US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

Huh... did a cursory glance at the aclu claims (need to dig deeper tho). We only have one side here.

The Honerable District Judge James Boasberg wrote:

To be clear, in finding that injunctive relief is warranted in this case, this Court is simply ordering that Defendants do what they already admit is required – follow the ICE Directive when adjudicating asylum-seekers’ detention. The Directive provides a framework of minimum protections for those claiming refugee status, and, as Defendants acknowledge, it is binding on the Government. To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap. Rather, the issuance of injunctive relief in this case serves only to hold Defendants accountable to their own governing policies and to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the protections they are due under the Parole Directive.

IV. Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and will grant provisional class certification. A separate Order consistent with this Opinion shall issue this day.

In other words, when the whole thing went in front of a judge, they had to admit that ICE violated the law, and it's own rules, in doing this. So much for 'only one side'.

Spent some time reading that claim... yeah, thats really bad and the judge don't usually willy nilly issue injunctions unless the defendant has a strong case.

whembly wrote:

I can't even... very symptomatic of ODS dude.

Whemb, you'll have to define that one, since Google gave me a list of things that made no sense in this context.

Obama Derangement Syndrome.... a derivative from the ol' Bush Derangement Syndrom.

Or... in this case:
Trump Derangement Sysndrome (TDS for short).

Just dial back the rhetoric a bit... k? All of this over-the-top outrage over everything is tiring...

Maybe read this:
https://theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/the-anti-trump-hysteria-isnt-helping/565373/

Yeah.... I read the atlantic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
New Hampshire House Bill 1264

Amid criticism, praise, Sununu signs voter residency requirement bill into law

I'm not seeing anything about a driver's license or car registration in that link, just a requirement that a person commit to a single residence and can't treat dorm addresses/vacation houses/etc as a residence for voting purposes. And I don't see what is unreasonable about that, if you aren't willing to commit to a city/state/etc being your permanent residence then why should you have a vote in their elections? You should cast your vote in whichever location you are treating as your permanent residence, because that's where you have a bigger stake in the outcome.

Agreed on that part.

However, this document does state you need to present some form of ID:
http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589971615
From the SOS website:
http://sos.nh.gov/

The 1979 Symm v. United States case from the Supreme Court gave students the right to vote in the towns and cities where they're going to school.

Then again, I don't give much faith to the current SCOTUS if anything reaches them in regards to this. The conservatives will happily throw away Symm as "bad precedent."

I don't think that's a "bad precendent."

But, the legal concept of "permanent resident" is a thing....
[edited because Peregrine's post]

**Peregrine**

skyth wrote:
According to that bill, having a house anywhere else means you can't vote. Being in state as a student from out of state means you can't vote. Being out of state as a student even if you consider New Hampshire to be your home means you can't vote.

Basically, if you have any tie to any other state no matter how minor you can't vote. The language says exclusively.

No, that's not what it says at all. Here is the actual text of the bill:

A resident or inhabitant or both of this state and of any city, town, or other political subdivision of this state shall be a person who is domiciled or has a place of abode or both in this state and in any city, town, or other political subdivision of this state, and who has, through all of his or her actions, demonstrated a current intent to designate that place of abode as his or her principal place of physical presence ~~[for the indefinite future]~~ to the exclusion of all others.

You have to designate your NH address as your primary residence, not as your only property. If you own a vacation house in another state that doesn't count, because your NH address is still your principal place of physical presence. If you're a student renting an apartment that is your residence, even if you go visit your parents sometimes. If you're a student living in a dorm room that probably wouldn't count, but why should it? A dorm room is not a commitment to a city/state, it's an acknowledgement that you don't really intend to make it your home and will be leaving once your short-term use is done. In fact, that lack of commitment is the primary reason to live in a university dorm instead of an apartment. So why should someone who has no more stake than a person staying a few nights in a hotel on vacation get to vote there? Why shouldn't their vote be cast in the location they, by their actions, consider their home?

The 1979 Symm v. United States case from the Supreme Court gave students the right to vote in the towns and cities where they're going to school.

Not exactly. It bans the use of specific questions, in a case where the person registering voters was using their personal judgement on who counts as a "resident". It does not grant the right to consider a temporary residence (like a dorm room) as a permanent address while maintaining a permanent address elsewhere.

