Yes but since all of this fear-mongering is contrived by the liberal safe-space culture that has bred groups like this and not based in reality, we won't need to do any of that.
Beyond the moral arguements, the real reason nothing has happened is that this has absolutely no popular support in areas who actually have undocumented immigrants.
People in these areas usually are fine with them because "who cares". Businesses are fine because they usually represent cheap labor. Local governments have a lot to do on their plate already, they don't want to go in the immigration business.
These policies are basically "federal overreach". Feds fly in to do something the locals do not want.
Do you think LA is a sanctuary city because of Obama? It's the will of the people. Who cares what people in Iowa think?
And republicans are fine with them because they need cheap workers they can abuse who will never call OSHA, that they can steal wages from, and that they can stiff on workers comp.
Oh for sure. But the dimming of prospects for low skills Americans may have the Repubs, with their newfound populism, find that to survive as a party they will have to look out for the derided suburban worker instead of the guy or gal who sit in corner offices.
I will believe it when it happens (not that I would object, the middle class needs all the help it can get).
But so far, the populism looks like hokum. For just one example, Carrier was bribed to stay. And probably in a way that gets more money to the execs than to the employees. My bet is grift all the way down...
It ain't going to happen but I'd love to see Bernie tapped for a labor dept job. Get him in, co-opt him and have him go at the sellouts who move ops overseas to save a few bucks.
It takes many legal immigrants years to get status. Some of them wait a decade. I've known a few who had to wait this out. For these people having others jump the line is not a friendly gesture.
Most people welcome immigrants, so long as they follow the rules others have to follow.
Arguably our system is in need of reform or many kinds (it's our prerogative to seek immigrants of high value to the economy, for example, or those who fill a skills gap or labor gap -say farm workers)
I'm fine with them because I'm a parent, and the idea of deporting the parents of my children's friends and classmates makes me nauseous and angry. I don't much care for any analysis past that.
It was the same with the trans bathrooms. You might be surprised how many of us parents have kids with trans friends. The issues get real clear real fast when you see how they affect your kids friends. It's not at all hard to get a glimpse of how they'd affect your kids, if circumstances were different.
The trans thing is something I don't get. It's a non issue. Make all bathrooms unisex. Any one can use any bathroom. In the end women get more access to bathrooms than they do now. Stick a couple of urinals here and there.
When people get into a country illegally, they know it's illegal. They know the consequences (for themselves and any dependents), but they hope they will not get caught and do it anyway, so it's hard to see it as if the state "did this" to them. I've seen this in China, Japan, etc. They know any day could be their last. Many had to have their friends sell their belongings for them because in those places you may have a week at most to get out.
Moreover, whatever you have to say about the parents, the children are American citizens, with all the rights and privileges our grandparents fought World War 2 to preserve. If their families are to be torn up, there needs to be a better reason than lack of immigration paperwork.
Not to belabor the point, but most children of illegal immigrants are dual citizens --US and their parents' home country.
However, the administration should consider these a lower priority but should enforce immigration policy so that we do not have as many of these cases come up. Basically continue the Obama approach but with better border security.
What on Earth does it matter that they have dual citizenships? They've known no other home but the United States --- their actual home country --- and even if that weren't true, they're American citizens.
A "lower priority"? Shouldn't it be the opposite: the priority being that we don't tear up the families of our countrymen over paperwork issues?
Lower enforcement priority. That is may not even get to addressing them from a legal perspective.
I mention it because some people think "Oh, we're throwing the parents of American citizens out" --no it's the parents of someone who both hold foreign as well as American citizenship. So one could as equally say they're deporting the parents of a Serbian or Brazilian citizen, but it'd be most accurate to say the parents of a dual Brazilian and American or dual Serbian and American citizen.
You keep writing as if to imply that someone who might have access to Honduran citizenship, the way I would have access to Irish citizenship by dint of an Irish grandparent, is somehow less of an American citizen than others. Is that what you mean to imply?
Not quite. Citizenship is a somewhat odd thing (think China or Japan and other places and how they interpret citizenship) in that countries have different views on it and how its gained (some require military service, for example). And the children are no less a citizen, but they are also not less of a citizen of the second country either (which seems to be an implication some are trying to make)
So your parents were not more American than say they were Irish [if their parents were still legally Irish at their births]. They were the same. But we're trying to say they are more American than they are Irish and by law they would not be.
