|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
You're gonna call the guy who got arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela a liar when it comes to civil rights??? His brain is doing the Regan thing where everything from his past is just a jumbled mess in his brain, but Biden never starred in any movies he can confuse for real life. So instead he just recalls that one time he went to a protest and figures he must have gone to a bunch of other protests and been a real civil rights champion. He can remember this one example, sort of, so there are probably others!
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:You're gonna call the guy who got arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela a liar when it comes to civil rights??? Like slightly exaggerating a thing that did probably happen is comparatively pretty good for him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Do the Republicans also freak out on the Libertarians? I never seem to see anything about that even though Jo is doing way better than the other 3rd parties. Republicans actually offer stuff to their base, they don't really freak out about Libertarians because they recognize that they lose some people with their open racism and warmongering and fundy biblethumping, they also recognize that they gain more than they lose by doing it. So they have no need to throw a tantrum about being entitled to third party votes. If they wanted to appeal to Libertarians more than they already do, they would just do that, they don't want to do that because there are more dumb chuds than Rational Internet Libertarian Supermen. Democrats actively poo poo on their base to appeal to moderate Republicans who will never vote for them, so when they lose more than they gain, they can either question whether this strategy is good (will not happen, as that strategy is what keeps them on the corporate donor gravy train) or they can blame voters and try to shame them into voting Democrat and entertain fantasies that if they can just use right-wing voter suppression tactics against the Green party that all Green votes will go to them because there's no alternative. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Katt posted:Ron Perlman is such a loving boomer. 95% of perlman's twitter is normally just making fun of racists and weird right wingers, it's pretty decent for an old guy, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:95% of perlman's twitter is normally just making fun of racists and weird right wingers, it's pretty decent for an old guy, tbh. Something that it often takes a while for people to realize is that "hating Republicans" does not necessarily imply "having left-wing political views" (this is how you end up with people like Bill Maher being popular with liberals). So while the "just talks about hating Republicans constantly" liberal is definitely preferable to the "thinks some Republicans are honorable and praises Reagan" liberal, they're often still right-wingers politically themselves, even if they're Democratic partisan right-wingers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Something that it often takes a while for people to realize is that "hating Republicans" does not necessarily imply "having left-wing political views" (this is how you end up with people like Bill Maher being popular with liberals). It's not like he's Danny DeVito or something, Perlman's obviously invested in the Dem party as it is and has a nasty dose of 'MURICA flag poisioning, but he has also said things showing he isn't just angry at Republicans. Granted, that's most of it, but there's more there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:https://twitter.com/perlmutations/status/382514076385280000 I think what I find so frustrating with positions like this is the insinuation that such a policy is feasible under our current system of government. Like, sure, it's possible that the representatives we elect will actually tax the rich, but it's not going to happen. Like, ever. Because the people who pass those laws are themselves very wealthy. Mitch, Nancy, Chuck, all of them are fabulously wealthy and none of them are going to pass a law that loses therm money. And even if they weren't in the tax bracket that most desperately needs taxing, their donors are. The people who make their political career possible, the people who loving own them, won't let legislators significantly raise their taxes. So when I hear people scream about raising taxes on the wealthy, it feels less likely than that revolution everyone keeps saying will never happen. Nobody will bite the hand that feeds, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:It's not like he's Danny DeVito or something, Perlman's obviously invested in the Dem party as it is and has a nasty dose of 'MURICA flag poisioning, but he has also said things showing he isn't just angry at Republicans. Granted, that's most of it, but there's more there. I think that most of the time opinions like this stem from anti-Republican feelings, though; it's why they generally don't make these arguments against Democratic politicians. The thought process goes "Republicans are bad, and I've been shown (or have sought out) these reasons I can list about why." Absent the "repudiating Republicans" angle, most of these folks would never mention these things. Probably the best proof of this is the way they generally ignore (or actively support) the ideas that Republican and Democratic politicians agree about (or at least share rhetoric about). Or attitudes towards gay marriage before it became a mainstream Democratic Party position (or at least one held by many of its politicians).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Temperature check on people in swing states. I know it is hard with Covid to take a local temperature and we've all become luminal beings in cyberspace like was promised in the '80s (inasmuch as goons ever existed in meatspace) but how are things? The few feelers I have in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania and (lol) West Virginia and Texas show a lot of enthusiasm for TRUMP and extremely reluctant acceptance of Biden/Harris aside from a small subset of wealthy gentrifies who are ALL ABOUT BIDEN/HARRIS 2020 (they were all hardcore Warren supporters, except for those who actively work for the DNC and are apolitical beyond "not Bernie")!! Goon ethnography would be helpful here so I can manage my expectations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Incelshok Na posted:Temperature check on people in swing states. I would be amazed if Chicagoland went for anything other then Biden, and if Chicago goes then tbh that's 90% of the state. There's a few right wing rich suburbs, but the majority is relatively liberal. Edit: purely anecdotal but I've seen very few election signs, and all of them are Trump 2020 Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