**skyth**

If you're living there most of the time you are affected by laws passed there and should have a say in the law. That you intend to move in three years shouldn't matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the 'exclusion of' language could be interpreted to do the things I said.

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS for short).

Congratulations, you just totally negated me taking seriously any possible argument that you may have made in this entire thread from here on.

What next, call me a liberal because I don't agree with you? How about RINO? A follower of Bill Kristol? Maybe deploy a whataboutism that claims that it's ok for Trump to commit treason because Truman bombed Nagasaki?

I've been on twitter, perhaps a bit too much, over the last few days, pointing out that Trump is neither conservative, nor Christian, and most certainly does not represent what are supposedly American values. Most of the posters who tried to argue the other way seemed to broadly fall into two camps: Hillery eats babies and lives in a hut on Fowls legs (which I'm pretty sure were Russian bots) or that anyone who opposes Trump will be either gassed for opposing the master race or sacrificed to Satan (who I'm fairly sure were internet trolls)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44870835

Some of the gak oozing out of the White House right now as everyone tries to get their stories straight is absolutely hilarious. It's like watching the Cirque du Soleil of bs.

**Peregrine**

skyth wrote:
If you're living there most of the time you are affected by laws passed there and should have a say in the law. That you intend to move in three years shouldn't matter.

Of course it matters, and it's not just the intent to move at some vague point in the future. It's the intent to move in a few months, without ever establishing permanent residency. The sole purpose of having a dorm room is to avoid making a commitment to the place you are living in. It is a clear statement that you do not see yourself as a permanent resident of the town, you are only temporarily staying there like a traveler staying in a hotel. So why should you, for example, have a vote in whether the town builds a new school that your kids will not attend? Why should you have a say in property tax rates when you do not, and will not, own property there? If your other residence is the place you consider your home why shouldn't you vote there?

And the 'exclusion of' language could be interpreted to do the things I said.

No, it can't. It refers to the exclusion of other principal places of physical presence. A vacation house you occasionally stay at is not, by any definition, your principal place of physical presence. Nor is a piece of property you own and rent to someone. Etc.

**BaronIveagh**

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-officials-at-a-fething-loss-over-latest-russia-sell-out

Not sure if link will work due to language in the link. Edit: nope it changed it, 'fething' should be that other f-word.

For those thinking that I have TDS here's your glorious leader talking about handing his political enemies over to a hostile power.

**Breotan**

skyth wrote:
Basically, if you have any tie to any other state no matter how minor you can't vote. The language says exclusively.

Actually, the language says, "principal place of physical presence to the exclusion of all others". Clearly this bill allows people to have a multiple homes/apartments/whatever, even vacation property somewhere else and still maintain both residency and a residence. The part that concerns me is how this will affect absentee residents such as those in the military (principal place of physical presence being a military base out of State) or as you mentioned, students studying abroad or in another State. Also, what would happen to an expat under this bill? Someone living in Equador would probably still want to vote for President and congressional offices even if they don't care about State or local issues. There's no Federal ballot so what happens with this? Also, say a resident takes a three or four year job working in Dubia? Does that person lose their residency?

**d-usa**

Living in a dorm for 4 years is no different than living in an apartment for 4 years. It doesn’t matter if you are there for school or a job, and that you will move if you are done with this school or job.

For now, you are a resident of that place. The type of housing shouldn’t be used against you.

**Breotan**

Okay, what about the military or people working abroad?

**d-usa**

Breotan wrote:
skyth wrote:
Basically, if you have any tie to any other state no matter how minor you can't vote. The language says exclusively.

Actually, the language says, "principal place of physical presence to the exclusion of all others". Clearly this bill allows people to have a multiple homes/apartments/whatever, even vacation property somewhere else and still maintain both residency and a residence. The part that concerns me is how this will affect absentee residents such as those in the military (principal place of physical presence being a military base out of State) or as you mentioned, students studying abroad or in another State. Also, what would happen to an expat under this bill? Someone living in Equador would probably still want to vote for President and congressional offices even if they don't care about State or local issues. There's no Federal ballot so what happens to them?

