(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

(11-01-2018 09:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  (ironically missing the point that seeking asylum is a legal path to immigration in the US).

(11-01-2018 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Federal judge positions that already exist are vacant because of Congressional gridlock, not lack of funding.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

(11-01-2018 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  (ironically missing the point that seeking asylum is a legal path to immigration in the US).

I completely understand that it is a legal path. (strawman). I dont overlook that the process itself is subject to massive misuse (which it is). And you seemingly completely assume that each and every asylum request is a valid request -- and blithely ignore that it is a not a means to game the system to make sure you arent on the 6am bus to Reynosa. Funny that.

(11-01-2018 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

The asylum system is being used to short circuit the entire system of immigration. I dont see what is so hard to understand about this.

Step 1: make sure everyone in every 'caravan' and every group spouts 'asylum'. This is precisely what I have seen being 'taught' at pro-bono clinics. Once you spout 'asylum' -- there is a 90 percent chance you arent on the overnight bus to Reynosa. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Beats the fing crap out of me 'who' specifically wants to short circuit the deportation system. I have some good guesses. But this *is* what is being specifically taught.

Step 2: once you are in the 'lets assess' asylum, there is a big push to make sure that as few people are held as possible. i.e. 'catch and release'. In fact, the tutorials I have seen explicitly mention this aspect. If you arent claiming asylum, the track is no more than 10 days in detention, a fairly quick hearing, and the outbound bus. If you claim asylum, as illini reported, 90 per cent of those claiming this are out into a different track -- released on recognizance.

Illini also mentioned that the effort to curtail this 90 percent rate was met with fierce opposition in court.

I dont see what the confusion is. There is active participation to make sure that as many people spout the asylum line to avoid that quick trip back. When word gets back to the base population that there is a 'short circuit' available, do you expect the numbers of people making that trek to increase or decrease?

The caravans are a direct offshoot of of the 'asylum' short circuit.

If you cant put two and two together, not my problem. (well considering you vote, it actually is to some extent....)

(11-01-2018 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

They may or may not be. Nice deflection from the current issue. The current issue is whether the asylum process is being misused in a massive means.

You automatically think that the process can be addressed at the back end. There are plenty of solutions at the front end as well. Solutions that would not send a signal of an 'easy way in'. Funny that you and every single progressive hates making that step.

Hate to say 'gang violence' is not a valid reason under US law for asylum as most progressives think and want. Giving a more rigid screen at initial detention and a heightened burden of proof at the outset would do just that. But, as you can see from the lawsuits, the progs are dead set against that. Again, color me surprised.

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

(11-01-2018 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

The asylum system is being used to short circuit the entire system of immigration. I dont see what is so hard to understand about this.

Step 1: make sure everyone in every 'caravan' and every group spouts 'asylum'. This is precisely what I have seen being 'taught' at pro-bono clinics. Once you spout 'asylum' -- there is a 90 percent chance you arent on the overnight bus to Reynosa. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Beats the fing crap out of me 'who' specifically wants to short circuit the deportation system. I have some good guesses. But this *is* what is being specifically taught.

Step 2: once you are in the 'lets assess' asylum, there is a big push to make sure that as few people are held as possible. i.e. 'catch and release'. In fact, the tutorials I have seen explicitly mention this aspect. If you arent claiming asylum, the track is no more than 10 days in detention, a fairly quick hearing, and the outbound bus. If you claim asylum, as illini reported, 90 per cent of those claiming this are out into a different track -- released on recognizance.

Illini also mentioned that the effort to curtail this 90 percent rate was met with fierce opposition in court.

I dont see what the confusion is. There is active participation to make sure that as many people spout the asylum line to avoid that quick trip back. When word gets back to the base population that there is a 'short circuit' available, do you expect the numbers of people making that trek to increase or decrease?

The caravans are a direct offshoot of of the 'asylum' short circuit.

If you cant put two and two together, not my problem. (well considering you vote, it actually is to some extent....)

You said the system was being defanged, which means that those making the laws or carrying them out are defanging them.

I asked you which Republican-led body is doing the defanging.

Quote: to make harmless or less powerful

(11-01-2018 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

All or nothing with you, isn't it? If one guy can high jump 7', then they must all be the same?

Sheesh. And it is you guys who say we only see stereotypes.

If these people do not have the skills to find work in their own country, why do you assume they will readily find work here? Why do you assume they will be productive citizens?

and what about all the single women with children? Will they be working as welders next month?

We are getting the dregs. some of them will find work at the lowest levels and be glad of it. But others will not, and some will be only too happy to do nothing and live off the government.

