Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee

[Dr Sardonicus]

Anyone who follows the news knows the Obama Administration was deporting people in record numbers. Of course, whatever executive actions he took to ameliorate the asininity of immigration law were either challenged in court at the time by Republicans, or have been undone by Il Duce & Co. I thought, and still think, Obama should have been much more confrontational with the Republicans about immigration, among other issues.

Regarding numbers of deportations, I have a vague recollection of Dubya's policies reducing the number of would-be immigrants to this country, to the point of immigrants already resident in the USA deciding to go back home. It is possible that Il Duce, in his own way, is seeking to discourage would-be immigrants from even trying to come here. And he may have some success -- especially if he gets us into a trade war and tanks the economy.

I note that AG Sessions, in addition to using the Bible to justify Il Duce's "incarcerate the parents and put the kids in concentration camps" policy, has directed immigration judges (who are, unlike other judges, part of the DOJ) to disregard even credible threats of domestic or gang violence as possible grounds for asylum in the US. I'm sure Il Duce gets a chuckle out of reports of battered women being sent home and murdered by their abusive husbands.

Hey, if it takes Trump adding his unique mix of awfulness and bombast to these proceedings to generate the mass outrage needed to force change, great

If that kind of mass outrage comes to be generated, Il Duce and a lot of his enablers had better head for the hills -- or Russia...

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

As incontrovertibly horrifying as the the border separations are, just in case anyone was under the illusion that this is some kind of brand-new policy:

Hey, if it takes Trump adding his unique mix of awfulness and bombast to these proceedings to generate the mass outrage needed to force change, great - but the flagrant hypocrisy from the liberal virtue-signalers who were silent on the issue during the Obama and Clinton years is deserving of little more than scorn.

And a quick pop quiz - see if you can get it right without cheating: Which 8-year administration deported the largest number of undocumented migrants, Obama, Bush or Clinton?

You're both right and wrong on this one. You're right that the Obama administration did some of these same things, but the what-aboutism misses a key point: the Trump administration HAS made a significant change in policy. Specifically, Sessions has directed that 100% of people crossing the border be charged criminally, meaning that it doesn't matter if you're here seeking asylum or not. You are charged as a criminal, which then results in the family separations according to US law. Absolute best case scenario is that the immigrant is able to convince a judge they deserve an asylum finding--except that Sessions has also stripped most of the ways a person can seek asylum (domestic violence? no longer enough. escaping gang violence? not good enough), so that's unlikely too.

Further, the Trump administration is far more flagrantly failing to meet the standards established in the Flores settlement (read here: http://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359b.pdf). In particular, Sections 21 and 23 on pages 8 and 9 and the licensure standards beginning on page 15. Please note that the Obama administration also failed to meet the standards (my lawyer wife researched and wrote up something about this), but they did eventually take at least some corrective actions following court cases.

TL;DR: yes, the Obama administration conducted similar practices, but the Trump administration has ramped it to 11 with the explicit goal of creating human bargaining chips to get what they want.


Edit for problems with the article you cited: That 150k number is misleading. For one thing, it appears to talk about children of undocumented immigrants who are US citizens, NOT immigrant children as the article claims, and is an estimated number based on some assumptions about average family size, which is quite a different issue from children who are not US citizens and are trying to come to the US. To be clear, I think that separation of families where the children are citizens and the parent(s) aren't is a major issue too, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and bet that the Trump administration ICE roundups will result in far more than 150k children being separated (using the same estimation metric that Human Impact used).

Edit TL;DR: The Obama administration had major issues on immigration, but that article has some issues too. And it comes across as trying to create an equivalence between the Obama and Trump administration that I think isn't accurate.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by wombatman

The Obama administration had major issues on immigration, but that article has some issues too. And it comes across as trying to create an equivalence between the Obama and Trump administration that I think isn't accurate.

I don't see it as trying to create equivalence, rather to point out the dismal precedents which put in place so much of the mechanics which Trump is now yuugely expanding:

There is no denying President Donald Trump’s immigration policy is far more menacing in presentation than his predecessor, President Barack Obama. But how much is this a difference in style versus a difference in substance?

