ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I was going to say "I suspect that the majority of asylum claims are bullshit," but I got tired of Googling. Still, we're not talking about criminals here, we're talking about applicants. For the most part, unqualified applicants, but applicants all the same.

I didn’t Google but believe you’re correct. I also assume that most do not get asylum and are deported?

Trump is so KKK-racist that his own daughter married and converted to judaism with his blessing and he kept friend with Mike Tyson even during the rape accusation.

Glitch, when I say "probable cause," I mean the legal term.

Also, detention that separates families is not an appropriate response to a family applying for asylum. I get that we don't want them just going into the US without a substantial bond, but they've done nothing to deserve family separation.

I AM in favor of family separation of asylum-seekers in SPECIFIC cases where a witness has a claim that creates suspicion of human trafficking, AND that testimony is presented (via affidavit) to a judge, who issues a WARRANT to separate the family. I'm not saying we should give everyone a free pass; I'm saying innocent until proven reasonably suspected of guilt. I refuse to apply a blanket guilt to asylum-seekers based purely on their status of seeking asylum.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

Pending cases have increased by nearly 50 percent since Trump took office in 2017. Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases. Good luck with the backlog. Maybe that is exactly what he want.

"Back when Obama was in office, I'd go to the grocery store and 5 people would be ahead of me in line. Now under Trump I go and 7 people are ahead of me. We should impeach."

Your whole post reeks of Whataboutism. It's pathetic how you defend Obama. Not only is it factually wrong, it's strategically wrong — he's not in the position anymore, so even a successful defense is moot.

Trump's results aren't satisfactory. Focus on that instead of trying being a cheerleader for someone only marginally different.

That's the number one thing that has always bugged me about "woke" people. Maybe you all are (more) awake now, maybe you are seeing some true things about the nature of our government under Trump — but you're late to the party. Shit's been colossally fucked for a while now. It's as if you've just popped out of the Matrix, naked, covered in pink goo under a sunless daytime sky, and you look at the forest of soot-covered metal towers around you and think to yourself, "I don't remember this from last night, so they must have built this all in the past 8 hours." I guess you can lead eyes to evidence, but you can't make them think.

Do yourself a favor: go pick up Edward Lude's Time to Start Thinking. You'd like it; the author would probably be considered centrist from a Euro perspective, because I read him as center-left. Take a look at the problems of America back in 2012. It's not that there haven't been changes in the past 7 years, but those changes are smaller than you think. (To his credit, Lude even predicted the rise of a "wacko" "like Donald Trump" as the future of the GOP, in a book published during Romney's campaign.)

Asylum grant rate and denial rates are affected by president policies.
Asylum Requests has increase and Grant rate decrease. Trump Deports Fewer Immigrants than Obama. That is simply failed immigration policies! These failed immigrants are simply stuck in some US immigrant detention camp and how Trump ran out of detention beds.

This simply how you imprison them for years without trial? Keep these immigrants out except they are weirdly still in U.S. but ideologically not here, who give a fuck about these immigrants? Am I right?

Edward Luce. Never read any of his books and I don't intend to.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

The Department of Energy basically cannot do its job due to intentional purges? That's signal.

You linked an opinion piece.

No, I didn't. It's not listed as such, because it isn't - it's original investigative reporting, and a damn fine piece of it at that. Did you even read it? What parts of it do you dispute? Why? Or did you just see "article in Vanity Fair", assume "opinion piece", and then decide to ignore everything else?

"

"

We face our first-ever government shutdown when the president and congress all share a party? That's signal.

I'm going to assume you are mixing up the dates. And aren't completely ignorant on how shutdowns work.

The first shutdown, was January 22, 2018 via a filibuster by the opposing party, preventing any bill from passing. It had nothing to do with both being the same party.

The second shutdown, in December 22, 2018. was when the democrats took control of the house of representatives.

This is the problem with much of political debate. I assume that everyone is basically on the same page on some pretty uncontroversial fact about recent history, someone tells me I'm wrong, and then we spin out into bizarre side conversations. It's like if I'm having an otherwise perfectly normal conversation about navigation with someone (say, we're talking about historical navigation methods) and I reference the earth being round, at which point they shout, "The earth isn't round. It's flat." At which point the conversation devolves into a truly bizarre mess.

Except imagine that happening every few sentences with something different. That's where we're at here.

Look, at the most basic level, here's what's wrong with your analysis: democrats didn't "take the house" until they were sworn in on January 3rd, at which point the shutdown had been going for almost two weeks. Also wrong: everything else. And yes, it was entirely because of republican infighting. The republicans had the votes in both houses - the clean CR bill passed the senate in a unanimous voice vote, with nobody even attempting a filibuster. Then, once the democrats took the house, they gave that same clean CR bill back to the senate, and the Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote. Trump personally took responsibility for shutting down the government!

https://www.businessinsider.de/government-shutdown-timeline-deadline-trump-democrats-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/government-shutdown-timeline-190121191642933.html

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/19/government-shutdown-timeline-how-we-got-here/2624116002/

Shall I go on? This happened 5 months ago. It was the biggest news story. I have no idea how you got it so wrong. And so as not to distract from the rest of the argument, if you feel the need to dispute this further, my sole response will be mocking laughter.