Incelshok Na posted:Temperature check on people in swing states. If you'd like to get a good idea of what impact covid is having on the election in swing states, look at eviction rates around the election and who is being affected the worse. That gives you a clear idea who will have a very difficult time voting. Anything else is really difficult to measure and may as well be wild speculation. I suspect that your feelers are correct, though. The minorities that Biden needs to win those states may not have a home come November and that is incredibly depressing. Judakel fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
I can tell you right now with 100% certainty that Indiana has always and will always continue to vote against their own interests and will continue to reject progress and will only vote for a politician if they have an R next to their name. This state has suffered from brain drain for so long and the majority of the people left here are so loving stubborn and proudly ignorant that Trump was a godsend for many of them, pure id made flesh and he makes them feel good about their racism like they can finally stop hiding it and feeling ashamed about it. Never mind that all of their lives have been made measurably worse for the past 30+ years of republican rule, that everyone here knows someone touched by the opioid crisis, and that most of us are one ER trip away from total financial ruin. It’s all a loving cult about guns, god, and Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:I can tell you right now with 100% certainty that Indiana has always and will always continue to vote against their own interests and will continue to reject progress and will only vote for a politician if they have an R next to their name. This state has suffered from brain drain for so long and the majority of the people left here are so loving stubborn and proudly ignorant that Trump was a godsend for many of them, pure id made flesh and he makes them feel good about their racism like they can finally stop hiding it and feeling ashamed about it. Never mind that all of their lives have been made measurably worse for the past 30+ years of republican rule, that everyone here knows someone touched by the opioid crisis, and that most of us are one ER trip away from total financial ruin. It’s all a loving cult about guns, god, and Trump. eh. we all vote against our interests. we have to vote for the lesser of two evils every election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Huge_Midget posted:I can tell you right now with 100% certainty that Indiana has always and will always continue to vote against their own interests and will continue to reject progress and will only vote for a politician if they have an R next to their name. This state has suffered from brain drain for so long and the majority of the people left here are so loving stubborn and proudly ignorant that Trump was a godsend for many of them, pure id made flesh and he makes them feel good about their racism like they can finally stop hiding it and feeling ashamed about it. Never mind that all of their lives have been made measurably worse for the past 30+ years of republican rule, that everyone here knows someone touched by the opioid crisis, and that most of us are one ER trip away from total financial ruin. It’s all a loving cult about guns, god, and Trump. This jibes with something I read a while back, might have already been linked. quote:link -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:This jibes with something I read a while back, might have already been linked. i think that reddit person's post is a pretty good illustration of the problem. there's only observation and zero understanding. it's "they hate liberals" but never "why do they hate liberals?" they punctuated their rant about the spiritual inclination of a conservative to be a dick with unrefined disdain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:i think that reddit person's post is a pretty good illustration of the problem. there's only observation and zero understanding. it's "they hate liberals" but never "why do they hate liberals?" they punctuated their rant about the spiritual inclination of a conservative to be a dick with unrefined disdain. There really is no lack of understanding. The history and motivation behind white supremacy in the United States could and has filled entire library wings. Trump supporters are the latest manifestation. Maybe this time decent Americans realize forgive and forget isn't going to make it go awayany more then it did post Civil Rights and War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1302343746756005891?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1301990711013838849?s=20 not delighted by the emphasis on jobs https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1301285020448034817?s=20 https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1302352578924212225
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1302369697799770112?s=20 Oh good, I was really hoping that Buttigieg would have a chance to purge black leadership on a national scale
