Executive Waffling?

[D.W.]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/

So the news this morning is all about how Trump has made a reversal, by signing his executive order.  Proving that he lied about not being able to do anything and so on.

But did he?

Reading this thing, it seems like brush off to me.  They still want to stay tough on law enforcement.  They are essentially asking for a re-do on Flores v. Sessions.  Then there's a few mention of "to the extent consistent with law", or "to the extent permitted by law".  Was this nothing more than a fancy way of kicking it back to Congress?  Another photo op and opportunity for Trump to put forward how HE is trying to solve the problem caused by those pesky Democrats and their lawless way?

I know my viewing lens for Trump is "uncharitable" as was recently pointed out, but...  Is there anything of real substance that convinces people things are going to improve? 

Also, if the ruling is overturned, is this likely to have a ripple effect on the issue of child detention?  Or would it be fairly narrow?

[TheDeamon]

I'm finding this whole issue as "Think of the Children!" Writ to a hyperbolic level.

Comparisons to the holocaust, or even just the Japanese Internment camps are, quite frankly, insulting to the memories of the people who were victims of either situation.

Claiming a moral equivalency between people being legally compelled to relocate from their previously legal place of residence and having their families torn apart at best(Japanese Relocation Camps), or outright killed(Holocaust) is not even remotely close to:

1) Someone who voluntarily fled from their home country to escape a list of issues which does not include being evicted by any kind of legal process.
2) Someone who illegally seeks entry into another nation, after having crossed at least one, and often half-a-dozen or more other nations before making their illegal entry into the one that then "pulled their family apart."

Because it is completely the fault of the United States of America that these families found their living condition untenable where they started from. It is completely the fault of the United States of America that they managed to cross multiple nations in order to cross into the United States of America in an illegal manner. As though we're sending relocation assistance grants to them in order finance such efforts on their part and they're feeling betrayed upon reaching our border and things don't go to plan for them.

Also on a related note:

Separating children from their parents is now directly comparable to child abuse?

We're going to need to strongly re-evaluate a long list of practices undertaken by CPS for one(where they are infamous for pulling children out of homes where there is even a hint of improper treatment going on). Because if pulling them out of the home is abusive in and of itself, then we're going to need to set a higher bar as to whether "status quo" in the allegedly abusive household is less traumatic than removing the child.

Of course, there also is the general law enforcement angle as well. Can't arrest or imprison a parent any more, as that would separate that parent from their children, which would be state sponsored child abuse, which we clearly do not want to allow to come to pass, even in the face of blatant disregard for the rule of law.

[Seriati]

By the way, I called it.  Flat out said if Trump switched to detaining families, the cry wouldn't change at all.  Apparently, the only acceptable option is to release illegal immigrant families without process or ability to re-catch them.  Or am I missing where there's a policy in there that actually provides for a way to comply with our laws on deportation?

[D.W.]

Yes, you are apparently, as there are means to track people and the "release them and they disappear forever!", is a bit overblown.  (Not that I'm a proponent of that plan, just pointing out there ARE options, with varying levels of merit, that do comply with the law.)  But, why are you saying the cry hasn't changed?  I assume you are using the "I called it" as a claim it's been proven true.

The issue, being exploited by both sides, is that detaining families is something people would cry over.  Hence the 20 day max ruling.  The one that tied Trump's hands as the administration would put it.

My question was, has anything been "switched"?  The intent is still obviously a zero tolerance plan that avoids any whiff of "catch and release" to act as a deterrent.  The executive order, doesn't change any of that, and doesn't read (to me at least) as if it provides any guarantees that they will stop splitting up families.  Only that they want to stop which has been their position all along...

[Seriati]

Yes, you are apparently, as there are means to track people and the "release them and they disappear forever!", is a bit overblown.

Is it?  what numbers are you looking at?  I'm seeing anywhere between 40 and 80% of released persons not reporting for their hearings.

What specific policies do you think would work?  Ankle bracelets - nope - easy to cut off and disappear - they work on US persons specifically because they have ties to the communities.  Bonds?  Nope, rarely have assets.  So what do you think the options are?  And then maybe explain to me how any Democratic politician is advocating for them? (answer they aren't, they want catch and release).

But, why are you saying the cry hasn't changed?  I assume you are using the "I called it" as a claim it's been proven true.

Because I've read six articles this morning that reference various Democratic leaders as saying that this is unacceptable.

My question was, has anything been "switched"?  The intent is still obviously a zero tolerance plan that avoids any whiff of "catch and release" to act as a deterrent.  The executive order, doesn't change any of that, and doesn't read (to me at least) as if it provides any guarantees that they will stop splitting up families.  Only that they want to stop which has been their position all along...

The switch seems to be that they are going to detain them together.  If a court orders them to release the kids pursuant to Flores then it'll be back to split families.

[D.W.]

True, there is every indication that they will be detained together for 20 days, and that is a change in how the law is being enforced.  So suggesting, nothing's changed, is not accurate.  Thanks

As to what would work:  I think trying to bring the detention facilities up to a standard that would have satisfied the criteria needed for families/children is probably the way to go.  (paying for it, is not gonna be easy though, but law enforcement ain't cheep.)  I wasn't trying to promote alternatives, but saying there aren't any, is misleading.  None that are as effective a deterrent?  Sure.

