitrary limit of 15,000 a year.
- Refuse all asylum unless someone goes to a specific place in central America, yet to be defined/built, apply, and then ......wait, until we feel like dealing with it.



Seriously, this would be a lot easier if people just said "look, I admit it, I want more people like me around me and I don't want those foreigners coming in." That would be honest. The Trump admin is proudly hostile to all immigration. Have you bothered to look at the stats of the way people have legally come into the country over time for, say, 40 years?

What we've talked about here is far from the only example. The talk doesn't seem very productive, because apparently the idea is that the liberal lied because he's a liberal, then it was a quibble about semantics (is asylum a subset of 'legal immigration', or is it a legal way to immigrate that isn't "legal immigration" because...reasons, maybe), then a strange suggestion that because asylum is not automatically granted criticisms of changes to asylum that enforce a red-line rule that would shrink it yet again are no good, then the usual conservative move of claiming that accusations of racism (did I say racist here, btw?) are false and in fact are the only racism, concluding with the again-repeated lie that asylum is not "legal immigration" because it's not the same as the VERY MANY other ways one can legally immigrate to the US.

:roll:

 

[bubbabgone]

1. Oh, give me a break. Stephen Miller didn't give some reasoned explanation of why he did it. He did the thing that Trump had been talking about: 700,000.

2. No, asylum is not automatic. That's the point. Courts rule on it. They want to do two things:

- Set an arbitrary limit of 15,000 a year.
- Refuse all asylum unless someone goes to a specific place in central America, yet to be defined/built, apply, and then ......wait, until we feel like dealing with it.



Seriously, this would be a lot easier if people just said "look, I admit it, I want more people like me around me and I don't want those foreigners coming in." That would be honest. The Trump admin is proudly hostile to all immigration. Have you bothered to look at the stats of the way people have legally come into the country over time for, say, 40 years?

What we've talked about here is far from the only example. The talk doesn't seem very productive, because apparently the idea is that the liberal lied because he's a liberal, then it was a quibble about semantics (is asylum a subset of 'legal immigration', or is it a legal way to immigrate that isn't "legal immigration" because...reasons, maybe), then a strange suggestion that because asylum is not automatically granted criticisms of changes to asylum that enforce a red-line rule that would shrink it yet again are no good, then the usual conservative move of claiming that accusations of racism (did I say racist here, btw?) are false and in fact are the only racism, concluding with the again-repeated lie that asylum is not "legal immigration" because it's not the same as the VERY MANY other ways one can legally immigrate to the US.

:roll:

I told you why 700,000. Why doesn't that make sense to you?

Did you see Trump's swearing in of immigrants that came here through the normal process? Right before he announced his proposal to break the shutdown? He always encouraged immigration through "normal" immigration. They were of a variety of ethnic backgrounds.
Trump looked pretty proud, not at all hostile. Depending on what you select for your news, I guess you missed it. My understanding is that not everyone covered it. Curious.

You can already apply for refugee status at US embassies.
This would be similar.
Currently the asylum process is unmanageable and exploited.
Set a limit, control it, and there would be fewer trying to game it.
Some requests are rejected at the border.
After all, the requirements are quite clear (and they're not what you posted) and could be reviewed anywhere.
The point is, if the claim ain't going to fly, don't wait until it gets to the border.

"Seriously, this would be a lot easier if people just said I'm going to do a lot of virtue signaling on this for political reasons but I can't be candid about that so I'll call it racist to avoid having to admit it".

And yes, you did say "racist[racism] "here"... a lot ... in #35, for instance. So "Is a false accusation of racism racist?"

Fact remains, "Immigration and asylum are both legal but they're not the same ... are they."
40 years? Immigration [naturalization] laws have been around from the beginning of the Country while these massive fake asylum requests are a modern phenomenon that needs controls we don't currently have in place.
And I have to keep reminding you, wanting a better job isn't on the requirements menu.