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Didn't the Obama administration do more deportations than Trump?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Didn't the Obama administration do more deportations than Trump? Yes, but deportations have been on a serious downward trend for decades. Obama had half the number of deportations as Bush, and only 1/3 as many as the Clinton administration. Additionally, deportations dropped sharply after the first two years of the Obama administration, which Biden has specifically commented on this, saying "We took too long to get it right". https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2020/02/for-first-time-biden-calls-obama-deportations-big-mistake/ I'm sure whatever Biden wants to do is meager and won't help the issues in any serious fashion, but I think it's unfair to claim that they're actually *worse* than Trump. Edit: This is wrong, see below. Gumbercules fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Didn't the Obama administration do more deportations than Trump? in addition to what gumber said, trump's been trying to destroy the asylum system and obama expanded it somewhat trump tried to deport people who fled here from Vietnam during and immediately after the Vietnam War it was a whole Thing in gulf coast texas / houston
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:Yes, but deportations have been on a serious downward trend for decades. Obama had half the number of deportations as Bush, and only 1/3 as many as the Clinton administration. Additionally, deportations dropped sharply after the first two years of the Obama administration, which Biden has specifically commented on this, saying "We took too long to get it right". https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2020/02/for-first-time-biden-calls-obama-deportations-big-mistake/ Can I ask what these stats are from? I'm mostly going off this Pew Report which came out earlier this year, but none of those numbers match what you're describing. The second chart seems to describe the overall deportations which shows a pretty steady and hefty rise up until about 2013, after which it started to decline to 2008 levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:Yes, but deportations have been on a serious downward trend for decades. Obama had half the number of deportations as Bush, and only 1/3 as many as the Clinton administration. Additionally, deportations dropped sharply after the first two years of the Obama administration, which Biden has specifically commented on this, saying "We took too long to get it right". https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2020/02/for-first-time-biden-calls-obama-deportations-big-mistake/ Sigh. Here we go again. No, it is not true that "deportations have been on a serious downward trend for decades." Legally speaking, "deportations" don't exist anymore, since the 1996 law IIRIRA. Deportations are now called "removal." Besides removals, you have something else: returns. Returns is when CBP turns someone away at the border. This can include anything from a border official turning someone away because their visa isn't valid to someone being caught crossing the desert and CBP just telling them to turn around. Returns are not deportations, they are simply CBP turning someone away. There is no legal consequence to a return, it's essentially catch and release. So returns have been on a downward trend for decades. Not because CBP is being nice, but because the border is so militarized that fewer people have been trying to cross the border. But removals, which are the current version of deportations, reached a peak under Obama. Removals ARE a big deal, because there are legal consequences to removal. First, there is a bar (3 year for those in the US less than 1 year, 10 year) on applying for legal status for those who have been removed. Second, being caught within the US after being removed once is a federal felony. Third, removal frequently includes detention, while returns don't. Returns being down and removals up during Obama isn't Obama being nice. It's the opposite. It means an effort to remove people even while there are fewer people to remove. Or, as Vox puts it: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration quote:The story of the Obama administration on immigration enforcement is that more people than ever are being expelled from the country in a way that prevents them from returning to the US legally or illegally — even though net unauthorized migration has been low and the unauthorized population of the country is down from its 2006 peak. And just in case that anyone had any doubts that this was a deliberate decision by Obama to be harsher on immigrants, the whole ramping up of removals has a name: https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-in-harms-way/ The "Consequence Delivery System." So you end up with this 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
It is absolutely insane that people are buying into obvious lies about how Obama wasn't as bad as trump when it comes to people who aren't American citizens, be they immigrants or middle eastern civilians (neither president would consider them to be anything but subhuman). They're pretty much identical in that department except for the fact that Obama was much more competent than Trump and therefore better able to deal with those subhuman creatures trying to escape the consequences of American foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:It is absolutely insane that people are buying into obvious lies about how Obama wasn't as bad as trump when it comes to people who aren't American citizens, be they immigrants or middle eastern civilians (neither president would consider them to be anything but subhuman). They're pretty much identical in that department except for the fact that Obama was much more competent than Trump and therefore better able to deal with those subhuman creatures trying to escape the consequences of American foreign policy. It's a well-beaten horse corpse, but for a lot of people, the only problem they really have with Trump is that he's so blatant about the bad stuff that he does. He's like a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain, and that forces people to pay attention to poo poo that has been going on for decades. They don't care that he does it, they hate that he's sloppy about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in addition to what gumber said, trump's been trying to destroy the asylum system and obama expanded it somewhat This is also not true. The practice of turning asylum seekers away at the border started under Obama. A 2018 lawsuit has found that the policy of reducing the number of people handling asylum requests to slow down asylum cases, forcing people to stay in Mexico while they wait, and so on all started in 2016 under Obama https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/AmendedComplaint.pdf quote:Since 2016 and continuing to this day, CBP has engaged in an unlawful, widespread pattern and practice of denying asylum seekers access to the asylum process at POEs on the U.S.