I'm on record as saying that detention or deportation and "border security" are losing strategies.  If you want to "force" people through the legal channels instead of the illegal ones, you need to eliminate the ability to find illegal employment. 

Then, our sudden realization that, "Oh crap we NEED these people, for our economy to function as we are use to!" will motivate immediate change.

[TheDeamon]

True, there is every indication that they will be detained together for 20 days, and that is a change in how the law is being enforced.  So suggesting, nothing's changed, is not accurate.  Thanks

As to what would work:  I think trying to bring the detention facilities up to a standard that would have satisfied the criteria needed for families/children is probably the way to go.  (paying for it, is not gonna be easy though, but law enforcement ain't cheep.)  I wasn't trying to promote alternatives, but saying there aren't any, is misleading.  None that are as effective a deterrent?  Sure.

I'm on record as saying that detention or deportation and "border security" are losing strategies.  If you want to "force" people through the legal channels instead of the illegal ones, you need to eliminate the ability to find illegal employment.

Two problems here:
1) We don't have enough "immigration judges" to truly process 100% of the cases that are supposed to have been heard in anything approaching a "reasonable time frame" and with Trump in office, I doubt the Democrats are jumping up an down for him to hurry up and appoint the (presumably) hundreds of additional judges that would be needed.

2) The volume of people involved means you're talking about accommodating a decently sized city worth of people for the better part of a year. Building them "nice facilities" is also great in theory, but in practice, there will be problems, particularly as many of them will be coming from 3rd world nations, many of which are unaccustomed to sanitary facilities which can handle Toilet Paper for example. Which also ignores the other matter of people tending to treat things poorly that they didn't pay for themselves. (And even then....)

[Fenring]

I'm hearing an incredible outcry about this on my FB feed from lots of people. I didn't initially have the kneejerk reaction to be upset about it because I guess I didn't see it as being strange to keep children in a separate facility from people who've been imprisoned. And despite what I had read about the 'camps' for children in the Walmarts and how unacceptable the conditions were, I couldn't help but feel that the conditions set up for them actually sounded decent; they were being fed real food (not garbage), had a bed, and apparently even closed rooms (albeit without doors). It's probably a lot better than they were used to compared to what they had to endure on their voyage towards the U.S. So what was left was the separation from their parents, which seems to be the biggest issue for some people.

Am I crazy? Normally I feel very badly for people who are being victimized, such as Syrian families being bombed or the people of Yemen. In this instance I didn't have the gut reaction of outrage or horror that it seems many have, and I'm not even sure whether I should. It never occurred to me that people would view it as unacceptable to arrest people who have broken the law, which is basically the source of the outrage. And it seems that this isn't exactly the thing they're upset about, even though, as Seriati has mentioned, it's the real cause of the separation of the families. So arresting law-breakers should be banned if they have children? That would be an incredible double-standard as compared with the awful vehemence with which American citizens have been prosecuted for trivia such as possession of pot. Where's the public outcry about that?

[D.W.]

1) We don't have enough "immigration judges" to truly process 100% of the cases that are supposed to have been heard in anything approaching a "reasonable time frame" and with Trump in office, I doubt the Democrats are jumping up an down for him to hurry up and appoint the (presumably) hundreds of additional judges that would be needed.

Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try.  It’s necessary, AND a legit way to show Democrats being obstructionists.  Seems like a win-win for the GOP.  (But this requires a will to fix immigration, something I don’t believe either side has.)

2) The volume of people involved means you're talking about accommodating a decently sized city worth of people for the better part of a year.

Yep.  Cost of doing buis…. enforcing the law. 
A.  do nothing
B.  patch and repair existing system
C.  rework the system

Both sides WANT to do A.  but want to be seen as being FOR C. and doing B.  They each want all of the credit, and none of the blame, while not upsetting the applecart that is our immigrant dependant economy.

I didn't initially have the kneejerk reaction to be upset about it because I guess I didn't see it as being strange to keep children in a separate facility from people who've been imprisoned.

I agree about the conditions.  The whole, misdemeanor meaning your kid could be lost in the system though is a bit terrifying (as intended). 

[Seriati]

D.W.,  Cruz's proposal would have been to double the immigration judges and effectively commit to processing asylum claims (most of which are not legitimate) within the 20 days permitted for holding the children with the parents.  As I'm sure you can guess, there is no interest in supporting the proposal by Senate Dems. 

Again, literally making it possible to comply with our laws is "not on the table," fixing our laws is "not on the table," and enforcing our laws is an unconscionable crime of the Trump administration.   Insolvable problems brought to you by partisan politics, woo hoo!

[D.W.]

The worst part is this problem is going to continue to grow exponentially.  Both here and in the rest of the developed countries.  The information age has let the cat out of the bag that even "*censored*ty" conditions here, are a step up compared to others.  On top of that, our ability to traverse this spinning dirt ball improves as well. 

While the trips are still dangerous, they are less so than they ever have been.  Though we debate, and fight and stall and some countries turn away immigrants, someone in the end takes them in.  How often does someone leave a desperate or dangerous area and end up all the way back home where they started again?

