Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Where do we go from here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to control disinformation, especially when it comes from the leader of a cult of personality like Trump. Even putting the lies aside, people know that there was a significant issue at the border during Biden's presidency.

We definitely need to do something about the border. Drug cartels are apparently manipulating border patrol agents by sending floods of people to one area while sneaking drugs through in another area when CBP agents are distracted. Until we have something much closer to a secure border, including physical barriers, it's going to be difficult to implement legislative and procedural changes that are going to matter, much less stop the flow of drugs.

I would like to see a much more robust and efficient guest worker program. I don't know how impactful that is going to be when it's probably easier just to sneak across the border.

I would also like to see changes in the asylum program to filter more people out at the border. That would ease the stress on the court system where people are waiting for years to be told yes or no.

I think it would also help considerably if the Democratic party leaders would take a different tone when it comes to the border.
Click to expand...
Right. And you know what would be the best gift to the cartels in the history of our border policies? Doing what Trump wants to do. Reinstating Remain in Mexico in particular.
 
ZenMode said:
Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to control disinformation, especially when it comes from the leader of a cult of personality like Trump. Even putting the lies aside, people know that there was a significant issue at the border during Biden's presidency.
Click to expand...
Well, it's especially difficult when you spread it, not fight it. If you want to fight disinformation, then the first step is to learn information. Then fight against disinformation.

I haven't seen any inclination from you to take even that first step, so it's risible to see you talking about fighting disinformation. It's like Shane Battier saying that we have to do something about flopping.
 
Why in the hell ya'll bother trying to reason with some of these guys, I'll never understand. Perhaps you just like "getting it out there" and seeing your own posts. If they haven't realized by now, they ain't gonna realize. And will never admit it even if they do.

Just move on. Although, I do admit it adds intrigue to the board. So we thank you for that.
 
ZenMode said:
Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to control disinformation, especially when it comes from the leader of a cult of personality like Trump. Even putting the lies aside, people know that there was a significant issue at the border during Biden's presidency.

We definitely need to do something about the border. Drug cartels are apparently manipulating border patrol agents by sending floods of people to one area while sneaking drugs through in another area when CBP agents are distracted. Until we have something much closer to a secure border, including physical barriers, it's going to be difficult to implement legislative and procedural changes that are going to matter, much less stop the flow of drugs.

I would like to see a much more robust and efficient guest worker program. I don't know how impactful that is going to be when it's probably easier just to sneak across the border.

I would also like to see changes in the asylum program to filter more people out at the border. That would ease the stress on the court system where people are waiting for years to be told yes or no.

I think it would also help considerably if the Democratic party leaders would take a different tone when it comes to the border.
Click to expand...
I believe we had a guest worker program under Obama that Trump stopped.

I recall an interview with a migrant worker where he explained how good the guest worker program was for him. He also said that it deterred entering illegally because one caught doing that would no longer qualify for the guest worker program.

I am in agreement that we need better policy. I just get sick of trumps rhetoric painting everyone coming here as criminals and mentally ill people, when the vast majority are people willing to work and looking for an opportunity.


Googled guest worker:
The H2A Guest-Worker Program

Created in 2008, this program allows employers to hire workers from other countries for 10 months or less under Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It guarantees the worker rights, better wages, and housing than that provided during the bracero programs.
 
UNCatTech said:
I believe we had a guest worker program under Obama that Trump stopped.

I recall an interview with a migrant worker where he explained how good the guest worker program was for him. He also said that it deterred entering illegally because one caught doing that would no longer qualify for the guest worker program.

I am in agreement that we need better policy. I just get sick of trumps rhetoric painting everyone coming here as criminals and mentally ill people, when the vast majority are people willing to work and looking for an opportunity.


Googled guest worker:
The H2A Guest-Worker Program

Created in 2008, this program allows employers to hire workers from other countries for 10 months or less under Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It guarantees the worker rights, better wages, and housing than that provided during the bracero programs.
Click to expand...
Correct. Illegal immigration was basically flat from 2017 to 2019 before spiking in 2019 and crashing with Covid in 2020. The reduction in immigration numbers in Trump’s first term was that he slashed most forms of legal immigration, including highly popular guest worker programs.
 
superrific said:
Well, it's especially difficult when you spread it, not fight it. If you want to fight disinformation, then the first step is to learn information. Then fight against disinformation.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you are referring to the border crisis and the way it was handled by the Biden administration, we agree on the facts of that. Title 42 was in place. Title 42 expired. The next action was in process and was implemented in June of 2024.

Where we disagree is whether or not politics played a role in the timing and general inaction during the 3 years. You have one opinion. I have a different one. Either way, they are only opinions.
I haven't seen any inclination from you to take even that first step, so it's risible to see you talking about fighting disinformation. It's like Shane Battier saying that we have to do something about flopping.
Click to expand...
You aren't reading a portion of my posts. I ridicule Trump and his followers for their lies and overall gullibility on a regular basis. The biggest of Which is probably all of their election lies.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Assuming that you are referring to the border crisis and the way it was handled by the Biden administration, we agree on the facts of that. Title 42 was in place. Title 42 expired. The next action was in process and was implemented in June of 2024.

Where we disagree is whether or not politics played a role in the timing and general inaction during the 3 years. You have one opinion. I have a different one. Either way, they are only opinions.
Click to expand...
All right! Now we can have a discussion.

1. Politics plays a role in everything the president does, almost by definition. If you took me to be saying that politics and optics were completely irrelevant, then you misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear about my position.