The military has a State of Legal Residence. It doesn’t matter where you are stationed, for all legal purposes you are still a resident of that State. No matter where I end up, I’ll pay income tax for Oklahoma, keep Oklahoma tags, keep an Oklahoma license, and vote in Oklahoma elections.
I can change my SLR to any of the other places I may be stationed at in the future, but only if I want to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Okay, what about the military or people working abroad?

See above reply

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: for expats, it depends on the state. Your last state of residence will allow you to vote in federal elections, with some allowing state or local voting as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/voting.html

**Peregrine**

d-usa wrote:
Living in a dorm for 4 years is no different than living in an apartment for 4 years. It doesn’t matter if you are there for school or a job, and that you will move if you are done with this school or job.

For now, you are a resident of that place. The type of housing shouldn’t be used against you.

The type of housing matters because of its purpose. With a dorm you're paying a lot of extra money (especially considered on a per square ft basis) for the privilege of not having to establish a permanent residence. You're paying hundreds of dollars a month extra to say "this is not my home" and treat another address, which you go back to for several months a year when the dorm is closed, as your permanent home. If you don't mind establishing your residency in that location then renting an apartment is an obvious better deal. Sign the lease, change your driver's license to your new address, pay taxes from that address, etc. Now that is your home and you can vote there. If you're reluctant to make that commitment, well, that's an admission that you should be voting in whatever place you're reluctant to commit away from.

**d-usa**

Dorms are often cheaper than other housing, are often required for certain students, frequently include meals, are located on campus negating the need for transportation, are often packaged into scholarships and other aid packages.

I had my dorm address on my drivers license, going to my parents for Christmas in college did not mean I lived with my parents. I didn’t pay for utilities, I didn’t pay for gas, I didn’t have to buy groceries and cook. I didn’t want to end up with a bunch of random roommates to make an apartment cheaper than my dorm. I also didn’t stay in my dorm to avoid establishing residency. I worked in my local community and spend my money there.

**Peregrine**

d-usa wrote:
Dorms are often cheaper than other housing, are often required for certain students, frequently include meals, are located on campus negating the need for transportation, are often packaged into scholarships and other aid packages.

Hm. That's the exact opposite of my experience, the dorm was significantly more per month than an off-campus apartment and the meal plans were significantly more than buying groceries (which you couldn't do in the dorm because there was no kitchen). And that's even with living in an apartment located a shorter walk from my classes than most of the dorms. The only reason to stay there was if you wanted to avoid being on campus outside of class days and considered another place to be your real home.

I had my dorm address on my drivers license

Then that's your permanent residence, and you'd be able to vote under the NH law. You've established it as your primary residence and, by changing your address, rejected all others. And it sounds like you're the rare exception to the rule, most of the people staying in my dorms kept their home addresses and treated the dorm as a temporary hotel they'd stay in for a few days at a time. I can't think of anyone who moved their permanent address there and considered it their home. But if the rare exception wants to make that commitment then sure, allow them to vote. I just don't see it being at all common compared to the people who maintain a permanent residence elsewhere and only want to vote in their college town because it's a swing state.

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS for short).

Congratulations, you just totally negated me taking seriously any possible argument that you may have made in this entire thread from here on.

What next, call me a liberal because I don't agree with you? How about RINO? A follower of Bill Kristol? Maybe deploy a whataboutism that claims that it's ok for Trump to commit treason because Truman bombed Nagasaki?

Right 'cuz saying Trump committed treason and our immigration policy is like the nazi.

These are real level-headed ideals Baron.

I've been on twitter, perhaps a bit too much, over the last few days, pointing out that Trump is neither conservative, nor Christian, and most certainly does not represent what are supposedly American values. Most of the posters who tried to argue the other way seemed to broadly fall into two camps: Hillery eats babies and lives in a hut on Fowls legs (which I'm pretty sure were Russian bots) or that anyone who opposes Trump will be either gassed for opposing the master race or sacrificed to Satan (who I'm fairly sure were internet trolls)

Twitter is very much a cesspool of rancid diarrhea of thoughts... twit at your peril.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44870835

Some of the gak oozing out of the White House right now as everyone tries to get their stories straight is absolutely hilarious. It's like watching the Cirque du Soleil of bs.