This, more than anything else is why I trend towards a "globalist" perspective.  There's no such thing as "not my problem."  Only stalling tactics.  (and war)

[Wayward Son]

Have you ever lost your kid at the mall?  I have.  My son was about 4 or 5, obnoxious little twerp that kept running ahead of me, making me run to catch up with him.  I got tired of it, and when he ran ahead in one of these huge department stores, I got mad and didn't run after him.

Then I couldn't find him.

That was one of the most terrifying 15 minutes of my life.  Didn't know where he was, what was happening to him.  After looking around for a few minutes I called a store clerk and they did their child search thing, checking the doors and such.  And then the twerp just showed up.  Probably was hiding behind a shirt display or something.  Everything worked out OK in the end, thank God.

Now imagine this happening, not for a few minutes, but days.  Some policeman takes your child away, can't tell you where he is, can't tell you when you'll see him again.  Probably won't be able to get in contact with him, unless you're lucky.  No matter how you slice it, it's traumatic and terrible.  And we're doing this all because of a misdemeanor offense.

No, this does not rise to the level of the Holocaust, or Japanese internment, or what's happening in Yemen, but it is still an a**hole thing to do.  And being an American, I don't like it when my government does a**hole things in my name. 

And, no, this does NOT mean that "the only acceptable alternative" is to open the borders to anyone who wants to come in.  If you want to legally inter all these illegal immigrant, build the facilities, hire the judges, and build the courts.  Do it so we DON'T have to be a**holes.  And if you can't figure it out--well, explain to me why we have to be a**holes, when the people we are being a**holes to are breaking misdemeanor laws, in order to get a better life for themselves and their children, and tend to be more law-abiding that the people who are already here. 

Neither does it mean we should NEVER keep children away from their parents.  If the parents are a danger to their children, and/or have committed serious offenses, then we are obliged to protect the child.  But that DOESN"T mean we have a right to do it willy-nilly whenever we feel like it.

Trump and his cronies have fed you propaganda that immigration is some existential threat to the United States.  It's not.  It is a problem that we need to address, better than we have in the past, but it isn't going to destroy our country if we don't stop it RIGHT NOW.  We can take our time and do it in a moral, legal, compassionate way.  Because that's what we do.  We're Americans.

Not a**holes. 

[velcro]

I personally am glad that Trump made the choice to end his policy, proving that he was not constrained by the law. By the way, that proves that several people in his administration, including Trump, blatantly lied about his policy and various legal avenues available.

But back to the EO.
-This keeps families together by criminally detaining the children with the parents. (The detention is not a crime, it is a criminal detention vs. administrative)
-There is a court case that does not allow children to be criminally detained for more than 20 days.
-So without a doubt, in 20 days the courts will require the children to be released.
-And without a doubt, Trump will blame the Courts for making him separate families, even though he should know right now this will happen
-Finally, the EO does nothing to correct the problem of families already separated.

So now is has been proven, without any sane person disagreeing, that Trump can change the policy without breaking the law.

The previous policy of administrative detention was a problem, as mentioned above. We should unquestionably work on finding a better solution. (Lies from Trump about what Democrats really prioritize does not help this process)

But in the next few weeks, until some sort of better solution is found, we have a choice.

The choice is this:

Some people arrested for a misdemeanor not showing up for court (maybe 40%)

OR

Keeping small children in institutional facilities for long periods of time without their parents

Note: The first option is absolutely, unquestionably legal.  Not ideal, but calling it illegal is patently false. And claiming that it ignores the law means you claim everyone who ever pirated a movie or a song  or went 1 mph over the speed limit should be fined and/or in jail with zero tolerance.

Different people will make different choices both legal.  But whatever you choose, the fact is that it is a choice.  Own it.

[velcro]

D.W.,  Cruz's proposal would have been to double the immigration judges and effectively commit to processing asylum claims (most of which are not legitimate) within the 20 days permitted for holding the children with the parents.  As I'm sure you can guess, there is no interest in supporting the proposal by Senate Dems.

Any evidence to back that up about the Democrats?  Does that evidence (if it exists) say why they disagree?

Could it be some other provision, besides the ones that you mention?  I agree with all those provisions. But if for example it explicitly allowed unlimited detention of children, I might not agree with the proposal overall.

[Fenring]

Trump and his cronies have fed you propaganda that immigration is some existential threat to the United States.  It's not.  It is a problem that we need to address, better than we have in the past, but it isn't going to destroy our country if we don't stop it RIGHT NOW.

What about the fact that Trump was elected on a platform to indeed do something to stop it RIGHT NOW? I mean, he campaigned on building a wall for Pete's sake. I don't know what to say about the option Trump chose to begin to deal with it, but on the other hand what if his voter base largely supported that move? To be honest I have far more liberal than conservative voices in my life so I'm not certain whether the outcry is unanimous or whether it's the usual Trump-haters. That in itself doesn't validate or invalidate the policy, however I also don't believe it's valid for the voters who 'won' the election to have their voices silenced by loud complaining. Representative democracy, and the vote for President, isn't supposed to be about not doing what you're mandated to do because it makes the people who voted against you upset. Not saying that's 100% what's happening but I wonder. I have to be honest, I wasn't exactly happy to hear about the separation of families but I was a bit surprised at the firestorm that ensued.