2. So after we rule out "it wasn't political at all" and "it was all about desperation optics" we can now try to assess what really happened. And yes, in this inquiry there will be disagreement, especially since neither of us were there. It's just important that everyone have the same understanding of reality. Here are some relevant facts, and I think we have agreed on them (in large measure, at least):

A. The timing of the 2024 regulation was largely dictated by the procedural requirements of the APA. Notice the word largely. I'm not going to argue that the Biden administration moved at maximum speed. I don't have any insight as to the policy making process within DHS, and I doubt that they went for an all-out blitz. They moved faster on Covid vaccines, for instance (as rightly they should).

So if you want to say that the 2024 regulation could have been finalized in early 2024 instead of put out for notice and comment in early 2024 with the finalization in June 2024, I can't tell you that you're wrong. But that's the window we're talking about. The difference between an all-out blitz and what Biden did would be about four months, I estimate. It isn't 2021 versus 2024.

B. The role of the courts cannot be underestimated here. The Ninth Circuit deemed Trump's migrant protection protocols illegal. The Fifth Circuit told Biden he couldn't discontinue Trump's immigration policy because doing so was contrary to law. The Supreme Court was doing nothing useful. It's really hard to make policy when courts are saying, collectively, that you basically can't do anything. It was eventually worked out -- the Ninth Circuit's decision was effectively mooted (although the district court might be bringing it back to life; remains to be seen what the Ninth will do about it), and the 5th Circuit decision set aside (I don't remember exactly how, and I don't want to look it up). But again, it takes time.

If you want the executive branch to make good policy, then one important reform would be to prevent litigants from picking the judges who will be most sympathetic to their cause simply by filing in certain locations. What we have now, with courts acting inconsistently and in some cases requiring the impossible (the Supreme Court had to rebuke the Fifth by noting that it was actually impossible for the government to abide by its order), it's a mess.

C. The US has responsibilities stemming from our treaty obligation. As I understand it, even the June 2024 order is pushing it a little bit with respect to the UN convention on refugees, but given worldwide politics, I think we have to expect some slippage from the ideal. But those treaty obligations place a floor, so to speak, as to what the US government can legally do. We cannot close our country to refugees or migrants. It's illegal.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to explain our treaty obligations in great detail. Nor I am expert enough to talk with authority about the international relations aspect -- i.e. what would happen if the US just thumbed its nose at the treaty. Within these bounds, my speculation is not considerably more informed than yours.
 
Helps explain the narrow focus of the Bernie Bros. A bit to gullibility as well.


… But oh, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
 
superrific said:
All right! Now we can have a discussion.

1. Politics plays a role in everything the president does, almost by definition. If you took me to be saying that politics and optics were completely irrelevant, then you misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear about my position.

2. So after we rule out "it wasn't political at all" and "it was all about desperation optics" we can now try to assess what really happened. And yes, in this inquiry there will be disagreement, especially since neither of us were there. It's just important that everyone have the same understanding of reality. Here are some relevant facts, and I think we have agreed on them (in large measure, at least):

A. The timing of the 2024 regulation was largely dictated by the procedural requirements of the APA. Notice the word largely. I'm not going to argue that the Biden administration moved at maximum speed. I don't have any insight as to the policy making process within DHS, and I doubt that they went for an all-out blitz. They moved faster on Covid vaccines, for instance (as rightly they should).

So if you want to say that the 2024 regulation could have been finalized in early 2024 instead of put out for notice and comment in early 2024 with the finalization in June 2024, I can't tell you that you're wrong. But that's the window we're talking about. The difference between an all-out blitz and what Biden did would be about four months, I estimate. It isn't 2021 versus 2024.

B. The role of the courts cannot be underestimated here. The Ninth Circuit deemed Trump's migrant protection protocols illegal. The Fifth Circuit told Biden he couldn't discontinue Trump's immigration policy because doing so was contrary to law. The Supreme Court was doing nothing useful. It's really hard to make policy when courts are saying, collectively, that you basically can't do anything. It was eventually worked out -- the Ninth Circuit's decision was effectively mooted (although the district court might be bringing it back to life; remains to be seen what the Ninth will do about it), and the 5th Circuit decision set aside (I don't remember exactly how, and I don't want to look it up). But again, it takes time.

If you want the executive branch to make good policy, then one important reform would be to prevent litigants from picking the judges who will be most sympathetic to their cause simply by filing in certain locations. What we have now, with courts acting inconsistently and in some cases requiring the impossible (the Supreme Court had to rebuke the Fifth by noting that it was actually impossible for the government to abide by its order), it's a mess.

C. The US has responsibilities stemming from our treaty obligation. As I understand it, even the June 2024 order is pushing it a little bit with respect to the UN convention on refugees, but given worldwide politics, I think we have to expect some slippage from the ideal. But those treaty obligations place a floor, so to speak, as to what the US government can legally do. We cannot close our country to refugees or migrants. It's illegal.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to explain our treaty obligations in great detail. Nor I am expert enough to talk with authority about the international relations aspect -- i.e. what would happen if the US just thumbed its nose at the treaty. Within these bounds, my speculation is not considerably more informed than yours.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with the importance of procedures and policies as it relates to implementing change at a federal level and any governmental level. I also agree that there is dysfunction in the system, because there are humans involved in the system and humans are flawed. For a variety of reasons, I don't see that dysfunction being resolved anytime soon. It will likely get worse.

On the topic of the border and policy... It really is a matter of opinion and I think we agree that truth lies somewhere in the middle of both of our opinions.

Title 42 ended in early May 2023. To me, the lack of action in the 2 years prior (Biden eventually reached out to Mexico directly for help in mid/late 2023), but especially in the year after, looks to be politically motivated.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
On the topic of the border and policy... It really is a matter of opinion and I think we agree that truth lies somewhere in the middle of both of our opinions.
Click to expand...
I'll take it, I guess. It's less important to me that people agree with me than that they are informed and understand the complexities of problems that some of our political actors like to present as trivially simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top