Can you bring us back to the place where I am meant to care about this? We are talking about people who have known no other country than their home country --- America.
Well, affected families have two options --split up (some in America some back home in Croatia, Honduras, etc. or follow their parents as their dual citizenship allows and apply for visa and citizenship as allowed by law.
I agree that those are the options. What I don't understand is how that isn't abhorrent: lose your parents, or lose your home country. What kind of a choice is that? No kind at all.
We owe our countrymen better than that. I mean, we just plainly do; it's close to the bare minimum obligation we have as a nation.
Simple solution: amend the constitution and ban the 14th amendments birthright clause. Are there any other countries on Earth that support people sneaking in to pop out a baby with the knowledge that said country will fully pay for and grant all rights and privileges to that child? No. It's not about compassion for immigrants, it's about reality and economics. We have millions of homeless and impoverished in our own backyards so let's stop incentivizing the poor of other countries to come here and get a free ride on the back of our middle class.
> amend the constitution and ban the 14th amendments birthright clause.
And replace it with what, exactly? That clause [0] is, after all, what created uniform national citizenship, and eliminated varying and discriminatory state citizenship policies. Even if one agrees that the "anchor baby" problem is something that warrants limiting citizenship to combat (highly contentious proposition itself), simply blowing up the entire post-Civil War model of US citizenship is a rather brute approach with wide ranging consequences outside the immediate target area.
[0] "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
That's super true, though it's important to remember that ghettos are still a thing in all but name only in some cities. Public transit routes still get voted down because "they" might show up in the nicer parts of towns.
As jobs are automated away and our own unskilled labor force finds it harder to find any job, there will be more concern about it.
All the feds have to do is enforce e-verify. If anything Trumps win likely signifies distress from the working class. If the Dems dig in their heals and cater more to non citizens than they do their own citizens, I'm afraid they may lose in the next election again.
No, that is plainly not sufficient, which is obvious because many states already do this. Unless by "enforce E-Verify" you mean something far more drastic.
It means you fine people or firms hiring people who don't have work documents. No excuses. Forged? They get fined and pay for the ticket back to home country of person using forged docs.
> If the Dems dig in their heals and cater more to non citizens than they do their own citizens, I'm afraid they may lose in the next election again.
This is precisely why Trump won more than any reason. He made an appeal to the most important group in America, the middle class, and they agreed with him.
I'm not sure Trump has it in him, but if he did and courted the black working class the right way, I think he could start winning them over from the Dems. But he has to be serious about creating jobs for them, it means raising the min wage to $15 and not allowing undocs to undercut citizen workers.
Trump should learn one thing. Black families like jobs. They'll vote for jobs. They also want, if not always like the police but jobs would go a long way to smoothing things over, as with any pop.
he lost the popular vote, and only won it within income brackets above $60k+.
He won because everyone voted along party lines + similar turnout to 2000 (Dem marginally above Rep turnout). All other narratives do not match the actual results.
Put more simply: Trump didn't convert Democrat "white working class" voters in PA, so much as they abstained from the election altogether. The middle class didn't vote Trump in; they sat the whole thing out.
Trump got way more votes than Romney did, nearly as many as Obama 2012, despite considerably more third party votes. Overall turnout was higher than 2012 too.
So theory is Trump mobilized a ton of voters who sat out in 2012?
> the middle class didn't vote Trump, they sat the whole thing out.
Wrong. Trump won the election in a landslide of the electoral college and likely a majority of the popular vote if you audit the southwestern states you abhor to filter out "undocumented people" who voted. That is also not taking into account that Trump primarily campaigned in a small handful of states due to the nature of our electoral system and likely would have won larger in a system without the electoral college. He won the rust belt states which voted Obama into office for 8 years. Attempting to strip his victory from him by making empty statements about the white working class does little to advance any sort of counter-argument to his policies or achievements.
This is sad, you really think Trump is anti-immigrant? If you paid half a moment of attention you would know he is anti-ILLEGAL immigrant which is perfectly reasonable in a sovereign country with immigration laws.