[D.W.]

I was a bit surprised at the firestorm that ensued.

I'm kinda surprised you were surprised.  This reaction (the firestorm) was the intent of the NotAPolicyChange change.  The only surprise from the White House side of things, is that their cold logic "not our fault" argument didn't seem to gain much traction. 

This is the Trump playbook he runs instead of consensus building and horse trading.  Chaos, outrage, partisan rabble rousing  (stirring up both sides), bullying, then ultimatum.  "Making Deals" is NOT negotiating.

He campaigned hard on this.  The tax cut is already out of the way, trade war is under way, it was time to find another way to leverage The Wall. 

That even his own party is calling foul (because of bad optics and a desire to campaign on, but never act on being this tough) shouldn't even be a shock.  But again, Trump ran on being an outsider.  I think he actually wants to "fix" the illegal immigration "problem".  Much to the dismay of everyone else.

[Fenring]

I think he actually wants to "fix" the illegal immigration "problem".  Much to the dismay of everyone else.

Don't you think it's a problem when it's actually expected (and desired) that politicians will run on a topic for optics but not actually do it? Do you think it sends a good message that people are upset when a politician does what he'll say he will? What about the people who [potentially] voted for him for that reason? Whether or not this move was a good one, it seems like a harbinger of bad things to come if a controversial policy choice will be repealed based on being shouted down by the other side. In this case it may not just be the other side, but it does make me wonder whether America is ready at all for change in other areas where it's needed, such as campaign finance or foreign policy. Any potential leader will now know that a change from the status quo will arouse a firestorm and so the ecosystem is going to favor the same old gang.

[D.W.]

Whether or not this move was a good one, it seems like a harbinger of bad things to come if a controversial policy choice will be repealed based on being shouted down by the other side. In this case it may not just be the other side, but it does make me wonder whether America is ready at all for change in other areas where it's needed, such as campaign finance or foreign policy. Any potential leader will now know that a change from the status quo will arouse a firestorm and so the ecosystem is going to favor the same old gang.

In this case, it was both sides, but I am somewhat inclined to agree. 

But there's another side to this coin (as I see it).  The public, no matter their "side", may start to realize where the claims of opposing agenda are really a shared belief to hang onto useful political tools to mutual benefit.  Our leaders are already terrified to diverge from the status quo.

The firestorm they fear, is the rest of us getting sick of it and demanding a solution.  In some ways, I think Trump, in his ham handed and compassionless way, is all about giving the people what they want.  At least SOME of the people.  He, unlike past presidents of either party, seems to think this issue needs solved.  And if someone's gotta be pissed off, it may as well be those pesky Democrats.  Because they were never gonna kiss his ass either way. 

It may not be the way I wanted illegal immigration addressed, and being done for all the wrong reasons, and making our nation a bit more toxic in the short term, but... 

Slipping back into the status quo will not be an easy task.  I hate the man in the oval office, but part of me delights in seeing that wrecking ball swing.  (I'd prefer there be fewer victims or collateral damage in the process though.  "Everyone, behind the tape and enjoy the show!")

[yossarian22c]

The firestorm they fear, is the rest of us getting sick of it and demanding a solution.  In some ways, I think Trump, in his ham handed and compassionless way, is all about giving the people what they want.  At least SOME of the people.  He, unlike past presidents of either party, seems to think this issue needs solved.  And if someone's gotta be pissed off, it may as well be those pesky Democrats.  Because they were never gonna kiss his ass either way. 

If Trump wanted a solution why did he threaten to veto (after agreeing to support) every bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate proposed last time the immigration debate came up?

[D.W.]

Because he wants HIS solution.  He's no benevolent force.  He wants "wins" he wants his ego stroked.  He wants to keep his base happy and hear how terrific his numbers are. 

Make no mistake though, there is a lot of weight pushing back at him to accept "defeat" and accept the status quo.  People trying to convince him they can still spin this into blaming his opponents, and in the end, isn't that good enough?

[Wayward Son]

Trump and his cronies have fed you propaganda that immigration is some existential threat to the United States.  It's not.  It is a problem that we need to address, better than we have in the past, but it isn't going to destroy our country if we don't stop it RIGHT NOW.

What about the fact that Trump was elected on a platform to indeed do something to stop it RIGHT NOW? I mean, he campaigned on building a wall for Pete's sake. I don't know what to say about the option Trump chose to begin to deal with it, but on the other hand what if his voter base largely supported that move? To be honest I have far more liberal than conservative voices in my life so I'm not certain whether the outcry is unanimous or whether it's the usual Trump-haters. That in itself doesn't validate or invalidate the policy, however I also don't believe it's valid for the voters who 'won' the election to have their voices silenced by loud complaining. Representative democracy, and the vote for President, isn't supposed to be about not doing what you're mandated to do because it makes the people who voted against you upset. Not saying that's 100% what's happening but I wonder. I have to be honest, I wasn't exactly happy to hear about the separation of families but I was a bit surprised at the firestorm that ensued.

Interesting question, Fenring.  What if the President was elected on a lie?  What if he manufactured a crisis and got almost-a-majority of people to believe it?

Morally, the only thing to do is fight it with everything you got.  Try to stop it.  Educate this supporters in how they are wrong.  Get the majority back in control.

