Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Old Man said:

Der Furor has signed an executive order stopping his inhumane child separation policy.  Now all we have to do is reunite 2000+ kids with their parents when virtually no information was recorded about any of them.  They could at least have tattooed numbers on their arms.

 

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

I may have spoken too soon--although the media is giddily reporting that the policy has been ended, a careful read of the EO shows that it is the opposite of forcefully worded.  Basically, families can be kept together if it's convenient for ICE to do so.  As such it reads more like passing the buck to Sessions and Nielsen.

 

Beyond that, the executive order, like so many other plans of the administration, is probably illegal.  

 

Trump's executive order would have the children detained with their parents.  However, in 2014 a federal judge declared that children can not be detained in jail-like settings even with their parents.  This is what led the Obama administration to letting both the parents and children go free while awaiting their asylum hearing.  It is this "catch and release policy to illegal immigrants" over which folks at Fox and Friends got our president all worked up about, precipitating the whole lets take the children away so that we can lock the parents up policy.

 

In face of public outcry, Trump is just reverting to the detaining children with their parents policy that the federal judge already ruled to be illegal.  Having successfully come up with a even more inhumane way of treating the children of asylum seeker who enter the country with their parent than locking them up together, does not make the policy of locking the children up in jail suddenly legal.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

However, it does give the appearance of being a more humane compromise -- could that have been Trump's plan all along? Or am I giving him too much credit for cunning?

 

2 hours ago, Cancer said:

Don't overthink it.  He certainly doesn't.

 

I think you are probably on to something, LL.  Make your first offer absurdly ridiculous, so that even after you have been haggled away from it you are still getting a great complete steal come straight from The Art of Deal.  So, it is not surprising that he would adopt the same strategy in the quest for a legislative victory.

 

You aren't wrong either, Cancer.  In one sense his plan was working, in that there was a detainment together bill going through congress that a number of Democrats had said they were going to vote for.  So, he was on his way to a legislative victory.  However, the completely foreseeable backlash against his draconian separation policy was hammering congressional Republicans in an election year.  Every day the policy exist is a gift to Democratic candidates.  Moreover, even if you ignore the larger harm that he is doing to his party and think solely in terms of the legislative win, it's still a Pyrrhic victory.  Detaining the children in a prison-like setting is still illegal, and will likely be shot down by the courts.  He might opt to detain both parents and children in a less prison-like environment,  but that may not play with his base.  They want illegal immigrants to suffer, not be humanely housed at tax payer expense while awaiting their immigration hearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As part of its coverage of the Trump detention policy, All Things Considered consulted immigration law experts who confirmed that the regime's claim to be just following the law as written is, well, a lie. But we all knew that.

 

One of them, in pointing out that illegal border crossing is only a misdemeanor, specifically compared it to a parking infraction. So the regime is locking people up for the equivalent of double parking.

 

Why such fear and hatred? Jeff Sessions gave it away in one of his speeches. He explained that Zero Tolerance was necessary because the USA "Is not an idea... It is a nation-state." As I argued months ago, no it isn't. The American population does not meet the definition of a "nation." Not unless you reject a large fraction of the citizenry as not really American. So it seems pretty clear that Sessions' objection to border-crossers is not that they break the law, it's that they are brown and speak Spanish. But we all knew that, too.

 

This regime has gone from deplorable to disgusting, and is well on its way to depraved.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationalist waves have been rising and spreading across Europe for years, in reaction to the realization that immigration has changed the familiar uniformity of many countries. Those who cling to their tribal identities find that existentially frightening.

 

I guess it was inevitable those waves would start to crest in America eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Not to speak for Dean, but I suspect the Oxford English Dictionary top definition for "nation" sounds most like what he means: "NOUN:  A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory."

I use A Dictionary of Political Thought by Roger Scruton, but that's basically it.

 

Scruton notes the term is "often used rather vaguely," especially through confusion between "country" and "nation state."The Japanese and Hungarians are nations that have nation-states. The Navaho and Welsh are nations that don't. Depending on how you count them, the UK holds at least two nations, maybe 4 or more. Whereas the German people are a nation that was divided into two nation-states, East and West. (Though what about Austria?)

 

And indeed, the American people have never been a nation. I am told that in 1776, half the citizenry spoke German, not English. There were multiple Christian sects. And that's leaving out all the black people. We've become steadily more diverse ever since.

 

"Nationalism" is the political theory that the legal mechanisms of government are insufficient to create loyalty among citizens; the state should be uilt on the foundations of a nation and its primordial, emotional attachments. Except that's a shifty doctrine. An Economist article on resurgent nationalism noted that at the time Italy was unified, only a small percentage of people spoke the dialect we now recognize as Italian. In fact, one of the founders remarked that having created the Italian state, they now needed to create Italians. I 'll dig out the article and provide a citation, if anyone wants.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some parallels here between the blind hatred of the Latinos coming in (or trying to come in) from the south, and the hatred of the American refugees moving west fleeing the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.  I did not live through that era, but I remember one of my grandfathers who still in the 1960s and early 1970s (I was age 10 +/- 5 in that time) cussed the Okies and the Arkies who had moved into California in desperation; this was in the Santa Clara Valley, just over a ridge from the Salinas Valley, scene of a number of the famous works by John Steinbeck written in the 30's, 40s, 50s.  It was not something I understood, though I could tell my folks clear did.

 

In short, I think that the kind of xenophobic sentiment being exploited for political gain today is nothing new, though its wedding to racism is an ugly turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cancer said:

There are some parallels here between the blind hatred of the Latinos coming in (or trying to come in) from the south, and the hatred of the American refugees moving west fleeing the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.

 

And the Irish fleeing the potato famine. People tend to be tribal. Reminds me of the story of the filming of the original Planet of the Apes. The extras kept their prosthetic makeup on at meals, and grouped up according to their species.  "Us" and "them" seem to be thoroughly engraved in our hind brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...