US Immigration Policy Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The photos are not providing new information.

Also it appears the process is:

1. Veritas gets photos from "anonymous source," with all assertions about them attributed to anonymous source.
2. Photos somehow get in hands of Rep Cuellar.
3. Cuellar gives them to press.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2021 19:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Majorian posted:

Nah, it leads to ridiculous derails that dominate the conversation, as we saw in USPOL. So we're just not going to allow those derails. This thread is for discussing U.S. immigration policy and ways to change it, not semantic derails.

The decision in USPOL was specifically to make people stop calling them concentration camps, because, and I quote,

Handsome Ralph posted:

IK Hat on

I get that the migrant situation is complex and that people's emotions are going to flare up while talking about it and how to handle it. People are going to disagree and that's fine so long as no one is openly lusting for migrant death. Having said that, two things...

-If you're not going to bother engaging with the point being made by someone else without being a total dickhead about it, you're flirting with the possibility of getting hit for it.

-If you make false equivalencies to the loving Holocaust, I will absolutely push all of the buttons in front of me. Don't fuckling do it.

I'm this close to to reenacting this gif, don't give me a reason.

Handsome Ralph posted:

Nah, that's not what I'm saying unless you're incredibly loving daft.

I don't like Child Migrant camps or really any migrant camps either here or elsewhere, but if you start conflating them with the Holocaust, we're gonna have problems.

Maybe it's because I've interviewed guys who liberated some of the camps. Maybe it's because I've interviewed camp survivors. Or maybe it's because I've seen a few of the camps up close. Whatever the reason, it's a false equivalence that boils my blood.

So don't do it.

Handsome Ralph posted:

I'm pretty familiar with the history of the concentration camp and how it was a thing in South Africa and the Philippines among other places long before the Nazis ever came to power.

The problem is, when you use the term Concentration Camp, most people immediately conflate it with the ones used to carry out The Holocaust, and as a result all nuance and context goes out the window.

We're not doing that here. So drop it.

Handsome Ralph posted:

Co-signed

And I've seen other scholars say we should instead refer to Japanese Interment as "Japanese-American Incarceration". But this thread isn't for debating that or what can be called a concentration camp and what cannot.

We didn't ban the word because it makes people uncomfortable, so no idea where that came from. I said to stop using it in this context because it's use tends to automatically associate with the ones used by Nazi Germany and it throws all nuance and context out the window, and then people just start arguing about that term instead of the actual problem at hand, which isn't what this thread is for. So again, drop it.

So what you've done is taken a form of rhetorical abuse that was specifically disallowed in USPOL, for reasons that are no less applicable here, and you've enshrined it as an acceptable standard.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 23:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

might be illegal to do so, might be overturned as arbitrary / in violation of federal labor law, which would potentially interfere with going after a much, much bigger number of Trump hires than seventeen

Yes, it's this. There are ways for the feds to back out of a conditional offer, but they're highly constrained (for example, for some positions if there were a government shutdown or a sudden lack of need for the position, which, good luck arguing that with immigration cases). Conditional offer status likely means there's a background check under way on them, but hey, you want to uncork one hell of a shitstorm, try perverting the background check system. "Disagree with their politics" is the thing which is very least able to function, and coming up with a pretext (especially in the context of a position like an immigration judge) is also not going to work.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 00:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

It's a conditional offer. Why on earth is "we are not the same regime" not considered a fair reason?

Not replacing your civil service with each party swap is one of the things that reinforces rule of law, and distinguishes the united states from states on the edge of collapse. It's been a foundational aspect of federal government since the post-civil war reforms.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 00:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Reality Protester posted:

Seems like it would be very easy to say they failed their background investigation and let them go.

No, it does not make sense for the president to seize control of the federal employment background examination system and use it to replace employees with loyalists. This is seriously trying to sprint down the failed state process.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 02:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

Does the previous regimes appointment of loyalists through means of ignoring prior guidance not already accelerate this?

Immaterial. The goal is not to destroy the government. Using the actions of the trump administration (which did not include this form of abuse) does not some how justify new, worse abuses.

It is absurd that we are having to once again entertain this level of absurdity because someone posted ragebait from the Hill.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 02:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Bel Shazar posted:

That norm assumes two parties generally working towards the betterment of the country, even when they disagree as to what that betterment may be. Your argument would be stronger if the administration stacking the deck wasn't a modern GOP administration.