Of course, there is still the question of what the voters voted for.  Sure, they may have wanted a wall, but they were told Mexico would pay for it.  Do they still want it if (when?) it increases their taxes?  If they knew Trump would separate children from their parents to close the border, would they still have voted for it?  They may have voted for the man (and are responsible for that), but that doesn't mean they voted for every single policy he enacts.

And while it is nice you are worried about his voters being 'silenced," what about the majority of the nation?  Should we be silent when we see the President enacting outrageous behavior, just because he won the election?  Isn't he the President of the entire nation, or just his voters?  If Trump truly believes he represents only those who voted for him, then he should be kicked out of office right away.  We need a President for the whole nation, not just his party or constituents.

[D.W.]

And while it is nice you are worried about his voters being 'silenced," what about the majority of the nation?  Should we be silent when we see the President enacting outrageous behavior, just because he won the election?

I was told just last week by my stepfather that I should stop posting this *censored* (a facebook post) and "get over it already" and let Trump "do his job".    So according to some of his supporters,  Yes.  We should be silent.  Because he won. 

[Fenring]

Interesting question, Fenring.  What if the President was elected on a lie?  What if he manufactured a crisis and got almost-a-majority of people to believe it?

That can and does happen, and in fact happened in this past election on several counts. However it is patently not a lie that there are many illegal immigrants in the U.S. and many more coming in. Whether it's an emergency may or may not have been overstated, depending on who you ask. Whether people are upset about it is probably not something the President had to invent and feed them, although he may have added more urgency to it than was already there. But you have to ask yourself whether it was something people were actually concerned about and he gave them an avenue to voice their concern, or whether to an extent he put that feeling in them in the first place. This is a proper question to ask but you do a disservice to people who think differently than you by assuming a priori that they've been duped by Trump. Maybe they were, maybe not; maybe they were duped by someone before, maybe by their uncle. But again, that's motive chasing, and it shouldn't really be the business of politicians to weight how real the belief of the voters is in what they vote for. By that logic elitist politicians could just call it all a wash and assume the moronic masses are deluded about everything and just ignore their wishes. Much better would be to adhere to their wishes entirely so that they could actually see the results of making political choices. It would at least have the virtue of being honest, if nothing else.

Morally, the only thing to do is fight it with everything you got.  Try to stop it.  Educate this supporters in how they are wrong.  Get the majority back in control.

It's fine to try to educate the majority; maybe even an obligation. But is there not a difference between trying to help the majority choose better, versus usurping their will by being louder? In the age of the internet I think there are many people whose voices will probably be heard little except at elections. I can see the possibility here for effective disenfranchisement of those who aren't plugged into Facebook 24/7.

Of course, there is still the question of what the voters voted for.  Sure, they may have wanted a wall, but they were told Mexico would pay for it.  Do they still want it if (when?) it increases their taxes?  If they knew Trump would separate children from their parents to close the border, would they still have voted for it?  They may have voted for the man (and are responsible for that), but that doesn't mean they voted for every single policy he enacts.

You are right. But there's also such a thing as at least trying to enact what they voted for in good faith, despite it being more complex than you initially thought. We're in danger of degenerating into "well everything's too complicated so there's nothing we can do about anything." That seems to be the usual course.

And while it is nice you are worried about his voters being 'silenced," what about the majority of the nation?  Should we be silent when we see the President enacting outrageous behavior, just because he won the election?  Isn't he the President of the entire nation, or just his voters?  If Trump truly believes he represents only those who voted for him, then he should be kicked out of office right away.  We need a President for the whole nation, not just his party or constituents.

I like the idea of thinking of the executive as being for the entire nation. I don't think that's how the left sees it right now, mind you. I don't see a lot of contributions towards the causes of 'the other side' coming from many politicians on either side, let's just put it that way. Still, it's not that easy to represent half the nation in wanting illegal immigration HALTED (and I think they really do) at the same time as the other half that would like either a general amnesty or else at least status quo. These are incompatible programmes so one must be picked.

[rightleft22]

‘truthful hyperbole’ is flying fast and wild from all sides. The American two party political system is broken.
If the following information is correct this problem is only going to get worse… Immigration needs to become a bipartisan issue – however in the current I win – you lose attitudes that not going to happen.  America needs a third party 

In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people.
Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States.
Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States.
Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported from the United States.

[TheDrake]

The Globalist Party could make both the right and the left lose their minds for entirely different reasons.

[Crunch]

Because he wants HIS solution.  He's no benevolent force.  He wants "wins" he wants his ego stroked.  He wants to keep his base happy and hear how terrific his numbers are. 

Obama was no different, he is every bit the narcissist that Trump is. It’s a characteristic of the type of person running for the office.

I also want to hear how terrific his numbers are. These numbers are not just his, they’re all of America’s. The better these numbers get, the better it is for all of us.

[Crunch]

America needs a third party

America needed an alternative to the system and we got it. Trump is the third party, that’s why Republicans and Democrats oppose him.