You need to stop thinking of the immigrants as all being noble, all hard-working, all this or that. Think of the spectrum, and stop attributing the same features to the whole rainbow. That is just propaganda you are buying.

Why do you think people who could not find or hold work where they are will become productive, federal tax paying members of our society? A few will, most won't. Which ones do you Schumer et al will talk about? The few. Which ones will you and the rest of the base think are exemplars of the whole? The ones Schumer et al presents to you. I think you accept that kind of anecdotal evidence.

Quote:A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."

(11-01-2018 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.

So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

The asylum system is being used to short circuit the entire system of immigration. I dont see what is so hard to understand about this.

Step 1: make sure everyone in every 'caravan' and every group spouts 'asylum'. This is precisely what I have seen being 'taught' at pro-bono clinics. Once you spout 'asylum' -- there is a 90 percent chance you arent on the overnight bus to Reynosa. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Beats the fing crap out of me 'who' specifically wants to short circuit the deportation system. I have some good guesses. But this *is* what is being specifically taught.

Step 2: once you are in the 'lets assess' asylum, there is a big push to make sure that as few people are held as possible. i.e. 'catch and release'. In fact, the tutorials I have seen explicitly mention this aspect. If you arent claiming asylum, the track is no more than 10 days in detention, a fairly quick hearing, and the outbound bus. If you claim asylum, as illini reported, 90 per cent of those claiming this are out into a different track -- released on recognizance.

Illini also mentioned that the effort to curtail this 90 percent rate was met with fierce opposition in court.

I dont see what the confusion is. There is active participation to make sure that as many people spout the asylum line to avoid that quick trip back. When word gets back to the base population that there is a 'short circuit' available, do you expect the numbers of people making that trek to increase or decrease?

The caravans are a direct offshoot of of the 'asylum' short circuit.

If you cant put two and two together, not my problem. (well considering you vote, it actually is to some extent....)

You said the system was being defanged, which means that those making the laws or carrying them out are defanging them.

I asked you which Republican-led body is doing the defanging.

Having community activists telling everybody how to avoid laws is also 'defanging' from a different source. If you think the the only way to 'defang' a law is by having legislatures do this, or enforcement personnel do this -- then guilty of that horrendous a terrible misuse of the verb.

Quote: to make harmless or less powerful

Defang Definition in the dictionary

Funny I dont see an actor specified there. Could you point out where that actor is defined? I truly do love your world of self-definitions, Lad.

Quote:The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system.

Quote:I didn't realize that the activists were enforcing the immigration system.

(11-01-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

All or nothing with you, isn't it? If one guy can high jump 7', then they must all be the same?

Sheesh. And it is you guys who say we only see stereotypes.

If these people do not have the skills to find work in their own country, why do you assume they will readily find work here? Why do you assume they will be productive citizens?

and what about all the single women with children? Will they be working as welders next month?

We are getting the dregs. some of them will find work at the lowest levels and be glad of it. But others will not, and some will be only too happy to do nothing and live off the government.

You need to stop thinking of the immigrants as all being noble, all hard-working, all this or that. Think of the spectrum, and stop attributing the same features to the whole rainbow. That is just propaganda you are buying.

Why do you think people who could not find or hold work where they are will become productive, federal tax paying members of our society? A few will, most won't. Which ones do you Schumer et al will talk about? The few. Which ones will you and the rest of the base think are exemplars of the whole? The ones Schumer et al presents to you. I think you accept that kind of anecdotal evidence.

Aren't you doing the exact same thing you're telling me to stop?

You're painting with a broad brush. Can you actually back up the bolded claims with research outside of first hand knowledge? Anyone who takes Stats 101 knows the problem with letting first hand accounts paint the entire picture of a population (hint: the issue is a small sample size compared to the population as a whole).

(11-01-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So I'm confused.

You're arguing that the current system is being defanged and/or rigged? Who is doing the defanging and rigging? The current Republican-controlled House? The current Republican-controlled Senate? The current Republican-controlled White House?

I think progressives would be in favor of increasing the number of immigration judges on the southern border so that asylum claims could be processed more quickly. Trump should be sending 5,000 of those down to the border, instead of troops. That would be a much better and more efficient use of resources.

Progressives would obstruct any of the 5,000 appointed by Trump. They would gladly accept 5,000 appointed by a Democrat.

Are you sure that there are 5,000 qualified judges standing around with nothing to do? Where did you learn this? Link?

I agree that more judges would unclog this pipeline. I would be glad to see same-day adjudication, as long as the Democrats are not concerned that that is too swift.