Oh yeah... they definitely need a cabinet position called "Keeping Da Damned Story Straight!".

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Right 'cuz saying Trump committed treason and our immigration policy is like the nazi.

Sorry, but those are accurate comparisons. Trump siding with a hostile leader over his own government in an effort to deny a hostile power's attacks on our country is, if not treason by the letter of the law, certainly treason by the spirit of it. And it's entirely accurate to point out that Trump's immigration policies are looking alarmingly like the early days of the Nazi party's actions. You may recall that Hitler admired the US genocides as an example to follow, so it's hardly out of line to draw comparisons.

And I note that you haven't bothered to provide any argument that Trump's actions are not that bad, you're simply handwaving it away as a matter of principle that Your Team can not be guilty of any serious offenses.

**Breotan**

d-usa wrote:
Edit: for expats, it depends on the state. Your last state of residence will allow you to vote in federal elections, with some allowing state or local voting as well.

So this bill might adversely affect expats then, depending on what other laws NH has in place. Something for those potentially affected to keep an eye on.

As for the "job in another State" issue, that may be a little trickier than you would first assume. Consider the issue with Joe Crowley of New York (the Congressman who recently lost his primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He maintains a home in Virginia because it's necessary for his work in Congress. He's there for most of the year and has been so for decades. He still maintains his NY residency because he needs it to remain in Congress and be eligible to run for office in NY. This is typical of people in Congress and even the President. His counterparts in NH may run afoul of this bill unless there is an exemption elsewhere in NH law or they are willing to do a lot of travelling throughout the year to maintain their residency. If President Trump were a NH resident, would he lose his residency under this bill?

**Just Tony**

Spinner wrote:Also, one way to deter speeding is to take your kids. Again. Why are we not doing that, besides 'different laws are treated differently', which is a total non-answer?

Actually, in Indiana if their speeding carries them into reckless driving as a charge, then any children in the car earns that driver a child endangerment charge as well.

The problem with current immigration issues in the US is that the answer is in the middle of "open borders" and "plastic bubble", but there are far too many people pushing both those extremes rather than look for the right mix in the middle that will allow immigration and immigration control to function without endangering either immigrants OR the US. It's the same problem with economics. The answer is somewhere between non-interference capitalism and unbridled socialism. Not enough people view it that way, though, as far too many people want it pulled towards the extremes.

I guess that's the problem with ALL political issues in the US, and why a 3rd party in the middle is desperately needed.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Right 'cuz saying Trump committed treason and our immigration policy is like the nazi.

Sorry, but those are accurate comparisons. Trump siding with a hostile leader over his own government in an effort to deny a hostile power's attacks on our country is, if not treason by the letter of the law, certainly treason by the spirit of it. And it's entirely accurate to point out that Trump's immigration policies are looking alarmingly like the early days of the Nazi party's actions. You may recall that Hitler admired the US genocides as an example to follow, so it's hardly out of line to draw comparisons.

And I note that you haven't bothered to provide any argument that Trump's actions are not that bad, you're simply handwaving it away as a matter of principle that Your Team can not be guilty of any serious offenses.

Of course it was bad and there were no excuses for it.

I. DONT. CONDONE. WHAT. HE. DID.

But it's lunacy to say that rises to treason.

We've had Presidents in the past who were as jaw droppingly dumb things:
*FDR at one point fondly called Stalin “Uncle Joe” and routinely fought/disbelieved his Amb to Russia Bullitt (not to mention the Yalta disaster).
*JFK got spanked by Khrushchev in Vienna meeting in 1961 where mere weeks later the Cuban Missile Crisis started.
* Ford was no better in his Helsinki summit with L. Brezhnev in '75. That grinning Ford celebrated the signing of a “human rights” agreement with Moscow that obviously ended up being a farce.
*Carter made just as bad statements for Yugoslav (Yugoslvian sp?) despot Marshal Tito from the WH in '78 calling the dictator “a truly remarkable leader,” a “patriot,” and an “inspiration” (cue the vomits).

