Author Topic: The Green New Deal  (Read 562 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2019, 05:29:28 PM »
So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

I would suppose that those who want to get caught find it safer and easier to cross where there is no wall rather than to risk scaling it.  So I would have to agree, for those who want to get caught (women, children, those who are not physically able), walls are a good deterrent--at least until there are no other places to cross.  Then some will probably risk it.

The point is some.  Reducing the absolute numbers to a manageable amount is the goal.  Funneling those with legitimate claims to the ports of entry where they can be processed is a goal.

Quote
Of course, why are you worried about those who want to turn themselves in?  Because then you are talking about those who believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that they have a good chance of being admitted to our country legally.

Because I value the Rule of Law, which the left only values when it's convenient as an attack.  We can not have a sensible border and immigration policy if we can't control the border and immigration. 

I frankly don't think anyone that violates the law should be admitted.  That to me is a completely reasonable and independent basis for denial of access.

Quote
Those who don't think so, or have criminal intentions, won't wait.  You know, terrorists, criminals, and such.  I thought the main reason for the wall was to stop all those people, to make us all safer.  Did I miss something in the justification for the wall?  ???

Stopping those people is part of the purpose of a wall as well.  Now if we could get Democrats to stop releasing them when they are caught things would be much better.

Quote
Quote
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?

Helps if you have facts on your side.

Sure does, but it doesn't seem to stop you when they aren't.

Quote
Quote
There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released.

None of which actually addresses whether the wall will work or not.

Okay.  So you don't have an actual response?  Or you just wanted to verify that the Democratic response was in bad faith since they don't have an actual response.

It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

Quote
Then why did the Obama Administration have more deportations than any other President?  2.5 million, not including those simply turned back across the border (saving time and money).  If all those nasty Democrats want all those illegal immigrants in our country, why did they go to so much trouble to throw them out when they were in power?

I love it when you keep posting things that have been repeatedly debunked (and that I've pointed out have been debunked).  Your deporter in chief played with statistics and greatly reduced the actual deportations fro inside the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.2dc02dc41e82
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

Quote
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

Your stuck on this, aren't you?  You can't imagine that treating refugees decently isn't the same as open borders and letting everyone in.  You can't wrap your head around the concept that you don't have arrest every single illegal, keep them in cages, separate them from their children, etc. and still control the border, do you?  You seem to think that if we don't come down as hard as we can on anyone who illegally steps across the imaginary line, then we are coddling them and want them all to come.

So no, you can't show such a proposal.  In other words all you can do is deflect with nonsense cause the policy you advocate does not actually result in compliance with our laws.

But to look at your claims:

Yes I can imagine treating illegal immigrants decently.  And it is in fact different than letting everyone in.  So why are we "letting everyone in" instead of treating them decently and then deporting them.  Oh yeah, because the Democrats refuse to authorize an appropriate amount to pay for reasonable deportation proceedings, to agree to reasonable rules related to asylum and deportation proceedings and to pay for enough legal support to keep the process moving in an efficient manner.  Literally, they starve the system of funds to ensure it can not both act humanely and also comply with our laws.  Why?  Because they literally want to undermine the law.

I can rap my head around not needing to keep anyone in cages to secure the border.  Why do you refuse to support an adequate level of funding to buy those facilities?

I can rap my head around lots of ways to secure the border and/or to end illegal immigration.  Yet, you don't support funding anything that actually could control the border, deportation or really anything that would reduce incentives provided to illegal immigrants.  If you can name it, go ahead and prove me false.

Only in a fever dream are we "coming down as hard as we can" on any illegal alien.  You have have got to be kidding.  "As hard as we can" to you means releasing them into the US  (their goal) pending their court dates, where they will be granted generally free legal advice and likely years of process for claims that are largely meritless on their face.  "As hard as we can" where we don't ask about status when granted public services including healthcare, welfare and educational benefits, drivers licences and even have failed to implement effective controls on wages and working and housing.  "As hard as we can" where even previously deported and criminal aliens arrested by some states for new violations are released rather  than turned over for deportation.  Good lord, the only thing worse would be to bring John Cleese in to poke them with soft pillows while sneering about the Spanish Inquisition.

Quote
Remember--a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not a threat to our country.

I could not disagree more.  They are deliberate undermining of the rule of law that has led to corruption across the board.  It has undermined our labor laws, our sense of fairplay and our constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Corruption is incompatible with the rule of law.

Quote
They are people trying to find a better life.  We can't allow all of them in, but we don't need to punish them for just wanting a better life.

What punishment?  Are you now claiming that deportation is a punishment?  Sending someone to the country in which they are a citizen is punishment?  Then why are they not ALL entitled to come, surely your ethical argument can't prioritize one over the other, since it's not based on any real principal.