-Mexico border through a variety of illegal tactics. These tactics include lying; using threats, intimidation and coercion; employing verbal abuse and applying physical force; physically obstructing access to the POE building; imposing unreasonable delays before granting access to the asylum process; denying outright access to the asylum process; and denying access to the asylum process in a racially discriminatory manner. quote:In addition, beginning around 2016, high-level CBP officials, under the direction or with the knowledge or authorization of the named Defendants (the “Defendants”), adopted a formal policy to restrict access to the asylum process at POEs by mandating that lower level officials directly or constructively turn back asylum seekers at the border (the “Turnback Policy”) contrary to U.S. law. quote:Evidence of a Turnback Policy, at least regarding the San Ysidro port of entry, exists starting in May 2016. In an email dated May 29, 2016, the Watch Commander at the San Ysidro POE notes that “[t]he Asylee line in the pedestrian building is not being used at this time, there is a line staged on the Mexican side.” In an email sent roughly a month later, the same individual reiterated that “[i]t’s even more important that when the traffic is free-flowing that the limit line officers ask for and check documents to ensure that groups that may be seeking asylum are directed to remain in the waiting area on the Mexican side.” Same with deporting people who have been in the country for a long time. The very recent supreme court decisions that said that immigrants had no right to habeas corpus hearings and could be indefinitely detained, called Nielsen v. Preap, was about 2013 cases. Mony Preap, who is Cambodian by birth, was busted for misdemeanor possession of marijuana in 2006, and then in 2013 ICE decided to detain him to deport him, and the Obama admin defended its right to hold him without even the right of a habeas corpus hearing despite the case being a misdemeanor and several years old. Pretty much everything that Trump has done on immigration is just turning up the heat on stuff Obama created. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in addition to what gumber said, We already probated someone for posting false "evidence" claiming what gumber said, please do try not to double down on it enraged_camel posted:This is actually wrong. The issue is far more complicated than what you are describing and you can't understand or explain it just by looking at a couple of simple charts. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It's a well-beaten horse corpse, but for a lot of people, the only problem they really have with Trump is that he's so blatant about the bad stuff that he does. He's like a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain, and that forces people to pay attention to poo poo that has been going on for decades. I think that even here, people that are generally pretty smart politically/wonkishly and can at least otherwise recognize war crimes/economic destruction/abjectly cruel policies for what they are get tripped up by Obama because he’s cool and smart. There’s always some really intricate 12D chess excuse or technical explanation for whatever bad thing Obama did because he’s cooler and smarter than anyone here so he must have known what was going on and there must have been a reason for it. Sure he made some misses, but things were good back then, weren’t they? I think if you can get a liberal to recognize that Obama actually really, really sucked poo poo you’ll have radicalized them. Once that brick comes loose it’s way harder to apologize for neoliberal capitalism. Then you think about Biden compared to Obama and next thing you know you’re in the nojoe thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
the_steve posted:The continental United States is a finite landmass. Even if it was carefully planned and developed instead of the utter clusterfuck that we have, at some point there stops being land on which to build without the removal of previous structures. Not necessarily true. The entire world could comfortably fit in the state of texas. https://www.improbable.com/teach/lessons2002/people-in-texas.html#:~:text=Did%20You%20Know%3F,all%20but%20the%20most%20wealthy. The world population will start declining as well https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:in addition to what gumber said, trump's been trying to destroy the asylum system and obama expanded it somewhat joepinetree has posted the same argument, with evidence, about deportations under the Obama administration at least half a dozen times in this thread. Can you please take the time out of your day to read one of them instead of parroting gut feelings of "deportations have been declining for decades!"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Phone posted:joepinetree has posted the same argument, with evidence, about deportations under the Obama administration at least half a dozen times in this thread. Can you please take the time out of your day to read one of them instead of parroting gut feelings of "deportations have been declining for decades!"? Way more than half a dozen times, a lot of respect for how much effort they repeatedly put into trying to explain reality to those who are just itching to put the blinders on post-trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:There really is no lack of understanding. The history and motivation behind white supremacy in the United States could and has filled entire library wings. Trump supporters are the latest manifestation. Maybe this time decent Americans realize forgive and forget isn't going to make it go awayany more then it did post Civil Rights and War. i have no idea what you're referring to in my post or the reddit post i was addressing. i'm talking about their material circumstances and social status and how those things inform their decisions. on the topic of racist conservatives though, racism is taught, so it can be untaught.