"

"

Admittedly, all I have is numerous experts on immigration claiming that this is the case, and documents from within the DHS documenting that this is a new policy signed off by the administration, and Trump announcing the change in policy publicly.

I think that's more than enough, but if you want specific data on how many children were separated from their families under Bush/Obama, I do not have that data.

I was looking for the paperwork that said Obama only separated the children to protect against child trafficking or something to that effect, which was what you were claiming.

Well, we don't have that. We just have the say-so from former administration officials of both the Obama and Bush administrations. And the fact that Trump's policy had to be announced as a change. Again, that seems believable to me.

"

For example, it may have been convenient to simply have most kids away from their parents because they'd have to housed kids with several other adults for long periods of time unsupervised. That would put them at risk.

...And that's why Obama didn't follow a zero-tolerance policy. Because it would lead to results like this.

"

"

Hell, the entire conversation is full of this kind of rabid nonsense. Question - does the best available data show that illegal immigrants reduce wages for natives? Do they "take our jobs"? Are they more likely to be criminal if we except immigration crimes? If you answered "yes" to any of those questions... Well, at best the data doesn't really support that answer conclusively, and at worst what data we do have shows the exact opposite.

*sigh*

You are forgetting the study you linked also mentions there was 15,000 extra crimes in Texas, specifically because of illegal immigration.

And that the overall crime in any area with higher immigration goes up, because there are more people in that area.

So I assume you're anti-natalist, right? After all, when people give birth, that's more people, which leads to more crimes. Also against legal immigration, because they could commit crimes too. Hell, y'know how we get crime way down? By not having any people!

Yeah, this argument is really dumb. I didn't respond to a lot of your points because it's just kinda frustrating (hey, y'think the massive influx of anti-immigrant, anti-refugee propaganda may have had something to do with European governments pushing right on immigration?), but this argument is just so fundamentally dishonest that it drives me nuts. It's just rarely that I see it so plainly stated.

Fundamentally, the argument is this: "If you have more people, there will be more crimes. Illegal immigration is more people. Therefore illegal immigration causes crimes."

Literally!

"

When you add more people. You add more crime.

Except by that logic, so does legal immigration. So does giving birth. So does literally any action taken that increases the population density of any given area, even if the population in question is statistically far less likely to commit crimes than the native population.

Looking at total crime committed is a bit like looking at total national debt - a scary number used by people who don't know the first thing about criminology/economics or people being intentionally dishonest, which really needs to be divided by another statistic (total population in crime's case and GDP in debt's case) to make any kind of sense in any context. It's bullshit.

"

And that the crime statistics for every European country that allowed migrants have all had 20 to 30 year record highs of violent crimes, something your study conveniently leaves out.

I'm sorry, this just isn't true - Germany is at a 25-year record low.. You don't provide a source, so I'm not going to bother going through every European country, but the country I live in? We took in a whole lot of those Syrian refugees, and we're doing just fine.

"

So. Ignoring all that, I suppose if I was that ignorant on the topic,

This seems as good a place as any to stop.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Just a reminder that Trump is simply following a law which was implemented in 1997.

Right. This must be why Jeff Sessions announced the policy change in 2018, internal DHS documents confirmed that there was a policy change, and immigration experts are saying that the mass separation policy is a result of the administration's policy change.

All of this makes the most sense if nothing has legally changed since 1997.

Just like it makes perfect sense to claim that white nationalists hate Trump.

Tell me, in your little universe, is Kitava the act 1 boss and Merveil the act 10 boss?

In this case, "policy change" means he's the only one who's actually following the policy. Really makes you think.

And yes, white nationalists can't stand him. Just take a look at /pol/ every once in a while.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

There are many reasons that people think Trump is racist.

There's only one reason: TDS.

You’re demonstrating your own Trump Delusional Syndrome with that comment. Trump is a racist. He’s following in the footsteps of his KKK father Fred Trump Those articles don’t talk about TDS. They talk about real examples of him exhibiting his racism.

Those articles prove nothing, they're either hearsay or fake news. And you're spreading fake news about his father.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Those articles prove nothing, they're either hearsay or fake news. And you're spreading fake news about his father.

T/N: "I have completely closed my mind to any possibility of any bad news about Trump. I have absolutely zero interest in hearing any of it, and will reject it out of hand without further thought. I'm not interested in debate; I am a sycophant."

Sadly this is increasingly common within the republican party. It's such a convenient way of arguing, too! It's a shame it's batshit crazy from top to bottom.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

No, I didn't. It's not listed as such, because it isn't - it's original investigative reporting, and a damn fine piece of it at that. Did you even read it? What parts of it do you dispute? Why? Or did you just see "article in Vanity Fair", assume "opinion piece", and then decide to ignore everything else?