The material outcomes of Obama and Trump’s deportation approaches, and the reaction among Democrats to both, tell us a lot about the circumstances in which incontrovertible violence is deemed acceptable in America.

For Trump, immigration is part of the culture war, and he does not hide the ways in which his policy decisions are motivated by animus toward immigrants. Trump has demonized immigrants for years, and since taking office, he has publicly emphasized family separation as part of his deportation policy. He is expanding detention infrastructure specifically for children with plans for a tent city-style facility in Texas. The administration has pledged to pursue deportation against 100% of undocumented people.

But Trump is adding to a foundation developed by Obama, who aggressively detained and deported undocumented immigrants for nearly his entire presidency. He did so while acting as though he was little more than a manager of the system—a helpless custodian of the law.

Meanwhile, with regard to my 'mass outrage' comment, this Reuters piece seems somewhat hopeful, at least in terms of passing a bill which ends the worst abuses. After all it's an election year, even before this issue hit the headlines the Dems looked poised to win back a significant number of House seats, and it seems even many normally Republican-leaning voters are not supportive of the family separation policy.

Oh, the answer to my pop-quiz question re. total deportations: Bill Clinton is the 'winner' among the last three 8-year presidents with 12.3 million, GW Bush second at 10.3 million, and Obama third with 'only' 5.2 million. So Obama at least does deserve credit for halving the overall numbers relative to his predecessor, even if some rather ugly specific policies were instituted on his watch.

[Fusion_power]

The impact on fall elections is not yet guessable. The rule change was not specifically from Thump, rather from Sessions deciding to criminally charge all persons who cross the border illegally, regardless of circumstances. This forced the separation of children from parents every time in line with laws that say children cannot be put in jail with parents. Is this a public relations nightmare for Thump? Yes, and it is still growing. Will it affect the elections? Yes, and will probably swing a few congressmen into office that would otherwise have lost. One more major P.R. disaster and the republican majority in congress could be history.

Note: Obama was not setting records with deportations. That distincton belongs to Bush and Clinton. It is correct to say that some of Obama's policies are now causing major issues.

[kladner]

Oh, the answer to my pop-quiz question re. total deportations: Bill Clinton is the 'winner' among the last three 8-year presidents with 12.3 million, GW Bush second at 10.3 million, and Obama third with 'only' 5.2 million. So Obama at least does deserve credit for halving the overall numbers relative to his predecessor, even if some rather ugly specific policies were instituted on his watch.

It is really humiliating when one's accepted beliefs turn out to be exactly wrong.

[Dr Sardonicus]

There is also a "slight" matter of redefining what constitutes a "deportation," as explained here. Basically, people trying to get into the USA illegally, but turned away at the border, weren't counted as deportations until some time during the Dubya admin.

Il Duce has, perhaps not surprisingly, done an about-face -- after first trying to blame the Democrats for the policy he himself had promulgated. It seems his wife Melania and daughter Ivanka were upset by the images and sounds of kids being taken from their parents and put in concentration camps.

This reminds me of the days of the Civil Rights movement, when images of kids being hit with fire hoses and attacked by police dogs shamed this country before the world.

Melania had better watch out with her criticism of Il Duce's policies, lest she be deported
;-)

Last night, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen decided to eat out at MXDC, a Mexican restaurant


A bunch of folks who don't necessarily agree with the "zero tolerance" policy decided to give her a piece of their minds to feast upon (apologies to Charles Dickens).

It seems she didn't have a good appetite for it.

Let's hear it for the First Amendment!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I don't see it as trying to create equivalence, rather to point out the dismal precedents which put in place so much of the mechanics which Trump is now yuugely expanding:

That's a fair point. And yes, the precedents are bad, and I can only hope that the outrage generated by Trump results in some of them being fixed.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Meanwhile, with regard to my 'mass outrage' comment, this Reuters piece seems somewhat hopeful, at least in terms of passing a bill which ends the worst abuses. After all it's an election year, even before this issue hit the headlines the Dems looked poised to win back a significant number of House seats, and it seems even many normally Republican-leaning voters are not supportive of the family separation policy.