I really think Trump is anti-immigrant. The distinction between legal and ILLEGAL immigrants sometimes cuts across families, and doesn't matter to those of us who came here from elsewhere. We know once the ILLEGAL immigrants are deported, we're next up.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. There is a CLEAR distinction between who is here legally and who is here illegally. In fact we have specific laws that define precisely the difference. I don't feel sorry for people that have come here illegally, afterall they broke the law as their first action to get here. I think a big problem is that we've gone so long kicking the can down the road that people (esp in California) have become used to this status quo where we turn a blind eye. Now that Trump has come in and promised to actually enforce our already existing laws, the left has exploded in anger thinking "how could he?!". I have followed this election closely and I have yet to hear a single thing that leads me to think he is going to deport legal citizens of any background whatsoever or that he'll discriminate against them. It's simply untrue. DJT loves America more than any President in our modern time and our country will grow strong under his leadership.
One thing you must realize is that the median undocumented immigrant has been here 12 years. Many of these people have children who are American citizens, so if you promise to deport them, you're in effect saying you want to break up families.
Maybe that's fine with you. I don't think it sits well with a lot of people.
Realize as well that immigration status is a precarious thing, and it's not always clear who is here legally and who is not. Many people spend a long time in administrative limbo. I was in the US for seven years before I learned I was "legal".
Like many things, immigration is less clear-cut when you look at it in detail. I encourage you to do that, whether or not you end up agreeing with me.
> I don't feel sorry for people that have come here illegally, afterall they broke the law as their first action to get here.
You are casually dismissing the group of people who are the main focus of controversy: people who arrived as children and have been here all their lives. They have never known the country they would be deported to. They are Americans by lived experience. They broke no laws.
I am simply not comfortable deporting those people. It brings us no benefit whatsoever.
> I have followed this election closely and I have yet to hear a single thing that leads me to think he is going to deport legal citizens of any background whatsoever
If you have a "deportation force" that operates on the kind of scale he claims to want at the speed he wants, you are obviously going to deport some citizens. It happened during Operation Wetback and there is no reason to think it would not happen again. People just don't always have their papers in order, and the immigration courts are backed up for years.
Would you be more agreeable if we gave amnesty to all existing illegals and then cracked down hard and built a much stronger border going forward? Where is the common ground?
I don't know what "cracked down hard" is supposed to mean, so I can't answer that.
I do know that I would be hard-pressed to come up with a more expensive, pointless, and futile way to attempt to restrict illegal immigration than building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, though.
Cracked down meaning we are not letting in illegal immigrants period. As far as the cost, you're incorrect so please do some research. The cost of building a border wall is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of taking care of the illegals each year.
Look at what you're writing. The US has had the policy you advocate for dozens of years; that's why they're called "illegal" immigrants.
Meanwhile: since 2000, the number of by-land unauthorized immigrants to the US has plummeted, with the share of unauthorized immigrants who simply overstay visas approaching 50%.
"The wall" isn't bad policy because it's inhumane. I care deeply about not deporting unauthorized immigrants but not even a little about the social impact of a big ugly wall in our big ugly southwest states.
"The wall" is bad policy because it's an extremely expensive make-work project that won't actually meaningfully reduce unauthorized immigration. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. Even the unauthorized immigrants who get here on land aren't running across open field land borders. The policy is a con, meant to appeal to a popular misconception of who unauthorized immigrants in this country are and how they got here.
You are like 2-3 Google searches away from verifying for yourself how stupid this particular use of funds is regardless of your opinions about immigration.
First off, the southwest states are anything but "big ugly". The wall isn't an endgame solution it's part of a larger shift in overall policy to actually enforce our existing immigration laws which will also include booting people who have overstayed their visa. We should also look to revamp our immigration process to allow legal immigrants in faster (10 years is way too long) and incentivize those who will ADD to America to come here. I agree the wall is in some ways symbolic but it is functional as well. Google secured fence act as HRC was also on board with it.
We already have policies that have demonstrably curbed unauthorized immigration over our southern border. Unauthorized land crossings have plummeted since 2000. You are again just a few Google searches away from the numbers. The wall is in almost every sense symbolic, and will not address the concern it is meant to address.
Again: it's annoying that we'd consider investing billions of dollars in a make-work project that really serves as nothing but a giant monument to racism --- couldn't we just paint the statue of liberty white, or something? --- but the real issue with the wall isn't moral, it's that it's a gigantic waste of money. It won't even prevent unauthorized immigration over our southern border, because that's not how unauthorized immigration works.
It's just a deterrent, part of a broader restrengthening of our nations' sovereignty imo. It sends a message. The amount of money is quite small when compared to real sources of government debt such as entitlements or the military.