Economic desire is not currently a valid reason to immigrate.  However, there  is abosolutely nothing stopping you from convincing your fellow citizens it should be.  Where do you get off undermining the laws of your country?  Think about it twice, cause there are a heck of a lot of laws I may not want to follow if that's the new game we're playing.

Quote
Quote
I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

This is the second time you've mentioned "science" proves the wall works.  Can you show me the respected, peer-reviewed journal that has the study?  I haven't heard of it.

Only a liberal would ask for a peer reviewed study on whether walls work.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2019, 06:18:33 PM »
Quote
It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

More like fluoridation in drinking water. It is hard to prove it is effective, and some studies suggest that it is not. It has some adverse side effects, much like the wall. It is expensive to install and maintain, fluoridation seems to cost about $1/person/year - millions in annual cost. But you know, there are still some communities that don't have it, and there's a dental crisis because people are still getting cavities. It doesn't mean the people opposing it want to see more cavities.

Does it "work"? Sure, there's a reason why we put it in all over the place. But it might make more sense to give everyone a free pass to see the dentist once a year, paid for with a tax on sugar.

What do Democrats want to "do" about it? Give people applying for asylum the benefit of the doubt when they arrive. Take enough time to make sure they aren't dangerous. Let their time play out without the expense and inhumanity of putting them in jail. If they do disappear, is it really so much worse than the citizens who don't show up for their court dates, sometimes for violent offenses? We generally don't consider that the Rule of Law has been violated in those cases.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's all men, not men from the Northern Hemisphere. Not men born in the United States. All people. That's why our protections extend to non-citizens, including due process and a right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. These are the most fundamental of our Laws.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2019, 07:17:34 PM »
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's all men, not men from the Northern Hemisphere. Not men born in the United States. All people. That's why our protections extend to non-citizens, including due process and a right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. These are the most fundamental of our Laws.

Where exactly was the part about free to break laws because they're inconvenient?

Even more specifically, where is the part about gaining legal entitlements because you broke laws that were inconvenient to you?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2019, 07:26:07 AM »
I agree with TheDeamon, that's a bizarre thing to quote to me.  I've never once seen it argued that because I'd be happier with a yahct I'm entitled to just take one because you know the Constitution guarantees me a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote
What do Democrats want to "do" about it? Give people applying for asylum the benefit of the doubt when they arrive.

We already do this, even with claims that on their face are not valid.  Even after we allow advocates to coach those making the claims on exactly what phrases they have to include to be granted asylum (in other contexts, like say if someone was investigating a person for their history with the Trump administration, we'd call that suborning perjury or tampering with a witness and put them in jail).

Quote
Take enough time to make sure they aren't dangerous.

I'm glad they are "not dangerous."  6 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them are "not dangerous" the vast majority of the time.  That's not remotely a standard though to be entitled to live in this country.

Quote
Let their time play out without the expense and inhumanity of putting them in jail.

Pay for reasonable detainment center, with medical and other facilities.  Calling it jail is just propaganda.  They are not entitled to roam freely about the country.  How comfortable we choose to make the waiting area is a complete matter of discretion and it's the choice of your representatives to make it as inhumane as possible so that they can use it as a talking point.

Take the the moral responsibility for your decision to support those who will not provide the funding to make the detention centers humane.

Quote
If they do disappear, is it really so much worse than the citizens who don't show up for their court dates, sometimes for violent offenses? We generally don't consider that the Rule of Law has been violated in those cases.

Not sure what wold you live in, but you're completely wrong about what happens to citizens that fail to appear.  We absolutely take that as a violation of the rule of law, and they entail compounding consequences over time.  We don't treat it as a felony, but we do treat it as serious.

And again, failing to appear for an immigration hearing is fundamentally distinct from a citizen failing to show up for a moving violation.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2019, 11:30:30 AM »
Due process means you can't do things that some advocate - like grabbing people and just shoving them back over the line possibly with a mass court proceeding in a language they don't understand. Or signing executive orders saying we won't give you that due process if you are picked up after crossing illegally.

I'm glad we can dispense with the danger argument and focus only on the economic protectionism. I don't believe in that, as an Objectivist.

Quote
You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? - Ayn Rand

So when I'm talking about fundamental, inalienable rights, this is what I'm referring to. You're not giving out a yacht by simply allowing people to compete in the job market. I don't like the black market, which is what we have now because of our attempts to restrict market forces.

37 percent of aliens fail to appear in immigration court. Accused felons in some states abscond at 25%. Why should I be more worried about non-violent illegal aliens being "set loose" than I am about home-grown felons?