[Crunch]

‘truthful hyperbole’ is flying fast and wild from all sides. The American two party political system is broken.
If the following information is correct this problem is only going to get worse… Immigration needs to become a bipartisan issue – however in the current I win – you lose attitudes that not going to happen.  America needs a third party 

In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people.
Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States.
Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States.
Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported from the United States.

virtually all adult, illegal aliens routinely commit felonies. Of the illegal population as a whole, including the so called “dreamers”, about 75% routinely commit felonies. The reality is that every one of these people are engaging in criminal activity - first when they cross the border and then continuing with forgery, Social Security fraud, identity theft, and perjury.  Not to mention how they fund and support human trafficking.

This is an invasion of criminals, they should be arrested and deported. Every single one.

[TheDrake]

Man is that misleading, while true. If they were all allowed in legally, none of them would be committing felonies. BTW, crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

How many of those millions do you suspect are involved in human trafficking? There were 946 people convicted of trafficking in the entire western hemisphere in 2016.

[Crunch]

Man is that misleading, while true. If they were all allowed in legally, none of them would be committing felonies.

Yeah, if not for laws there would be no criminals. If we allowed killing people, nobody would commit murder. 

BTW, crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

The first offense is a misdemeanor carrying a 6 month sentence. Subsequent attempt are, in fact, felonies (Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.)).

How many of those millions do you suspect are involved in human trafficking? There were 946 people convicted of trafficking in the entire western hemisphere in 2016.

We can break out trafficking from smuggling but both are high risk, dangerous, criminal operations that result in significant prison sentences. How many of them paid someone to help them cross the border? How many send money to help other family members hire “coyotes”? 

[Fenring]

be no criminals. If we allowed killing people, nobody would commit murder. 

In a debate about whether murder should be legal it wouldn't be admissible to suggest that it shouldn't, on the grounds that murderers are all criminals.

However, it is true that committing one crime does not necessarily require committing another. Although they are often closely linked, being an illegal alien doesn't automatically imply the intent to work illegally as well. For instance a person can desire to come to America in order to be an effective dependent on someone working legally. Conversely, there are people working illegally in the U.S. who entered the country legally but didn't have a green card. So the crimes of illegal labor and illegal immigration are not linked at the hip, despite probably being strongly correlated. So it may indeed be germane to an extent to discuss whether an illegal immigrant is also doing other illegal things once in the country. That being said, it probably wouldn't be correct to speak as if these are totally separate an unrelated crimes, as if to suggest that they have 'criminal tendencies' and will be prone to commit crimes of all sorts once it's known they're willing to commit one sort of crime.

[TheDeamon]

The New York Times ran an article a few days which indicates one of their reporters almost gets it. Of course, "their take away" (Liberals) from the article vs the Conservative one is wildly different.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/republican-voters-trump.html

LEESBURG, Va. — Gina Anders knows the feeling well by now. President Trump says or does something that triggers a spasm of outrage. She doesn’t necessarily agree with how he handled the situation. She gets why people are upset.

But Ms. Anders, 46, a Republican from suburban Loudoun County, Va., with a law degree, a business career, and not a stitch of “Make America Great Again” gear in her wardrobe, is moved to defend him anyway.

“All nuance and all complexity — and these are complex issues — are completely lost,” she said, describing “overblown” reactions from the president’s critics, some of whom equated the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children and parents to history’s greatest atrocities.

“It makes me angry at them, which causes me to want to defend him to them more,” Ms. Anders said.

This crystallizes a LOT of the alleged "Trump support" that is out there. It also is noteworthy that she also is very eerie echo of my opening comments on this one.

The blatantly intolerant approach to "tolerance" where "the benefit of doubt" is unacceptable, and the blatantly unjust approach to "social justice" just further stokes the fires for many.

The rhetoric of hyperbole and soundbites "it's like the holocaust all over again!"(except where it's blatantly not) are NOT helping the Anti-Trump initiative. It is angering the very people many/most of the anti-Trump people should be trying to build bridges with, but instead it's burning them.

But while the writer led with that, he didn't stick with it, and ultimately got lost in the weeds.

Edit to add: The other thing "The Media/The Left" need to keep in mind is this: America loves nothing more than an underdog. And Trump is doing a Grade A Premium job of making himself appear to be exactly that.

[D.W.]

It is angering the very people many/most of the anti-Trump people should be trying to build bridges with, but instead it's burning them.

Those "burning bridges" are largely good with that.  They've dropped their leaflets, they've broadcast their intents.  The bridge is coming down.  This is the last chance to cross it.  If not, enjoy the quarantine. 

It's messed up, and it would be nice if we could get out of this partisan quagmire, but to the "bridge burners" Trump and his supporters are something different.  Something toxic.  They don't want to build a bridge, they want that separation.  I hope that when the man is gone this divide may begin to heal.  But honestly, until he is gone, there won't be bridge building.  What would the point be with Trump regularly setting charges at the foundations? 

I can see a lot of common ground with Republicans who voted for Trump because that was the party line vote, and any sock puppet in the big chair that wasn't a Democrat would probably work out for them.  But those who actually support Trump?  We need no bridges.

[D.W.]

To address the actual story you are talking about though, I think the author was correct that the wider the left/liberal/Democrat brush gets, the more people are forced to huddle around Trump.  I don't think however that such a warning will be headed.

[Wayward Son]

One question (for which there is no answer): did Ms. Anders also feel the need to defend the previous President when he was unfairly targeted by the media?