The thinking here being that the best response to a spiraling national debt is to spend tens of billions of dollars on worthless public works projects?
Uh, did you support Obama and 800B he spent on infrastructure? Were you gonna support Clinton and her proposed $300B borrowed from the public for infrastructure (copying Obama's failed move)? If you could relax off the vitriol you might find that Trump's ideas could lead to an uptick in our economy. You might even give him a chance. Afterall, every newspaper and "economist" in the world predicted the market would plummet if he were elected and instead it rose to it's highest levels.
Let's not pretend this is some altruistic "academic" endeavor to satiate some curiosity. This is a thought-out play borne out of the rejection of the election result by the left.
Don't you think a significant difference between districts where everything is similar except for the voting mechanism, with a trend to favor a specific candidate on one hard-to-audit mechanism is suspicious?
It might be so, but I also find reports of 3+ million illegals, 4+ million dead people, and other alleged acts of fraud to be suspicious... If we're going to go down that path it won't be pretty and it will likely involve more than just those 3 states. That said from what I read MI has already declared they've certified (recounted) their results so at this point Stein is just hustling money. I do wish technology could advance our voting systems on the whole though.. possibly block-chain based? but might require voter id! oye
Citation needed for those claims. As far as I can tell they come from a guy on twitter who refuses to share the data or explain his methodology. Parroting unverified and most likely false claims like this only serves to legitimize the fake "news sites" that publish this stuff without fact checking.
When did I "parrot" anything as truth? I said I find it highly suspicious. If you want to go down the path of "fake news" sites how about we talk about almost every major network that had Clinton winning in a landslide?
Care to elaborate what that scale is? We're using ember for a new app that expects very large traffic volumes on continual basis with realtime components etc... I've worked with ember for the past few years and opted to use it but always interested in hearing other viewpoints esp for "high scale"
Parent may not be talking about scale in terms of Traffic but big project code-base where you and team have a hard time keeping something in head and how something is being rendered.
You're criticizing a presidency that hasn't even seen it's first day! All of the "evidence" also pointed to Clinton winning in a landslide, and then a stock market crash after he won... what happened? Ya. Relax.
Interesting isn't it. Just like the media, who just until 2 days ago were sure Trump will never win this one, and now are confidently telling us what the next 4 years would be.
Well I am having a blast watching CNN and NBC and I don't usually watch TV, but now I put it on for entertainment...
> I am guessing because filing a fake police report is a crime...
No. In Germany, many left-wing activists do not file police claims if they've been beaten up or assaulted by fascists. The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.
In America, where even private information such as divorce papers apparently falls under "this is a public document" rules, I wouldn't even dare calling 911, much less filing a police report.
Wow, sounds like it is bad there, it is not as bad here yet.
> The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.
Except her name is on Twitter, the full name. It is not that hard to find the address.
Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends? And that is the reason she did not want to file a police report? Somehow you jumped over the simplest explanation - that she lied, straight to "campus police are a fascists who compile lists of people".
I think you misunderstand the fear of reprisal minorities feel. It is a truly awful feeling to not be able to either a) trust law enforcement to not dismiss you because of your minority status, or even actively repress you (black people in America experience this all the time, and now Muslims too); or b) not be able to approach law enforcement because you're worried that there will be more of a backlash from allies of your attackers. Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.
And just in general: the lady's a minority, and from a minority that is very much under pressure these days, thanks to a President-elect whose platform was built on a platform that attacked her, her family, and her friends for their religion. Considering all of that, give her the benefit of the doubt.
Good points, I agree about fear of not being take seriously. Active repression and reprisals are real too and you're right the Black community has been suffering that for many years. Due to Youtube and everyone carrying smartphones it has become more known later.
> Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.
Good point again. I agree in general it is a very justified fear.
However in this particular case it is the campus police of a university. That is not the same as Chicago PD (who have been known to torture people) or NYPD. This is a police force that is employed by the University. Having gone to a US university and dealt with campus police (they helped me return a stolen phone) I have a bit of a first hand experience with them. I think no mater who the victim is, and no matter their political views, it would be bad for them, their employer, the whole community to have kids stabbed on campus. Or have anyone take revenge and assault them.
So it looks extremely suspicious based on the specifics. And if it is fake, that was an incredibly stupid idea. It disqualifies and puts under suspicion real cases of assault and abuse.