Quote
Some alternatives to detention still gave encouragement. Success stories noted a 99.7 percent attendance rate at court and an 85 percent compliance rate with final orders of removal inside a monitored population of 42,000.48 The same report acknowledged that as supervision was relaxed compliance fell, with the consequent evasion of removal orders equaling 55 percent in a more lightly monitored group.49 Yet wider use of methods that would mitigate absconding — including detention — trail this long-standing problem. Despite progress with smaller samples of offenders and the comparative low cost-to-benefit ratio when contrasted to detention, success across the spectrum of all non-detained aliens still proves elusive, if not impossible, for those in charge at ICE. As elusive, it turns out, as getting credible information from court reports on the same issue.

link

So it is possible to let a refugee family "roam around", and still improve drastically on failures to appear, while saving a lot of money compared to detention.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2019, 06:26:41 PM »
So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

I would suppose that those who want to get caught find it safer and easier to cross where there is no wall rather than to risk scaling it.  So I would have to agree, for those who want to get caught (women, children, those who are not physically able), walls are a good deterrent--at least until there are no other places to cross.  Then some will probably risk it.

The point is some.  Reducing the absolute numbers to a manageable amount is the goal.  Funneling those with legitimate claims to the ports of entry where they can be processed is a goal.

And where they can starve to death, get killed by Mexican criminals, or just give up and go back before they can get processed, which appears to be the Trump strategy.

Did you ever consider that, if we increased the processing capability at the ports of entry, these people wouldn't bother to trek through the desert just to give themselves up? ;)

Quote
Quote
Of course, why are you worried about those who want to turn themselves in?  Because then you are talking about those who believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that they have a good chance of being admitted to our country legally.

Because I value the Rule of Law, which the left only values when it's convenient as an attack.  We can not have a sensible border and immigration policy if we can't control the border and immigration. 

I frankly don't think anyone that violates the law should be admitted.  That to me is a completely reasonable and independent basis for denial of access.

And, of course, the Right only values the Rule of Law to attack it's opponents.  :P  Since when did a misdemeanor mean one is automatically barred from ever asking asylum in a country?  Do you think every immigrant with a traffic violation should be permanently barred from admittal?

You keep making it sound like it's some felony or federal crime to cross the border.  It's a misdemeanor, with punishments similar to a traffic violation.  You make it sound like an armed invasion or something.

And, BTW, no one is talking about not controlling the border, only how to best do it.

Quote
Quote
Those who don't think so, or have criminal intentions, won't wait.  You know, terrorists, criminals, and such.  I thought the main reason for the wall was to stop all those people, to make us all safer.  Did I miss something in the justification for the wall?  ???

Stopping those people is part of the purpose of a wall as well.  Now if we could get Democrats to stop releasing them when they are caught things would be much better.

No, it is the primary purpose of the wall, not "as well."  It isn't effective against the real criminals.  They will go under, over or through.  They have the means and the motivation.

And if Letterrip is correct about the cartels controlling the walled areas in cities, it may not be effective against those without criminal intent, either.  Really, how much more trouble is it to carry a couple of ladders when you're crossing a desert anyway?

And don't move the goalpost.  We're talking about people who give themselves up.  Sending them back across the border is precisely what we would do after processing them.  For those who want to be caught, what is so terrible about that?  ??? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?

Helps if you have facts on your side.

Sure does, but it doesn't seem to stop you when they aren't.

And it certainly doesn't stop you when you don't. :)

Quote
Quote
Quote
There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released.

None of which actually addresses whether the wall will work or not.

Okay.  So you don't have an actual response?  Or you just wanted to verify that the Democratic response was in bad faith since they don't have an actual response.

It's kind of like saying no one can brush their teeth because some people will still get cavities.  And I ask do  you have a better solution then?  Nope, just really don't like toothbrushes.

The problem is your criteria.  "Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country."  Which implies that any proposal must include keeping every single illegal out, and not letting any of them being released into the country.

The answer is, of course there is no such Democratic proposal.  Because they are stupid criteria.  We don't need to ensure absolutely no one gets a step across the border.  It would be sufficient to catch them before they reach civilization.  And why not release them with tracking devices to sponsors?  Then we don't have to house and feed them, and save the jail space for actual criminals who would harm us.

We can be safe without going overboard.

Quote
Quote
Then why did the Obama Administration have more deportations than any other President?  2.5 million, not including those simply turned back across the border (saving time and money).  If all those nasty Democrats want all those illegal immigrants in our country, why did they go to so much trouble to throw them out when they were in power?

I love it when you keep posting things that have been repeatedly debunked (and that I've pointed out have been debunked).  Your deporter in chief played with statistics and greatly reduced the actual deportations fro inside the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.2dc02dc41e82
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

Thank you for correcting me.  You're right, Obama did not have more deportations than any other President, according to your site.  He had less than Clinton and Bush II (who also had much higher apprehensions).  And you're also right, he did not deport 2.5 million over his Presidency.  He sent back over the border, either through Removals (through the legal process) or Returns (just sent back over the border, saving us some money) over 5 million illegal immigrants.  Which comes out to around 98 percent of those apprehended.