As to the Nazi comparison...this author from The Atlantic stated better than I could:

President Donald Trump’s press conference with Russia’s Vladimir Putin was a debacle. The president went from an anodyne prepared statement to a question-and-answer session that ping-ponged between stunning and appalling (with a bit of emetic thrown in for good measure). Suffice it to say, it was a new low from a chief executive who is redefining the term.

But the reaction on Twitter from the foreign-policy establishment was almost as untethered as Trump himself. John Brennan, who served as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Obama, tweeted:

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

The former presidential candidate Evan McMullin piled on:

Trump’s behavior this week has made his betrayal of American interests clear. It has also made clear the betrayal of House Republicans who have relentlessly undermined the FBI and the Special Counsel as they’ve heroically worked to protect the nation. Time for a change.

There’s plenty to say about Trump’s Helsinki performance, none of it good. The man was made a cat’s paw by Putin, and that’s the least of it. Working together in Syria? Moral equivalence between Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Putin? It was dreadful, even disgraceful—but it wasn’t treason. And the immediate reaction from many establishment figures was too much. But why?

In 2016, Republicans, who had been writhing in Ben Rhodes–induced agonies of irritation over the latter Obama years, were desperate to win back the White House. But for many GOPers waiting in the wings in D.C., Donald Trump was their last choice. After all, what was there to like in a brand manager cum talk-show host cum skirt-chaser? Trump was anathema. And of the many who felt Trump unqualified, those who seemed to feel it most keenly were in the national-security world.

It made sense: The Constitution makes clear that the president’s most important role is commander in chief. The defense of the nation is the government’s paramount responsibility. And Trump was a guy who had literally said that Senator John McCain, an American hero, was a loser. That and 99 other reasons were why so many in the world of conservative national-security affixed their names to letters opposing Donald Trump.

So now much of the foreign-policy establishment—I count myself a proud member, though not a letter signer—is a little angry. They didn’t vote for the man. They don’t like the man. He is terrible. But he did get the necessary majority in the Electoral College and, being Trump, his attitude toward all those letter signers has been—I win, you lose. So, to paraphrase Bill Clinton: That’s President Terrible to you.

But it’s Trump’s words that are terrible. His policies are, in the main, not. The United States has crushed Russia beneath escalating sanctions, pulled out of the dreadful Iran deal, armed the Ukrainian opposition to Putin, stood up to China’s theft of American intellectual property, actually bombed Syrian chemical-weapons sites, and increased defense spending. Sure, there’s plenty to dislike in Trump’s foreign policy, including his trade wars, his dismissal of allies, his toying with nato, and his Obama-esque desire to skip out of Syria. But his stupid rhetoric masks a mostly normal, if not always sensible or desirable, foreign policy. And Trump’s national-security strategy is at least coherent when compared with the incoherent global retreat embraced by the last administration.

But that’s substance, not feelings. Many in the national-security establishment are mad at Trump. Mad he’s still mad at them, mad he sounds like a fool, mad he brought in Rex Tillerson to screw up the State Department, mad he’s rude to America’s friends—and mad that he’s not interested in sage advice. But mostly, they are mad that Trump just can’t bloody well be bothered to be an adult and do his homework and stop obsessing about Mueller.

For a good part of the Trump-hating right, and those who have publicly parted ways with the right over Trump, among Trump’s greater sins is his own unhinged, egomaniacal rejection of anyone who ever tweeted a bad word about him. And for too many, their response is to mirror the man, crackpot move by crackpot move. My Twitter feed, including people I regard, has included allegations that Trump is a Russian agent, is being blackmailed by Russia, or is a traitor bent on destroying America. That’s just crackers.

Yes, Trump is a shallow, vain, not terribly bright, lazy president of the United States. He might even have been interested in dirt Moscow scraped up on Hillary Clinton. And he will do some damage—which is to be expected, as our last few presidents have also done some damage. Maybe he will do more. But he can also do some good. He is not the anti-Christ, any more than Barack Obama was a Muslim, or Hillary Clinton was trafficking in children. Frothing conspiracy theories about Trump only drag everyone into that world. Nonstop outrage is exhausting and counterproductive.

Perhaps Twitter has dragged us all away from the considered responses this presidency requires. Perhaps Trump is driving us all mad. But it’s time to get a grip.

**NinthMusketeer**

I see feeding the trolls has caught on again.