I agree that it if it is a fake incident, it would be awful and would disqualify real issues. I'm not sure what the background of this girl is (maybe she's an immigrant who's only heard bad things about the police, campus or otherwise? maybe she's terrified and just wants to put it behind her, instead of necessarily pursuing justice?) but I do think it would be better to give her the benefit of the doubt unless it's proven conclusively that she faked it.
I know that typically in courts the accuser has to prevent positive evidence, but this is a traumatizing time for minorities - let the court of public opinion at least not rush to brand her as a faker, at least in part because if it is real, doing so will only exacerbate her trauma.
> Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends?
No, you misunderstood me. The police simply pass on the details of the accuser to the accused's legal defense and in most cases the accused himself. Of course, fascists share data obtained by this route (and the lefties obviously do the same). It's a doxx-war.
I am sorry, I imagine it would be possible in Germany. Even if I try, I don't see University of Illinois campus police doing it. I see them not taking her seriously (but why wouldn't they? it would be terrible for their jobs to have customers there getting stabbed).
But them being members of a fascist party and compiling lists, as hard as I try, I don't see happening.
Her name is in plain sight on Twitter. If she was afraid of reprisals why would she post it on Twitter with her full name?
Isn't something as simple as it being fake a more plausible explanation?
I just scrolled around randomly and one of the moments is a group of young black men kicking an old white man [0]. I'm not sure what the message is here but it seems likely that the collators are playing fast and loose to pile the evidence on
so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write code? what he did is nothing short of monumental and he WANTS to help America. If everyone is so damn smart then get involved and suggest changes. It's not like he's a fucking robot that is going to sit back and count how many marble statues he has in his garden!
Want money out of presidential politics? Make everybody run using only the presidential-campaign fund. You know, that one that you check the box on your tax return to give a couple bucks to?
As for Congress, we also already have a good fix, we just never got around to passing it. Congressional politics are full of money because the districts are too large, on average. The districts are too large because in the 50 states, with 320 million people, we have only 435 voting members in the House of Representatives.
The solution is more Representatives and smaller districts; when you don't have to run a campaign in multiple expensive markets across a broad area, you don't need as much money (and can get to know your constituents better).
And it turns out... there's a constitutional amendment for that.
Way back in 1789 when Congress met for the first time after the Constitution went into effect, they submitted twelve amendments to the states. Ten of them were ratified quickly and became what we know as the Bill of Rights. The other two were not ratified by enough states, and were mostly forgotten.
Today, it's common for Congress to put a time limit on an amendment, saying it has to be ratified within X years or it's dead. But back then they didn't do that. So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment.
The other one is still sitting out there, and would become part of the Constitution if enough states (currently, 27) would ratify it. And it changes the formula for how many Representatives there are, and how they're apportioned. The original text of the Constitution set a cap on the size of the House of Representatives, at one Representative per 30,000 people. The apportionment amendment would raise that to 1 per 50,000, and the version passed by the Senate would require increasing the number of Representatives as the population of the US grows.
So if you want real change in Congress, campaign to get the House of Representatives enlarged. There's even already an amendment available to help you, if you can get it ratified.
Sounds like a good thing then to filter out non-universally good ideas and a great measure to make it harder to buy politicians. Gov needs to do less, not more.
It'll definitely make it harder to buy (a meaningful number of) politicians. It'll also filter out bad ideas, but I'm afraid it'll also filter out the good ones. After all, there is research (which I'm too lazy to look up right now) that shows that as the size of a committee grows, their output tends towards mediocrity. But I dunno, perhaps mediocrity is what we actually want in government? (Not being sarcastic.)
> So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment.
A minor correction to this fascinating story: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th...), Gregory Watson, a UT Austin student, discovered it in 1982. The significance of the year 1992 (in this connection) is that that's when it actually became part of the Constitution.
Are you under the impression that campaign finance reform is a new issue brought up minutes ago on this forum, and hasn't been extensively researched with proposals before?
In the spirit of your comment, I'd like to suggest a massive income raise for elected federal officials. The leader of the free world makes something like $400k / year. If we were willing to give them more, it might reduce the temptation to take so much from lobbyists, and perhaps save us a lot of money in the long run. If I'm wrong, it won't cost much in the scheme of things anyway.
Yes, for example one of the first things he talked about in his victory speech was helping out the inner cities. He must not know that there are high populations of black people in those areas.