Oh, the answer to my pop-quiz question re. total deportations: Bill Clinton is the 'winner' among the last three 8-year presidents with 12.3 million, GW Bush second at 10.3 million, and Obama third with 'only' 5.2 million. So Obama at least does deserve credit for halving the overall numbers relative to his predecessor, even if some rather ugly specific policies were instituted on his watch.

Interesting info on the number of total deportations--I was also under the impression that Obama's tenure had the highest. As for the bills, I wouldn't be too hopeful. Aside from the fact that they're likely to keep families together by detaining them indefinitely (as Trump's executive order does), there's the other things included in the bill:

"Both Republican bills under discussion, which have been blasted by Democrats and immigration advocacy groups, would fund the border wall and reduce legal migration, in part by denying visas for some relatives of U.S. residents and citizens who are living abroad, sometimes referred to as “chain migration.”

The more conservative bill from Representative Bob Goodlatte would also deny “Dreamers,” immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children, the chance of future citizenship."

It seems more like the family separation thing is going to be used in a Overton window style attitude shift to try and push for immigration policy that the GOP wanted all along. It just looks better now compared to splitting up asylum-seeking families.

[kladner]

An angry navy vet discovered that domain www.trumphotels.org was available and decided to use it for an expression of his First Amendment rights.

I wonder how long it will take to find some "National Security" excuse for shutting this down.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

An angry navy vet discovered that domain www.trumphotels.org was available and decided to use it for an expression of his First Amendment rights.

That quote from Il Duce's 1990 Playboy interview is a humdinger!

I wonder how long it will take to find some "National Security" excuse for shutting this down.

If they go that route, my guess is they'd be in for a serious court fight. Perhaps the publicity would result is so much traffic, the site would crash
;-)

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

That quote from Il Duce's 1990 Playboy interview is a humdinger!

If they go that route, my guess is they'd be in for a serious court fight. Perhaps the publicity would result is so much traffic, the site would crash
;-)

ROFL! The hazards of popularity!

[ewmayer]

Meanwhile, some of the most-viral photos from the child-separation outrage-fest appear to be a wee bit problematic ("Fake" is such a strong term):

A distressing image of a crying toddler locked in a barred cage after purportedly being detained by US immigration officials has gone viral – but despite online claims, it does not actually depict what has been alleged. The image, which shows a little boy crying in a cage as he looks out between its bars, was shared by activist journalist and undocumented migrant Jose Antonio Vargas as a comment on the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown on families.

In the same thread, Vargas admitted that he came across the photo on a friend’s timeline and was still looking for the original source. Nevertheless, the snap quickly went viral with Vargas’ post garnering more than 23,000 retweets and many others sharing the image across their own social media accounts.

Vargas explained that he shared the photo because when he was detained by ICE in McAllen, Texas in 2014, he encountered children who were locked up there. “It wasn’t okay then; it’s not okay now,” he wrote, adding that he’s been outraged about the incident for years.

It has since emerged that the picture was in fact not from a detention facility at all, and instead was taken at a protest against Trump’s immigration policies held on June 10 outside Dallas City Hall. The demonstration organized by Brown Berets de Cemanahuac was held to call out the policy of family separation and confining undocumented children.

Ergo: an activist journalist and undocumented immigrant makes it look as if a picture depicts something that in reality it did not. Note also that the article says he wanted to comment on the Trump immigration crackdown, because he has memories of the Obama immigration crackdown, when he saw children locked up. But then, hey, that’s social media, right? Anyone can say anything.

It’s different, though, when TIME Magazine uses such politics. And its editor-in-chief defends the use of the picture by saying it was the most visible symbol of something, even though he knew full well that the photo didn’t depict that something.

I'd like to ask Mr. Vargas: if you were outraged by this stuff happening in 2014, why didn't you express your outrage on social media then? Looks like another case of "silence implies consent" hypocrisy.

To be fair, our beloved MSM clearly have no problem lying the country into war and genocide, so if in this case their lying ways happen to aid in achieving a rare good end, I say hey, lie away! Just spare us the pretense of being arbiters of the truth, please.

Edit: I did find this 2011 NYT piece by Vargas in which he mentions the Obama administration having deported 800,000 undocumented migrants in 2 years. If anyone can find a 2014 MSM piece in which he expresses the outrage he felt that year, please post the link.