It's all well and good to say that "the media" defended Obama in ways that it doesn't defend Trump, but the Conservative Media (Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al) attacked Obama at least as viciously, and certainly with less merit, than the MSM "attacks" Trump.  Where were the cries to understand that President?  Where were the cries that the Right shouldn't antagonize the Left, lest they defend Obama?

What Trump has done, separating children from their parents, is simply outrageous.  But he does something outrageous [/I]every single week.[/I]  If Ms. Anders feels she should defend Trump for this, and the previous thing, and the thing before that, and the thing before that...what makes you think not attacking Trump will change her mind?  Sure, maybe she won't defend him.  She will merely continue to tolerate him.  IOW, she will still support him, but without any extra effort.

Trump is f**king up our country.  If people can't recognize that, then no amount of restraint by Liberals will help them see it.  Quietly objecting to his outrageous actions only makes them seem less outrageous, more normal, than they are (or should be).  If Ms. Anders can't hear what George Will and Steve Schmidt are saying, what makes you think silencing the overblown criticism will help?

And most importantly, what makes anyone think anyone can silence "overblown criticism?"  No one was able to silence Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or Coulter.  What makes anyone think the Left can silence the nameless nimbobs?  And yet I keep hearing how these nameless critics will do so much more damage than Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Coulter.   

When the Right can get Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Ingrahm and Coulter to shut up, then we can talk about silencing the overblown criticism from the Left.  Until then, though, it's just a double-standard: the Right can say anything they please, and the Left should quietly take it, like the good boys that they are.

Didn't work in the South after the civil war. Won't work now.

[TheDeamon]

And most importantly, what makes anyone think anyone can silence "overblown criticism?"  No one was able to silence Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or Coulter.  What makes anyone think the Left can silence the nameless nimbobs?  And yet I keep hearing how these nameless critics will do so much more damage than Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Coulter.   

If you're okay with comparing the regular news programming of many local broadcast stations, and virtually ALL of the national news networks with Rush Limbaigh, then I guess that's an acceptable position to stake out.

I'm not okay with that being an apples to apples comparison.

As to silencing "overblown criticisim" in general? You're missing the forest for the trees, and some of that is also indirectly mentioned in the article.

You don't get sympathy regarding a blowhard liar of a president by leveling wildly inaccurate accusations against him. Such as comparing the INS policies to the Holocaust. Which I'll remind you once more, I found offensive to the memories of the people who were actual victims of that event, never mind how offensive it is in other ways as well.

Yes, the practice is horrid, but certain tiers of hyperbolic rhetoric should never be considered okay without need to claim "extenuating circumstances." Of course, I guess the holocaust comparisons probably make sense in some respects, as while "the left" doesn't claim to be particularly racist, it is pretty boldly anti-Semitic. So for those kinds of people, it is literally comparable. Just like stage 4 cancer is exactly like suffering from the common cold as both can kill people, right?

[Wayward Son]

Let me expand on my position while I'm not just about to go to sleep.

I agree that hyperbolic rhetoric is not desirable from either side.  There is no good outcome from it, since it only escalates emotions on both sides and de-emphasizes reason.  It increases conflict without merit.

However, such hyperbolic rhetoric is no excuse for defending a position.

For one thing, it can't be controlled.  There will always be people who will level "overblown criticism" at any controversy (and a few non-controversial subjects, too ).  If someone can say that they will defend a position because the other side is being hyperbolic, then he might as well just defend the position.  You can't stop it, and you can always find it if you want to.

For another, hyperbolic rhetoric does not change reality either way.  It doesn't make what is happening worse than it is, but it also doesn't make it one whit better.  I mean, if you're against gun control, hearing someone wrongly attack a gun control position and call it "something that Hilter would do" won't inspire you to defend gun control.  You might point out how the argument is wrong, but you will probably add "but I'm still against gun control."  Bad, unfair arguments don't change people's positions, only perhaps make them more emotional about them.

You know what else makes people more emotional about their positions?  Seeing that their preferred positions might be overturned, struck down, or no longer in force.

While hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't help a controversy, I don't believe it makes that much of a difference.  It doesn't make people defend positions they already don't support.  And you can't stop it.  So while it is worth opposing these "overblown criticisms," don't think that it will make much of a difference whether they are there or not.  Trump supporters will support Trump whether he is unfairly criticized or not.  And they will look for, and find, excuses for their support if they don't want to admit that they just really want to support him.

[Fenring]

While hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't help a controversy, I don't believe it makes that much of a difference.  It doesn't make people defend positions they already don't support.

Oh it makes a difference. It brainwashes people who don't know about a subject into believing the hyperbole, and makes them feel hate without even having studied the problem themselves. Another thing about hyperbole is that it take a side that may roughly agree on a topic and froths them up into an angry echo-chamber mob. Not only isn't this good, but it's very bad.

The worst part of the brainwashing/propaganda involved in hyperbole is that it encourages dishonesty. If you might have disagreed with a particular point 'your side' is making while still generally agreeing with the larger agenda, you might think twice if the point being put forward sounds like "What is happening is outrageous! Like Nazi concentration camps!" Not only will it look to others on 'your side' like you're betraying their cause if you begin to question the language being used, but even worse, any sort of disagreement or qualification will then be taken as a sign that you're willing to give concentration camps a pass, you naughty person. So the use of extreme language itself carries with it the threat of being seen as both a traitor and a villain for 'going against' the awful, horrible things the other side is doing. There is therefore incentive to refrain from saying what you genuinely think and instead choosing a prefab position within the power struggle.