Real refugees I have no contention over. Refugees from war or pweswcution. But a lot of these 'refugees are coming from places no worse than inner city Chicago, and they end up in places like inner city Chicago. Who will pay? Why those rich whites in front of their TVs, that who. That's what happens to people who have no education, no skills, and don't speak the language. The harsh reality is that they will be trading one ghetto for another, a prospect you want to ignore. If you think inner city Chicago is free from gangs and violence, go live there. If refugees are just all those who have a dream of living in a better place, then once we start accepting them all, the favelas of Brazil will empty.

And of course, while they are sitting in those ghettos, they will be having American children and bringing across family members. Who benefits from that?

I never said we have 5,000 qualified judges standing around... But the lack of judges is not due to a lack of willing applicants, it's due to the lack of openings because of the cost of hire new judges. If the cost of sending 5,000 troops to the border, or building the wall, was transitioned to hiring new immigration judges, my guess is that there would be plenty of graduating lawyers willing to fill the role. I hear that law schools are producing more lawyers than can find work.

And I love the trope that all of these immigrants are coming and not contributing to society in any way and will just be leaching off of the system. I didn't realize that the illegal immigrants working in our agriculture and food industries were so lazy...

All or nothing with you, isn't it? If one guy can high jump 7', then they must all be the same?

Sheesh. And it is you guys who say we only see stereotypes.

If these people do not have the skills to find work in their own country, why do you assume they will readily find work here? Why do you assume they will be productive citizens?

and what about all the single women with children? Will they be working as welders next month?

We are getting the dregs. some of them will find work at the lowest levels and be glad of it. But others will not, and some will be only too happy to do nothing and live off the government.

You need to stop thinking of the immigrants as all being noble, all hard-working, all this or that. Think of the spectrum, and stop attributing the same features to the whole rainbow. That is just propaganda you are buying.

Why do you think people who could not find or hold work where they are will become productive, federal tax paying members of our society? A few will, most won't. Which ones do you Schumer et al will talk about? The few. Which ones will you and the rest of the base think are exemplars of the whole? The ones Schumer et al presents to you. I think you accept that kind of anecdotal evidence.

Aren't you doing the exact same thing you're telling me to stop?

You're painting with a broad brush. Can you actually back up the bolded claims with research outside of first hand knowledge? Anyone who takes Stats 101 knows the problem with letting first hand accounts paint the entire picture of a population (hint: the issue is a small sample size compared to the population as a whole).

On my end, I do not think every single illegal immigrant will be a good person who will contribute to society. But I think that most will. The CBO has even agreed with me:

Quote:A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

It's because of all of the research from various organizations that I've heard of that I'm not scared of the "dregs" as you call them.

And to answer your question about why I expect people who can't find jobs in their home country to find one here, it's because our economy is much more developed and more robust than there's. In short, there are jobs to be filled here. I believe there are even so many jobs, that unemployment is at record lows!

(11-01-2018 11:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I didn't realize that the activists were enforcing the immigration system.

Are you willingly obtuse here Lad? Or are you just not that much in tune with the real world?

In this case activists are telling people how to circumvent or void the law. When a law is circumvented or voided (by whatever means) it is less enforced. The means and the result should be blindingly obvious. I guess not to you.

Relatedly, are we straight about your interesting new attempt to redefine 'defang'?

(11-01-2018 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 11:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I didn't realize that the activists were enforcing the immigration system.

Are you willingly obtuse here Lad? Or are you just not that much in tune with the real world?

In this case activists are telling people how to circumvent or void the law. When a law is circumvented or voided (by whatever means) it is less enforced. The means and the result should be blindingly obvious. I guess not to you.

Relatedly, are we straight about your interesting new attempt to redefine 'defang'?

I don't get how my response is redefining the word "defang."

Quote:In the definition you provided, they provided a real-world example of the word and referenced the NRA's ability to "defang one of the law's provisions." And when they used it, they did so by lobbying to alter a portion of the law.

Quote:I've never once heard someone use the term "defang" to describe how people have gotten around a provision - it's meant to describe how a provision has lost its bite, i.e. been defanged.

Quote:I'd agree with your use if you said that the Obama administration had, say, loosened asylum seeking requirements, and thus the enforcement was defanged. But your application to stating that people identifying a work around of a loophole that has always been there as having "defanged" the law is strange.

Quote:That's why I kept assuming you were talking about law makers - you know the people who could actually change laws to remove its fangs. Regardless, if that's how you want to apply that word, then I'm glad you cleared it up for me. It's just an odd choice that caused some confusion.

Quote:Especially since the legal system is still being enforced -

Quote:all those who are being told how to enter the amnesty program

Quote:will still have to go through the entire process and will likely be rejected (based on recent acceptance percentages). So even there, not seeing how the amnesty law has been "defanged." Or am I missing an area where enforcement has decreased?