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:This is also not true. The practice of turning asylum seekers away at the border started under Obama. i missed the 2018 thing, fair enough but to be clear on the latter part, i wasn't talking about people who had just been in the country for a long time (which is bad!), i was talking about people who were originally admitted, documented, and authorized under various asylum and relief clauses who Donald Trump wants to send back on the grounds that their original asylum claims no longer apply, including in some cases when they, you know, actually still should many of which who have been here legally for decades with the Vietnamese cases being particularly egregious timewise and also particularly Texas-relevant To the best of my knowledge, there is not a comparable Obama administration policy change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Pretty much everything that Trump has done on immigration is just turning up the heat on stuff Obama created. I've had personal experience with this, as my green card application was rejected at one point due to a combination of a dumb rule change introduced under Obama and USCIS incompetence. Fortunately I was eventually able to prove USCIS mishandled my case and it was reopened. However it wasn't lost on me that the root cause of the whole mess was the Obama admin contributing to the ongoing effort to make it harder to immigrate to the US, through an unfair and complicated process overseen by a largely unaccountable bureaucracy. However it just so happened my case was rejected around the time the USCIS under Trump made a rule change that put people in deportation/removal/whatever proceedings as soon as their application was denied. That was a fun time! This change was clearly intended to antagonize immigrants and to make the process that much crueler, and obviously stemmed directly from Trump's explicitly anti-immigrant platform and rhetoric. However I must emphasize I was treated much much better than many would-be immigrants through the entire process, likely because I'm white and could afford a lawyer etc. Basically IMO saying Trump is "just turning up the heat" is a bit of an understatement! Trump, the Republicans in general and their voters are explicitly and dangerously xenophobic and anti-immigrant. They're working up to openly supporting a white ethnostate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i missed the 2018 thing, fair enough This is another one of those situations where a relatively minor detail changed under Trump and people are pretending that the whole thing is his creation. So what has been happening is this: Since Clinton, but mostly under Obama, USCIS has been making an effort to strip citizenship or green cards from people with criminal records, no matter how old or minor the crime was. Again, we know this is the case because Mony Preap, of the Nielsen v Preap supreme court case, was convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession in 2006 and detained without a bond hearing in 2013, when the Obama administration went to court to prevent him from having a hearing (1996 IIRIRA removes habeas corpus from immigration cases). Another plaintiff in that case, Eduardo Vega Padilla, had been a legal resident for 52 years and had grandkids. in 1999 he had a minor controlled substance conviction, one that carried probation only. And then, in 2013 ICE detained him as well, same deal, where the government moved to try to block a habeas corpus hearing. More broadly than this, the Obama administration created operation Janus, which was to go through old records and find people with criminal records or other issues to revoke their immigration status. Now, there was one nationality that was sort of exempt from this: Vietnamese (and only Vietnamese, Mony Preap discussed above is Cambodian) who arrived before 1995 were protected from deportation according to the treaty where the US and Vietnam reestablished diplomatic relations. The change under Trump is that they decided that the agreement does not extend to those with criminal records. In other words, they decided that IIRIRA (the law signed by Clinton that expands deportable offenses) takes precedence over the treaty with Vietnam. Now, don't get me wrong, that sucks. But again, it is simply the Trump administration deciding to do to Vietnamese immigrants with criminal records what the Obama administration started doing to immigrants from every other country on earth. Including, again, Mony Preap, someone born in a refugee camp while his family was escaping the Khmer Rouge. I wouldn't mind constantly having to correct people if once, just once, someone demonstrated even the least bit of interest in reevaluating their prior positions. Demonstrated just a bit of genuine care for immigrants rather than treating them as props, to be forgotten when they can't be used to further one's "politics as team sports" views. Nocturtle posted:I've had personal experience with this, as my green card application was rejected at one point due to a combination of a dumb rule change introduced under Obama and USCIS incompetence. Fortunately I was eventually able to prove USCIS mishandled my case and it was reopened. However it wasn't lost on me that the root cause of the whole mess was the Obama admin contributing to the ongoing effort to make it harder to immigrate to the US, through an unfair and complicated process overseen by a largely unaccountable bureaucracy. No, it is not an understatement. Virtually every tool that the Trump administration is using was created by the Obama administration. The rule change that you are talking about is that immigrants who are denied an immigration application and have no other legal status other than the one they applied for will automatically receive a notice to appear, which is the first step in removal proceedings. But even before that change someone who had an application denied and had no other legal status would have been considered to be in the US unlawfully. And while the Trump change means that an NTA would be issued automatically, the rule change also established that they would give 33 days for those denied to appeal. In other words, while it indeed sucks, it is very minor in comparison to the Obama administration decision to use removal proceedings for everything and essentially do away with returns. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Well, I apparently bought into a statistic that was not particularly genuine, apologies. I dug into this further, I used this 2017 analysis as a source, feel free to tell me if this is actually some conservative think tank but it seems somewhat neutral. According to this the increase in removals dates back to a 2005 policy "Consequence Delivery System" which continued ramping up unabated into the Obama administration reaching a 2013 peak. Essentially, people immediately detained after a border crossing were being given a stiff legal penalty via removal, whereas previously they would be returned with no serious penalty. This policy accounts for the great majority of removals under Obama, as "interior" removals of established citizens decreased significantly starting in 2010 (and were always lower than peak Bush). Obama admin also claims to have focused squarely on those with a criminal record, prioritizing serious criminal activity, and this was made explicit by a 2014 executive order. However, before 2013 it appears there were still a large number of "non-priority" interior removals, although fewer than under Bush. Even if this policy got better at the end of the administration, it took its time. Edit: Even if almost all interior removals were for felons and gang members, I suppose that's cold comfort to the people who got detained and deported over a minor non-violent offense.  joepinetree posted:Nielsen v. Preap, was about 2013 cases. Mony Preap, who is Cambodian by birth, was busted for misdemeanor possession of marijuana in 2006, and then in 2013 ICE decided to detain him to deport him, and the Obama admin defended its right to hold him without even the right of a habeas corpus hearing despite the case being a misdemeanor and several years old. All Democrat appointed justices ruled against it, all Republican appointees ruled for it. So while Obama's administration did a poo poo thing, his appointed justices wouldn't have allowed it; Republican appointees approved of it. So it still jives with the idea that Dem administrations are a mixed bag of candy and poo poo (disingenuously labeled as candy), while Rep administrations are just an explicitly labeled bag of poo poo. Gumbercules fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 07:54
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I wouldn't mind constantly having to correct people if once, just once, someone demonstrated even the least bit of interest in reevaluating their prior positions. Demonstrated just a bit of genuine care for immigrants rather than treating them as props, to be forgotten when they can't be used to further one's "politics as team sports" views. I appreciate it, I spent about half an hour staring blankly on the stairs. Its always hard to be reminded that the last administration was poo poo in so many ways. I suppose you want to think that you're going back to something truly good, rather than just going back to being routinely (and often deeply) disappointed on a policy-by-policy basis. Gumbercules fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
Gumbercules posted:Well, I apparently bought into a statistic that was not particularly genuine, apologies. How the gently caress do you get the conclusion of " "interior" removals of established citizens decreased significantly starting in 2010 (and were always lower than peak Bush)"? The link you provided starts its "interior" deportation series in 2009. And says nothing about "established citizens." (the process to remove citizenship is denaturalization, not removal) https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/removehistory/ The actual data shows that peak deportations from the interior happened in 2009, and that of the top 5 years for deportations from the interior, 4 were under Obama. Keep in mind that "border" is anywhere within 100 miles of a border or international body of water, so the idea that "at the border" means just recent arrivals is nonsense. The majority of CA and NY count as the border, as does the entirety of MI and FL.  Also, the idea that Obama was focusing on those with a criminal record is a lie that has been debunked several times. https://www.themarshallproject.org/...-594#.cpDH7m7Wq quote:But data obtained by The Marshall Project, detailing over 300,000 deportations since Obama’s speech, show that has not been the case. The majority — roughly 60 percent — were of immigrants with no criminal conviction or whose only crime was immigration-related, such as illegal entry or re-entry. Twenty-one percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes other than immigration. Fewer than 20 percent had potentially violent convictions, such as assault, DUI or weapons offenses. As for the supreme court, Nielsen v Preap wasn't the only immigration case this term. The other was Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which was about whether those who are denied asylum can appeal or if the government can use expedited removal against them. That one was 7-2, with Breyer and Ginsburg agreeing that the US can expedite deportations of asylum seekers. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:18
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Also, the idea that Obama was focusing on those with a criminal record is a lie that has been debunked several times. ....and the idea of using our racist and unjust court system to determine who to deport is unarguably pretty racist itself!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
If Obama had literally any other voice, I'd bet good money people wouldn't give him several football stadiums worth of benefit-of-a-doubt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 09:31
|
|