So it's not just a question of whether you want to make a qualified objection but still generally agree. It's more an issue that most people will be too nervous to offer any objection because of the seeming force and moral extremity of what's being discussed. And let's not forget the "with us or against us" mentality, where since the #1 objective is to beat the other side, the bar is raised on how displeasing a comment by 'your side' must be before you're going to object to it. In most cases it's simpler and seemingly more effective to go along with the united front and just retweet or repost the meme flaming the evil others.

[TheDrake]

Whether its comparisons to Nazi concentration camps or Huckabee comparing Pelosi's campaign workers to violent gang members - its really not constructive but it sure gets one's base cackling and retweeting.

[Wayward Son]

"The difference" I was primarily referring to, Fenring, is whether a person defends a position or person or not.

But you are right--there are many other significant "differences" that hyperbole creates, none of them good.  It is a blight on our political discourse.

[Gaoics79]

It's messed up, and it would be nice if we could get out of this partisan quagmire, but to the "bridge burners" Trump and his supporters are something different.  Something toxic.  They don't want to build a bridge, they want that separation.  I hope that when the man is gone this divide may begin to heal.  But honestly, until he is gone, there won't be bridge building.  What would the point be with Trump regularly setting charges at the foundations? 

I can see a lot of common ground with Republicans who voted for Trump because that was the party line vote, and any sock puppet in the big chair that wasn't a Democrat would probably work out for them.  But those who actually support Trump?  We need no bridges.

Yes, I get that. The entire Red Hen / Sanders controversy of late comes to mind. You can practically hear Trump licking his lips every time someone like Maxine Waters opens her mouth. It's like Christmas for him each time she speaks.

Apart from the fact that buying into Trump's game makes him win (he plays it better than you because it's his natural habitat), it's also worth noting that the other 50% of the population or whatever it is, see the thing is, they can retaliate . You can hit them, and they can hit you back.

[Wayward Son]

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

[yossarian22c]

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

Self respect and credibility. Just ask Rubio how he felt after the Trump small hands comment.

[D.W.]

IDK, the fact that the "small hands" really seemed to get to Trump means he had some decent insight.  He may regret taking the low road, but wow did he hit his mark in a way that seems totally absurd to just about everyone.

[Fenring]

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

What do you mean by "they are constantly hitting us"? I would like to know the specifics of what you think half the nation is doing to this "us".

[Wayward Son]

The thing is, jasonr, is that they are constantly hitting us anyway.  

So why should we be afraid of them hitting back?  What do we got to lose?

What do you mean by "they are constantly hitting us"? I would like to know the specifics of what you think half the nation is doing to this "us".

Insults, obviously.  Everything from being called a "snowflake" to a "traitor" (the latter being a hanging offense, BTW).

Blaming liberals and Democrats for stuff we didn't do.  Just refer to Trump's tweets for examples.

The regular hypocrisy of criticizing Democrats for "obstruction" of Republican nominations and legislation.  (Like Republicans never obstructed Democrats when they were in the minority...  )  Plus crying "foul" every time liberals do something conservatives have called for and/or done before, like boycotts.

Basically the stuff that jasonr was referring to.

[Fenring]

Insults, obviously.  Everything from being called a "snowflake" to a "traitor" (the latter being a hanging offense, BTW).

It's true that I've heard the "snowflake" moniker applies quite a lot, although I don't think it's meant to connote all liberals or democrats. I think the term has come to refer to a specific brand of left-wing people who take offence a lot and play the victim game. It probably gets extended beyond that in practice, but I don't think it's a relevant term as referring to Democrats broadly speaking. Traitor is maybe something you've heard and I haven't.

Blaming liberals and Democrats for stuff we didn't do.  Just refer to Trump's tweets for examples.

What do Trump's tweets have to do with what average Americans are doing?

The regular hypocrisy of criticizing Democrats for "obstruction" of Republican nominations and legislation.  (Like Republicans never obstructed Democrats when they were in the minority...  )  Plus crying "foul" every time liberals do something conservatives have called for and/or done before, like boycotts.

This is a political thing, and I get it. But again my question is about what half the nation is doing to "hit" you.

Basically the stuff that jasonr was referring to.

I guess I'm not sure what that is. Maxime Waters is a political person. Are you saying that lots of average R Americans are insulting towards lots of average D Americans for various things? Is this something you experience regularly? I'm honestly interested to hear.

[Seriati]

Insults, obviously.  Everything from being called a "snowflake" to a "traitor" (the latter being a hanging offense, BTW).

Lol that's totally outrageous!  Good thing they haven't called you a racist, sexist or homophobe, or even a Nazi!  At least we still have some civility in our discussions.  Sarcasm off.

[D.W.]

Of that list, we don't even hang Nazis... 

[Seriati]

It's only a matter of time D.W. before Antifa gets that far, meanwhile, can you point out to me the Democrat that's actually faced treason charges?