It's an opinion piece.

The sources were all testimonies from former white house officials, who were essentially fired after Trump took office.

You have a conflict of interest here, and it's worst because it only gets one side of the story. There isn't documentation, nor comments from the Trump's administration on this period of time.

Something, investigative journalism, would have tried to do. You know, get two sides of the story.

I did read the article, even if I felt it was waste of my time.

"

Look, at the most basic level, here's what's wrong with your analysis: democrats didn't "take the house" until they were sworn in on January 3rd, at which point the shutdown had been going for almost two weeks.

I'm going to link you the article you put by business insider and explain to you why you are wrong.

https://www.businessinsider.de/government-shutdown-timeline-deadline-trump-democrats-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

"

December 20: Trump flip-flops on the clean CR after listening to attacks from conservative TV pundits and the hardline House Freedom Caucus, and he announces that he will not sign a bill with no wall funding. House Republicans then pass a CR that includes $5.7 billion in wall funds.

The republican house signed a provision which allowed for Trump's funding.
They weren't infighting about this. CR went through without border funding, and Trump decided he wanted that funding. So they passed it, again with the new provisions.

Then this happened.

"

December 21: Trump demands the Senate vote for the House version of the CR and tells Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get rid of the legislative filibuster in order to pass the vote with only GOP lawmakers, but the idea is a nonstarter. The Senate votes down the House version of the bill, and the government moves closer to a shutdown at the midnight deadline.

Business insider gives you a link, right on that filibuster comment, as to why it wouldn't and didn't pass in the Senate.

"

But the House's CR has virtually no chance of passing the Senate, since the bill would need the support of nine Democratic senators to avoid a filibuster. (Any bill with fewer than 60 votes in favor can be subject to a filibuster.)

So you see, even with a majority in Senate, it had no chance of passing because of the filibuster rule.

And since they couldn't come up with a solution. So, when the democrats took over the house, it only made the issue worst.

You are not right to say it was political infighting between republicans.

"

Shall I go on? This happened 5 months ago. It was the biggest news story. I have no idea how you got it so wrong. And so as not to distract from the rest of the argument, if you feel the need to dispute this further, my sole response will be mocking laughter.

Wow, I cannot imagine the grief this would cause me. Not the mocking laughter. Oh no!

If you want to just troll, just troll. Makes it easier, if I can call you a hypocritical piece of shit, for thinking you wanted to have a discussion.

"

Yeah, this argument is really dumb. I didn't respond to a lot of your points because it's just kinda frustrating (hey, y'think the massive influx of anti-immigrant, anti-refugee propaganda may have had something to do with European governments pushing right on immigration?), but this argument is just so fundamentally dishonest that it drives me nuts. It's just rarely that I see it so plainly stated.

The reason why the governments are pushing back, and the right wing is gaining power in the EU, kinda had something to do with migrants increasing crimes. And people conveniently ignoring the problem by saying nothing was wrong.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45419466

If you were correct, and they were a net boon to the countries affected. This would have not happened.

"

Except by that logic, so does legal immigration. So does giving birth. So does literally any action taken that increases the population density of any given area, even if the population in question is statistically far less likely to commit crimes than the native population.

You are forgetting legal immigration...is legal.

There is no reason to keep them out if they are following the laws. It's not the same thing.

We don't have mandatory birth control for the same reason. It's legal right for those involved.

"

Looking at total crime committed is a bit like looking at total national debt - a scary number used by people who don't know the first thing about criminology/economics or people being intentionally dishonest, which really needs to be divided by another statistic (total population in crime's case and GDP in debt's case) to make any kind of sense in any context. It's bullshit.

You went through loops here.

Again, why is talking about total crime bullshit? And why divide it by another statistic to make sense of it?

It's fairly clear, that illegals increase crimes.

"

I'm sorry, this just isn't true - Germany is at a 25-year record low..

Yeah, Merkel also switched her stance on immigration.

But besides that, I'm going to take back what I said earlier about 25-30 year crimes highs just because I can't find where I read it. And I'm not going to claim a position if I can't prove it.

"

You don't provide a source, so I'm not going to bother going through every European country, but the country I live in? We took in a whole lot of those Syrian refugees, and we're doing just fine.

Okay, let me entertain the idea, that illegal immigration is net boon.

What country are you from? And what makes you say you're doing just fine?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Glitch, when I say "probable cause," I mean the legal term.

Also, detention that separates families is not an appropriate response to a family applying for asylum. I get that we don't want them just going into the US without a substantial bond, but they've done nothing to deserve family separation.

I AM in favor of family separation of asylum-seekers in SPECIFIC cases where a witness has a claim that creates suspicion of human trafficking, AND that testimony is presented (via affidavit) to a judge, who issues a WARRANT to separate the family. I'm not saying we should give everyone a free pass; I'm saying innocent until proven reasonably suspected of guilt. I refuse to apply a blanket guilt to asylum-seekers based purely on their status of seeking asylum.

I gotcha ya.