**Ouze**

Just Tony wrote:
Spinner wrote:Also, one way to deter speeding is to take your kids. Again. Why are we not doing that, besides 'different laws are treated differently', which is a total non-answer?

Actually, in Indiana if their speeding carries them into reckless driving as a charge, then any children in the car earns that driver a child endangerment charge as well.

Are you saying that in some specific circumstances, the government would take your kids, but that's rare and not the same as the government taking the kids away from every single person caught speeding as a sudden, badly considered policy? It sounds like you're understanding a distinction here. I don't understand why other people have a hard time with this distinction, unless they're pretending there isn't one to "score a goal for the red team", and I'm pretty dubious of joining any team that makes you pretend to be dumber than you are on a regular basis to defend it's positions.

Just Tony wrote:
The problem with current immigration issues in the US is that the answer is in the middle of "open borders" and "plastic bubble", but there are far too many people pushing both those extremes rather than look for the right mix in the middle that will allow immigration and immigration control to function without endangering either immigrants OR the US. It's the same problem with economics. The answer is somewhere between non-interference capitalism and unbridled socialism. Not enough people view it that way, though, as far too many people want it pulled towards the extremes.

Yes, I would agree. I think plastic bubble is just plain undoable, but catch and release was really problematic too. I don't buy into the idea that people coming over the border, not knowing the language and not knowing anyone, are suddenly taking all these jobs, and that if they were, they were the good ones - I doubt too many hospitals are paying nuerosurgeons under the table that they found in a Home Depot parking lot.

But there are are a different set of concerns an open border does allow - if you're letting in day laborers who just want to make better lives for their kids without being checked you're also letting in drug smugglers, potential security threats, and so on.

I think a good start would be actual immigration reform, because what we have now is totally insane, and also I think you have to consider some kind of blanket amnesty and a path to citizenship to the people who are already here and do not have criminal records.

**Disciple of Fate**

So, its that time of year again, a few days after the memorial for Russia shooting down an aircraft full of civilians. Every year the US would send out a statement condemning Russia for shooting down MH17 and denying involvement. This year that didn't happen, because Pompeo didn't agree with the strongly worded content...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/18/state-dept-mh17-ukraine-russia-netherlands-malaysian-airlines/

Maybe Trump still doesn't believe it was the Russians like he used to...

**Kilkrazy**

djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Is that my party's line? This is a first I have heard that.

I am a registered Independent.

Love the ignorance boys, keep it up.

Prove it.

Seriuosly?

I'm a registered Independent as well. Gonna tell me to prove it to?

No, you're not using an unverifiable claim as support for your position of debate, so you're cool.

**tneva82**

KTG17 wrote:
The Trump avatar is there for you, not me.

So you say. But that avatar and you speak like trump fanboy...

Like 99.99/100 what looks like a dog and barks like a dog is a dog

**Just Tony**

Ouze wrote:
I think a good start would be actual immigration reform, because what we have now is totally insane, and also I think you have to consider some kind of blanket amnesty and a path to citizenship to the people who are already here and do not have criminal records.

I was almost on board with your whole post until we got here. I'm against the principle behind amnesty for illegal aliens, the precedent it could set, AND the message it sends to anyone considering their own late night El Paso run. Apply that precedent to ANY other form of theft, which is what taking up residence illegally is, and it all falls apart. That guy that stole a car? Yeah, not only does he NOT go to jail, he gets to keep the car. Likening it to immigration further, and the benefits that the newly naturalized illegals would get, you'd also tell the car thief "Here, the first tank and a year's worth of plates are on us. Well, the taxpayers, but you get the point." Maybe "squatter's rights" is a little closer of a comparison, but the principle still stands. It doesn't matter how severe you view the crime of illegal entry and illegal residence, allowing a crime to go rewarded, let alone unpunished, will set a terrible precedent.

Unfortunately as it is, we have three options: eliminate the law while we make a better law, enforce the current law to its fullest extent while we make a better law, or put up the plastic bubble until we make a better law. Two of these are reasonable and not damaging to the country, and one of those two is slightly less feeling than the other.

**Peregrine**

Just Tony wrote:
I was almost on board with your whole post until we got here. I'm against the principle behind amnesty for illegal aliens, the precedent it could set, AND the message it sends to anyone considering their own late night El Paso run. Apply that precedent to ANY other form of theft, which is what taking up residence illegally is, and it all falls apart. That guy that stole a car? Yeah, not only does he NOT go to jail, he gets to keep the car. Likening it to immigration further, and the benefits that the newly naturalized illegals would get, you'd also tell the car thief "Here, the first tank and a year's worth of plates are on us. Well, the taxpayers, but you get the point." Maybe "squatter's rights" is a little closer of a comparison, but the principle still stands. It doesn't matter how severe you view the crime of illegal entry and illegal residence, allowing a crime to go rewarded, let alone unpunished, will set a terrible precedent.

First of all, that's a terrible comparison. Unlike a car thief an illegal immigrant hasn't taken any physical property, only some abstract philosophical concept of the right to live in the US. There is no victim to compensate, no missing property to restore. A better comparison would be granting amnesty to everyone who has smoked pot in the past and making it legal for anyone over 18 to use it. Yes, a crime was technically committed, but nobody was hurt by it and any prosecution is 100% punitive.

Second, a blanket amnesty is, aside from any moral questions, a practical necessity. There are simply too many illegal immigrants to deport them all, and the consequences of doing so would be extremely disruptive. So you have two choices: integrate them into the system and make them legal residents, with all the rights and responsibilities that creates, or continue the awkward situation where everyone knows a person is breaking immigration laws but nothing is done about it unless they're one of the unlucky minority to be randomly targeted. Meanwhile failure to act means continuing all of the abuses: employers paying below minimum wage and avoiding payroll taxes by paying cash off the record, people who can't get insurance running up huge medical/car accident/etc bills, using threats of reporting someone to coerce them into obedience, etc. The only realistic option here is to concede that if these people aren't going anywhere we might as well make their presence official.

**Just Tony**

Hasn't taken any physical property? Occupying domicile without contributing to the community's tax system, tying up job positions that would otherwise go to the community?

https://indianapackerscorp.com/

I worked at this place when I got out of high school, in the shipping dock. Illegal immigrants were a HUGE problem there, as well as an overall housing shortage cause by said illegals. One time when I was coming in to drop off military documents to cover an upcoming absence do to service, I passed two INS buses in the parking lot. Dropping off the papers, I asked what was going on, and the clerk informed me that 50 people were being removed from the premises for having shared social security numbers. That was JUST here, and it wasn't the only time INS showed up to nab people.

http://usplaces.com/Meat%20Packing%20Plants/logansport-in/ibp-inc

This place, 30 minutes or less from Delphi, ALSO had several issues with illegal aliens, including a rather high number of Vietnamese who were deported due to falsified paperwork.

That's two places right off the top of my head, two places locally that I worked at that showed me the immigration issue firsthand. Not to mention having a couple incidents myself and a ton of stories from around town of being hit in traffic by an illegal who promptly sped off before you could get their information. You not being affected doesn't mean the country isn't affected.

You're also looking at the precedent that'll be set by hand waving millions of people into citizenship like that. I'd be more up for establishing visas, mainly so they are trackable, but still able to pursue citizenship if they want it. And while it may seem that the process would be disruptive, we have a large body of personnel that could be mobilized within 8-24 hours to handle such an undertaking.

**YeOldSaltPotato**

Just Tony wrote:
Hasn't taken any physical property? Occupying domicile without contributing to the community's tax system, tying up job positions that would otherwise go to the community?

And unless the company employing them is openly employing them illegally you've already contradicted yourself. Running theme with those folks, they don't ask for tax refunds.

Illegal immigrants were a HUGE problem there, as well as an overall housing shortage cause by said illegals.

So people renting to illegal immigrants also not facing any form of punishment, but happily taking their money, which is then contributed back to the community.

But yes, you've lived in a community with a lot of people getting rounded up on immigration charges, have you considered why they were there and how many of them were drawn by businesses in the area hiring them? It's not like they show up and pay for houses out of pocket while waiting to mug someone for their job. The businesses are hiring them, and that hiring drives more folks to show up. How many business owners were rounded up and shipped off to prison over this? I'm going to guess none.

