(06-22-2018 01:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just seeing this and won't say much on here.... but I DO want to say a few things.... which probably apply to vastly more comments, perhaps even more than these. These just stuck out to me in a quick review....

First, I agree that zero tolerance policies are bad. The ONLY thing they're good for is to expose the problems in laws so that they can be fixed. Giving discretion SOUNDS like a good thing in that it allows good people to let other good people go free in violation of the letter of the law, but it ALSO allows bad people to charge good people under a bad law.

The solution is to fix the law, not selective enforcement... otherwise it's not really a law, is it?

(06-21-2018 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Possibly referring to this tweet:

Quote:Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America has raised some hackles from what I've seen. I appreciate that Trump, for once, didn't hide that when he was denigrating all immigrants, and not providing an out for his water carriers.

This is a poor and self-serving interpretation of what he said. That's like saying that the purpose of the USDA is to stop milk, no matter how bad it is from being sold is saying that all milk is bad.

First, he said illegal immigrants... and then you separate the two words in great part to diminish them... in your mind, they're just like any other immigrant... which I've heard many legal immigrants be offended over... not in any way saying it was intentional... just saying that the knife can cut two ways if we choose to see things that way

Second, while I disagree (based on the milk statement) that he meant that all illegal immigrants are bad, they ARE breaking the law... and by definition, that is at least debatably bad on SOME level. Whether its a 0.1 on a 100 scale or a 99.9 is a matter of personal opinion, but it's certainly not a VIRTUE for someone that they are crossing illegally into a country? If that's the only 'bad' they've done, then fine...

The best you have is that he could have chosen his words more carefully. I'm sure Obama would have... I don't think he ever said much that wasn't scripted... he was (at least early in his presidency) rather famous for using teleprompters well but struggling off the cuff. Trump is vastly less polished and careful. People offended 'hearing' what you're hearing are either looking for support for an idea that they already hold... or they have a huge interest in something that 'the speaker' is vastly less interested in and parsing words to try and uncover 'hidden meaning'.

(06-21-2018 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ted Cruz has actually put forth legislation that would address the issues the Trump admin created by implementing a zero tolerance policy for all first time immigration offenders.

I think one aspect isn’t realistic given that I doubt even the increase in judges he proposes would deal with the backlog of cases AND all new cases.

One of the main problems is the Flores consent agreement. All kids have to released from custody after 20 days; albeit they still have to show.

What has been set up is a zero tolerance that guarantees a huge influx in children being held -- nothwithstanding the huge increases both in accompanied children coming forth, not just 'being caught'. Further, the application for asylum is now pretty much de rigueur amongst many groups.

Logic dictates five options:

a) release all accompanied children and their parents (hoping they will show for proceedings, for what I can gather about a less than 40 per cent proposition;
b) massively increase the numbers of 'family incarceration centers' (and to hell with the Flores consent decree and/or relitigate with respect to accompanied minors);
c) pursue a 'stick our head in the sand' policy (ala Obama) for illegal immigration (move away from a zero tolerance to a 'just catch and deport the bad apples) -- i.e. catch and release for the most part);
d) massively curtail the use of asylum for certain groups;
e) massively increase the support to judges and infrastructure to deal with the crush.

Correct on the causes. The Trump admin chose a nuclear option when they went Ton 0 tolerance and then lied their asses off about it.

From what I’ve read, option A, when done with a case worker of check in procedure works about 99% of the time. There was a program operated until 2015 or 2017 that used a case worker to track and assist immigrants through immigration court and had a >99% success rate in making sure the immigrants showed up at court and did not disappear.

so if it happened in 2015, is this Obama's fault?

I'm not actually saying that. It was a joke (much like A FEW of the current accusations) The president can't possibly know everything, especially the unintended repercussions of things that might have looked good on paper and/or were part of a 20,000 page bill


Here is my question though if I'm understanding...

Are we saying that 99% of people showing up to illegally cross our borders that are being caught, registered and released 'follow up' with appointments that a pending investigation could mean deportation?? I'm not believing that. What am I missing?

I think what you're missing is a data source...

Because yes, that is what we're saying. Read the CATO article I posted. It goes into detail on the many programs that have been used over the years to manage illegal immigrants who are apprehended at the border but not jailed.

Two key programs.

One is the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program that started in 2004. It basically uses mainly electronic, but some in-person methods to monitor illegal immigrants who are in deportation proceedings. In 2012 (which is the last year with reliable data - CATO does not explain why): "4.9 percent absconded and 4 percent were arrested by other law enforcement agencies. The other 91.1 percent complied with their court orders and either left the country or earned some sort of legal status. Appearance rates at immigration courts were 99.6 percent."

The other is the Family Case Management Program, which used (shut down in 2017) case workers to keep track of illegal immigrants and help them navigate the court systems. "About 99 percent of all migrants in the program made it to their ICE-ERO check-ins, 100 percent made it to their court appearances, and only 2 percent absconded into the black market after receiving removal orders." It's fairly intensive, and as CATO notes, scaling up could be difficult or impossible.

I think we often too much rely on our own opinions to evaluate any problem, and while our own common sense may not be able to reconcile the fact that people immigrating illegally don't want to leave, it turns out, with proper monitoring and assistance, most will follow the proper procedures and go through the court system, event if there is a chance of deportation, and that's because they may also be granted asylum or temporary status.

And to the Trump language comment, we've already gone through this, I was not trying to separate illegal and immigrant - go back a few posts about that and my mistake in thinking y'all would still understand I was talking about illegal immigrants. Careless language use there.

The other thing is that the words the POTUS speaks have power, which is why Obama was so careful. Trump's used of the word "infest" to describe ALL illegal immigrants is dehumanizing. You're right that illegal immigrants are committing a misdemeanor on their first offense, and that is bad. But it is not so bad as to say those who are committing that crime are "infesting" the country, as if they are a plague or a bunch of rodents. Words have power, and sorry if y'all can't handle the criticism of the POTUS for poorly choosing how he speaks. I mean, do you really want to defend someone who states that illegal immigrants (a term that includes thousands of non-violent asylum seekers) are trying "to live in or overrun to an unwanted degree or in a troublesome manner, especially as predatory animals or vermin do?" I won't really defend others' stance that the statement is racist - but I'll defend that fact that it's a bad take. A very, very, very bad take.

And Lad, to one not leaning naturally progressive, Obama's speech was in no way, shape, or form 'careful' (in the way of 'I am not trying to incite people'.) Nor were many of his overt actions.

I suggest you ask Bibi Netanyahu how he liked his cold roast beef sandwich while waiting for a speaking time with O on a visit to the White House.

Or, perhaps Zimmerman family is another good example of Obama not at all being 'careful' with his speech.

I will say that Trump and Obama are interesting contrasts. One is a blumbering fool of a speaker who says and does dickish things, and another specifically, intentionally, and articulately says and does dickish things.