So my source only gave half the number he deported.  Which makes my point even stronger: why did they throw out so many when they were in power when they don't want effective border control? ;)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

Your stuck on this, aren't you?  You can't imagine that treating refugees decently isn't the same as open borders and letting everyone in.  You can't wrap your head around the concept that you don't have arrest every single illegal, keep them in cages, separate them from their children, etc. and still control the border, do you?  You seem to think that if we don't come down as hard as we can on anyone who illegally steps across the imaginary line, then we are coddling them and want them all to come.

So no, you can't show such a proposal.  In other words all you can do is deflect with nonsense cause the policy you advocate does not actually result in compliance with our laws.

But to look at your claims:

Yes I can imagine treating illegal immigrants decently.  And it is in fact different than letting everyone in.  So why are we "letting everyone in" instead of treating them decently and then deporting them.  Oh yeah, because the Democrats refuse to authorize an appropriate amount to pay for reasonable deportation proceedings, to agree to reasonable rules related to asylum and deportation proceedings and to pay for enough legal support to keep the process moving in an efficient manner.  Literally, they starve the system of funds to ensure it can not both act humanely and also comply with our laws.  Why?  Because they literally want to undermine the law.

I can rap my head around not needing to keep anyone in cages to secure the border.  Why do you refuse to support an adequate level of funding to buy those facilities?

I can rap my head around lots of ways to secure the border and/or to end illegal immigration.  Yet, you don't support funding anything that actually could control the border, deportation or really anything that would reduce incentives provided to illegal immigrants.  If you can name it, go ahead and prove me false.

Only in a fever dream are we "coming down as hard as we can" on any illegal alien.  You have have got to be kidding.  "As hard as we can" to you means releasing them into the US  (their goal) pending their court dates, where they will be granted generally free legal advice and likely years of process for claims that are largely meritless on their face.  "As hard as we can" where we don't ask about status when granted public services including healthcare, welfare and educational benefits, drivers licences and even have failed to implement effective controls on wages and working and housing.  "As hard as we can" where even previously deported and criminal aliens arrested by some states for new violations are released rather  than turned over for deportation.  Good lord, the only thing worse would be to bring John Cleese in to poke them with soft pillows while sneering about the Spanish Inquisition.

This all depends on your definition of "reasonable."  Democrats did propose to increase funding for most of these things.  They refused to increase the number of beds because Trump is dead-set about keeping them all in jails for the entire time, rather than those who actually pose a danger.  And why, as an American, are you opposed to granting the accused adequate legal advice?  Are you afraid that, given the right help, they might actually win?

And what about the $25 billion the Democrats offered Trump for the wall and border security a year ago?  Wouldn't that have helped fund those facilities, and the courts, and all the rest?  That's not supporting anything?  Or only if it comes without strings? ;)

Quote
Quote
Remember--a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not a threat to our country.

I could not disagree more.  They are deliberate undermining of the rule of law that has led to corruption across the board.  It has undermined our labor laws, our sense of fairplay and our constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Corruption is incompatible with the rule of law.

Oh, yes, what a horrible vision!  Imagine a country where people did not keep to the speed limit, and almost everyone daily committed misdemeanors!  And didn't follow every one of our others laws about guns and pollution and such!  Can you imagine such a country!  A country full of criminals:o

These people, for the most part, are breaking the law to find jobs and live a better life.  You find this as horrible as someone taking bribes and not granting equal protection under the law (something you seem not to want to see illegal immigrants have).  You need a sense of proportion.
 
Quote
Quote
They are people trying to find a better life.  We can't allow all of them in, but we don't need to punish them for just wanting a better life.

What punishment?  Are you now claiming that deportation is a punishment?  Sending someone to the country in which they are a citizen is punishment?  Then why are they not ALL entitled to come, surely your ethical argument can't prioritize one over the other, since it's not based on any real principal.

Economic desire is not currently a valid reason to immigrate.  However, there  is absolutely nothing stopping you from convincing your fellow citizens it should be.  Where do you get off undermining the laws of your country?  Think about it twice, cause there are a heck of a lot of laws I may not want to follow if that's the new game we're playing.

Deportation is a just punishment.  Treating them all like murders and rapists just because they committed a misdemeanor is.  Separating them from their children for no good reason is.  Trying to make the process so miserable that they'd prefer to go back to poverty and violence is.  It's the not legal punishments I'm referring to; it's the extra-judiciary punishments that Trump is piling on.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

This is the second time you've mentioned "science" proves the wall works.  Can you show me the respected, peer-reviewed journal that has the study?  I haven't heard of it.

Only a liberal would ask for a peer reviewed study on whether walls work.

Only a conservative who has no idea what science really is wouldn't ask for one.  :P  So stop misusing the word.