It's that market thing and the general need for regulating it properly.

And honestly, what jobs are they working that are being so sorely taken from Americans? I know a couple farmers who could really use the help, but don't feel like paying a wage remotely close to what it would take to get anyone I know into the fields for a day, and I say this growing up in a trailer park. It's a problem of our some sectors of our economy being based on the exploitation of this labor, not that they're coming and taking jobs from Americans, they're taking jobs that refuse to pay what an American expects, even now when our expectations are pretty fething low.

**Just Tony**

Oh, I TOTALLY think companies that actively employ illegals should be penalized to the fullest extent. That isn't even up for debate. It's to be stated that IPC found the irregularity themselves and turned those people in.

And to answer your question about who's jobs would be taken: in a town the size of Delphi, a job paying what that job pays nets people in easy. There was no shortage of applicants for work there. It paid decent when I worked there in '95, and I only imagine the pay scale went up.

As far as money getting back in the community: yeah, they spent money locally, but what about people who took lesser paying jobs because the processing plant jobs were tied up by illegals?

I get it, it takes a cold distance to look at the problem objectively enough to make the hard decisions. How I feel about a family of illegal aliens is irrelevant: I'm a rule of law guy.

**Wolfblade**

Just Tony wrote:
Oh, I TOTALLY think companies that actively employ illegals should be penalized to the fullest extent. That isn't even up for debate. It's to be stated that IPC found the irregularity themselves and turned those people in.

And to answer your question about who's jobs would be taken: in a town the size of Delphi, a job paying what that job pays nets people in easy. There was no shortage of applicants for work there. It paid decent when I worked there in '95, and I only imagine the pay scale went up.

As far as money getting back in the community: yeah, they spent money locally, but what about people who took lesser paying jobs because the processing plant jobs were tied up by illegals?

I get it, it takes a cold distance to look at the problem objectively enough to make the hard decisions. How I feel about a family of illegal aliens is irrelevant: I'm a rule of law guy.

Bold mine, how vague...

On top of that illegal immigrants usually take jobs no one else wants (i.e. working fields or other farm related jobs, or construction). The amount of actual jobs taken is generally fairly low.

**Frazzled**

San Francisco now allowing noncitizens to vote in school elections.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html

Non-citizens legally register to vote in San Francisco school elections
BY DON SWEENEY

dsweeney@sacbee.com

LINKEDIN
GOOGLE+
PINTEREST
REDDIT
PRINT
ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
July 18, 2018 10:38 AM

Updated July 18, 2018 03:48 PM

San Francisco began registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote Monday in the November election for the city school board, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.

The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19, reported the publication.

“This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle. “Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?”

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
“We want to give immigrants the right to vote,” Norman Yee, also a county supervisor, told KGO.

Breaking News
Be the first to know when big news breaks

Enter Email Address

But Harmeet Dhillon, who serves on the Republican National Committee, told the station she disagrees with those assessments.

“The reason I voted against it is that I think the right to vote is something that goes along with citizenship and should be,” Dhillon told KGO.

San Francisco became the first city in California to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections following passage of Measure N with 54 percent of the vote after two previous failed tries, reported KTVU.

There are concerns that the non-citizen voter registration rolls, which will be open, could be used to target people who entered the U.S. illegally, reported The San Francisco Examiner.

“Our immigrants, are they vulnerable? Absolutely,” Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer told the publication. “But in San Francisco we stand strong together.”

President Donald Trump and California leaders have clashed repeatedly since the 2016 election over immigration enforcement, sanctuary cities and voter fraud allegations.

Community organizations, such as the Mission Economic Development Agency, plan to meet with non-citizens to inform them of the possible risks, the Examiner reported.

Chicago and some Maryland cities also allow non-citizen residents to vote in school board elections, reported KPIX.

Several cities in Massachusetts, including Cambridge, Amherst, Brookline and others, have at various times voted to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, but those moves require legislation from state lawmakers to take effect, reported The Boston Globe.

The San Francisco measure allowing non-citizen voting expires in 2022 unless renewed by the board of supervisors, according to the Examiner.

The deadline to register to vote in San Francisco is Oct. 22 for the Nov. 6 election, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html