No, it doesn't. There is no benefit in destroying the civil service because you read an article in the Hill. By doing this you inflict more damage than Trump had accomplished in his term.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 02:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

How is preventing these particular people from fulfilling a hired contract "destroying the civil service". It could very well lead to the destruction of the civil service, of course.

This has already been explained to you.

# ¿ May 10, 2021 02:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Slow News Day posted:

Yeah, it's utterly bizarre to hear an immigration attorney rage against expanding immigration courts to address backlogs. I have a couple of buddies who work in immigration law and the several years of backlogs is a source of immense frustration for them and their clients.

I have an ages old post somewhere on this subject, but briefly, a factor in the seemingly intractable immigration mess is that some in immigration advocacy have a strategic/rhetorical incentive to make the administrative apparatus work worse. It's basically a brand of accelerationism, sometimes with a bit of self-dealing for the less sincere ones.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2021 19:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

the first google search

I really want you to think about why you would believe this is a good evidentiary basis for your claims.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2021 19:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

Because it shows that it is not just ICE who does the investigation of human trafficking? Because it links to the FBI actively talking about how they investigate human trafficking? I'm sorry, but have I said something factually incorrect?

This does not justify using your first google result as your basis, based on the fact that it is your first google result, which is what you did. It also does not justify the underlying claim that the functions done by ICE can just be taken over by another entity.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2021 20:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josef bugman posted:

So is that a "no" on "did I say something factually incorrect" then?

It's "do not try to justify your beliefs based on your first google result with no other information", and "your finding also does not justify your underlying prescriptive claim".

# ¿ Jul 27, 2021 20:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Biden administration will raise the cap on refugee admissions to 125,000.

President Biden intends to increase to 125,000 the number of refugees who can enter the United States in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, the State Department announced on Monday, making good on his campaign pledge to do so.

Mr. Biden�s decision is unlikely to affect two groups of people most recently in the news: tens of thousands of people from Kabul fleeing the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and more than 15,000 Haitians in a sprawling, makeshift camp under a bridge at the southern border. The people in those groups are not officially classified as refugees.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2021 00:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Muscle Tracer posted:

How the gently caress are people fleeing Afghanistan after our withdrawal not considered refugees?

Immigration law is highly complex and I'm not an expert; this is the relevant page from USCIS.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

# ¿ Sep 21, 2021 04:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ciprian Maricon posted:

That's the problem, people aren't interested. Segregating the discussion to where its conveniently ignored doesn't help that.

I already had to deal with this bullshit story over here. It's a story in the Washington Examiner, laundered through yahoo news by whomever originally gave it to you, that's lying or being deliberately misleading about a) what the administration actually said or did and b) the sources claiming inaction by the administration.

You should think, carefully, about why you found the story appealing, and the interests of the source from which you got the story, and why you didn't apply any scrutiny to it before sharing it here.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 6, 2021

# ¿ Oct 6, 2021 18:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

PeterCat posted:

Let's look at this another way. I posted a story about how Biden is going to reinstitute Stay in Mexico, and the discussion then turned to the merits of him ignoring the judicial order, with several examples given of former presidents ignoring laws and judicial orders in the past. Showing that there is precedent for doing so.

Wouldn't it be better to engage that argument than responding to a "hot take?"

You've provided two examples that I can see here. For the first, after the court decision, Trump slow-rolled the DACA application process by asserting a review. He was able to do this in part due to an ambiguity in the ruling's application to the law. This tactic was, itself, reversed by a later court ruling. The Politico example discussing Obama (setting aside other significant problems with the piece) relies on his application of enforcement discretion activity prior to a court order. It also points out that Obama's own application of discretion was unusual and invited reversal.

So, charitably, your sources don't support the argument you're trying to use them for.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2021 23:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It took some digging because that buzzfeed article appears to be improperly ripping off some other source without attribution (or just has remarkably terrible copyediting), but this is the guidance that they are referring to. The distinction in scope is not actually reflected in the equivalent Trump administration guidance documents, which didn't narrow nationality; the narrowing in question appears to be covered by other documents, or just a discretionary practice. AIC has a summary of the MPP, and a rundown of the most recent announcement.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Dec 4, 2021

# ¿ Dec 4, 2021 03:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread