Video Games Hangouts
EtcetEra Hangouts
Trending

Democrats are drafting a proposal for $5 billion for border security with ‘no new structures’ (No Wall) to end shutdown

Status
Not open for further replies.
gozu

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,133
America
Elections have consequences.

We all knew Trump spelled disaster for the country.

He has taken innocent americans and the american economy hostage, instead of negotiating in good faith.

You do not pay ransom to hostage takers. For obvious reasons. Or blackmailers. For obvious reasons.

This is why Nancy is insisting on reopening the government before negotiations on a wall begin.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the 5.7B on port of entry, immigrant judges, drones and scanners was for. Optics? Trump is already getting a beating in the polls before that.

Dems should not cave on this and just take the ugly win. It's not their fault Trump is fucking people over. It's Trump's fault. Let him sink his re-election prospects. Maybe we can sweep the senate while we're at it. Probably not though. Blue California has about 70 times as many people as red Wyoming but the same number of senators...
 
Last edited:
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Nov 1, 2017
10,440
jkm23 said:
McConnell is Trumps fucking lap turtle.

Trump is still the gate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. Mitch is doing this because he chooses to. It has fuck-all to do with Trump pulling the strings. In fact, I'm guessing Mitch is using Trump as a scapegoat to be the one to emerge unscathed from all of this regardless of outcome.
 
ZealousD

ZealousD

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,303
marrec said:
Trump has tied the entire shutdown to a wall, no wall, no win.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly. This is not a shutdown over $5 billion for border security. This is a shutdown about the wall. The wall is the key symbol for his base and the horrible conservative commentators like Coulter and Limbaugh. The chant was "build the wall" not "appropriate $5 billion for border security".
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
Kyra said:
Breaking News: "Democrats cave? Trump secures 5 billion for border security in shutdown deal."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Anne Coulter: TRUMP CAVED TO THE DEMS! WE WANTED A WALL! WHERE'S THE WALL TRUMP? YOU PROMISED US!

The whole reason we're here right now is because Trump feeds off his right wing base and they want a wall and won't take anything less.
 

Typhonsentra

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,297
Breaking News: "Democrats cave? Trump secures 5 billion for border security in shutdown deal."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They don't care about trafficking or even if it works to lower crossings. The wall is a symbol for them of white supremacy. Strip away the BS and that is what is left. Trump coming away with anything other than wall funding is a loss here.
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
carlsojo said:
It doesn't matter what the facts are, it matters how the media spins them and how the public perceives them. The public will perceive this as dems caving.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The public know's less about this than Reset Era even with media reporting on it and it will be swallowed up by the next big story that the Trump whitehouse shits out.
 
Kyra

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,211
New York City
HStallion said:
Anne Coulter: TRUMP CAVED TO THE DEMS! WE WANTED A WALL! WHERE'S THE WALL TRUMP? YOU PROMISED US!

The whole reason we're here right now is because Trump feeds off his right wing base and they want a wall and won't take anything less.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh they dont want the wall either. They want to win. They what whatever they feel will make them have the upper hand over the libs. What they want will change on a dime whenever a new puppetmaster is there to tell what they think. If this doesn't come across as an absolute humiliation of a defeat. They will find a way to make it work for them and that implications of that are far more important that "childish" desire to see him lose. There is an actual connection between this and the political ramifications that will effect billions. I dont trust the media to report in good faith and I dont trust trump not to morph his no structure funding into "this is what the wall was all along".
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Nov 1, 2017
10,440
HStallion said:
Anne Coulter: TRUMP CAVED TO THE DEMS! WE WANTED A WALL! WHERE'S THE WALL TRUMP? YOU PROMISED US!

The whole reason we're here right now is because Trump feeds off his right wing base and they want a wall and won't take anything less.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At the end of the day, that's what they voted for. Why would they settle for less at this point?
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
Kyra said:
Eh they dont want the wall either. They want to win. They what whatever they feel will make them have the upper hand over the libs. What they want will change on a dime whenever a new puppetmaster is there to tell what they think. If this doesn't come across as an absolute humiliation of a defeat. They will find a way to make it work for them and that implications of that are far more important that "childish" desire to see him lose. There is an actual connection between this and the political ramifications that will effect billions. I dont trust the media to report in good faith and I dont trust trump not to morph his no structure funding into "this is what the wall was all along".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They want the wall. They're still screaming about the wall and so is Trump. They wouldn't have shut down the government if they were actually worried about things like border security.

They want a wall because its a giant symbol of their xenophobia, bigotry and ignorance. It's like saying Pats fans don't want a Super Bowl, they just want to win the season.
 

Stick

Member
Oct 30, 2017
926
HStallion said:

Trump is demanding a wall. If he doesn't get that it's not a win to those who really matter to him, his base.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is what I said multiple times yesterday. This deal isn't caving, it's all posture to show that Donald doesn't care about actual border security, he just wants a wall. This deal was dead on arrival and the Democrats know that.

He didn't shut down the government for border security, he shut it down because he's stuck on this idea that putting up a wall is what he wants his legacy to be when he's in jail and after he's dead. Someone is going to eventually cave because I can't see the government being closed for months, but there was no way that this type of deal would be accepted so soon after all that bullshit he's been doing to try and convince America that a wall is the only measure of border security that the world apparently can use and be effective.
 

Deleted member 13364

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,984
I am baffled by this idea that providing a massive amount of funding for white supremacist policies masquerading as border security is fine as long as it denies the construction of a white supremacist symbolic wall, and thus is a victory. That is an entirely hollow "victory".
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
Number of Completion said:
I am baffled by this idea that providing a massive amount of funding for white supremacist policies masquerading as border security is fine as long as it denies the construction of a white supremacist symbolic wall, and thus is a victory. That is an entirely hollow "victory".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is this so hard? This is not supposed to go anywhere. If it even actually gets out of the house it shows up on the Senate floor and Mitch kills it, especially if there is actually any chance of it getting the votes to pass. Mitch does not want to go against Trump and this would directly go against him and becomes a show of no confidence from the GOP in the President. Its political gamesmanship to pull the rug out of the GOP who were attempting something very similar in the Senate.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Nicktals said:
The democratic party disagrees with your assessment that it's a net negative for society, which is why they support increased funding, and also why this offer is in line with their desires, and therefore not a concession. Is that too complicated for you my duder?

You disagree with the party. That doesnt make them getting what they want a concession, just because you personally disagree.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The fact that posters in this thread are now insisting that actually Democrats have always been a party that wants to spend more money on Border Security and hire more CBP agents is exactly why this offer was a bad idea. It shifts the position of the party in the wrong direction. In reality, border crossings are at a very low level and CBP is an agency that just committed a bunch of human rights atrocities, so we need way less border security funding. To the degree that there are actual problems to be solved at the border, such as a lack of immigration judges, which, to be clear, is only a problem because Trump overturned the catch-and-release policy and so isn't really a problem at all, we should fund those by reducing existing funding for CBP. If we're going to allocate funding for anything it should be a human rights crimes tribunal to interrogate every single CBP employee and determine which should be imprisoned. Anything short of this is really a wild compromise on the part of the Democratic Party. To be clear, even if this bill is expected to fail because Trump will oppose it, it still represents a statement about Democratic policy desires, and in that way it's unacceptable.
 

Deleted member 13364

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,984
HStallion said:
How is this so hard? This is not supposed to go anywhere. If it even actually gets out of the house it shows up on the Senate floor and Mitch kills it, especially if there is actually any chance of it getting the votes to pass. Mitch does not want to go against Trump and this would directly go against him and becomes a show of no confidence from the GOP in the President. Its political gamesmanship to pull the rug out of the GOP who were attempting something very similar in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Brinkmanship more like. And there sure are a lot of people in this thread supportive of this offer that is "not supposed to go anywhere".
 
junomars

junomars

Banned
Nov 19, 2018
723
Number of Completion said:
I am baffled by this idea that providing a massive amount of funding for white supremacist policies masquerading as border security is fine as long as it denies the construction of a white supremacist symbolic wall, and thus is a victory. That is an entirely hollow "victory".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You would have to believe that border security is inherently racist which many don't. Obama for instance deployed the most patrols and troops to the border of any president. He also built hundreds of miles of fencing during his term.
 
Kyra

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,211
New York City
HStallion said:
They want the wall. They're still screaming about the wall and so is Trump. They wouldn't have shut down the government if they were actually worried about things like border security.

They want a wall because its a giant symbol of their xenophobia, bigotry and ignorance. It's like saying Pats fans don't want a Super Bowl, they just want to win the season.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This isnt the last time they have a chance to get any wall funding. They could get wall funding after the government is reopened but it is important to get Nancy and the dems to fold now. It is more important to make dems lose than even the wall as much as they pretend they want it. It is a symbol that can be substituted for many other things. The wall is a symbol of xenophobia which wont be used for actual xenophobia it'll be used to rub into the faces of liberals. It's about winning, every thing else is window dressing.
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
Kyra said:
This isnt the last time they have a chance to get any wall funding. They could get wall funding after the government is reopened but it is important to get Nancy and the dems to fold now. It is more important to make dems lose than even the wall as much as they pretend they want it. It is a symbol that can be substituted for many other things. The wall is a symbol of xenophobia which wont be used for actual xenophobia it'll be used to rub into the faces of liberals. It's about winning, every thing else is window dressing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not getting a wall is a loss for Trump. A giant one. That's the entire point of this whole shut down in the first place.
 
Boke18

Boke18

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,657
Kyra said:
This isnt the last time they have a chance to get any wall funding. They could get wall funding after the government is reopened but it is important to get Nancy and the dems to fold now. It is more important to make dems lose than even the wall as much as they pretend they want it. It is a symbol that can be substituted for many other things. The wall is a symbol of xenophobia which wont be used for actual xenophobia it'll be used to rub into the faces of liberals. It's about winning, every thing else is window dressing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But what have the dems folded on? This isn't up for a vote at all yet. Today the Senate votes on a bill to open the government with no wall funding. NO ONE on the GOP side or Trump has jumped on this taking it as a win.

Border security is going to be a thing when the government is open. It was ALWAYS going to happen. So are we now moving the goalposts that border security shouldn't be a thing?
 
KingK

KingK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,793
pigeon said:
The fact that posters in this thread are now insisting that actually Democrats have always been a party that wants to spend more money on Border Security and hire more CBP agents is exactly why this offer was a bad idea. It shifts the position of the party in the wrong direction. In reality, border crossings are at a very low level and CBP is an agency that just committed a bunch of human rights atrocities, so we need way less border security funding. To the degree that there are actual problems to be solved at the border, such as a lack of immigration judges, which, to be clear, is only a problem because Trump overturned the catch-and-release policy and so isn't really a problem at all, we should fund those by reducing existing funding for CBP. If we're going to allocate funding for anything it should be a human rights crimes tribunal to interrogate every single CBP employee and determine which should be imprisoned. Anything short of this is really a wild compromise on the part of the Democratic Party. To be clear, even if this bill is expected to fail because Trump will oppose it, it still represents a statement about Democratic policy desires, and in that way it's unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Excellent post. Agreed.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Boke18 said:
But what have the dems folded on? This isn't up for a vote at all yet. Today the Senate votes on a bill to open the government with no wall funding. NO ONE on the GOP side or Trump has jumped on this taking it as a win.

Border security is going to be a thing when the government is open. It was ALWAYS going to happen. So are we now moving the goalposts that border security shouldn't be a thing?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The expectation was that there would be a negotiation about border security when the government is open.

If this is still the plan, this offer represents negotiating with ourselves before the event even starts. Which, aside from the practical problems, is also tactically pretty dumb.
 
BossAttack

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,907
Mewshuji said:
I mean this without snark: Thank you for pointing it out, as you honestly didn't need to. But I had seen that bit. I'm assuming the judges would be Republicans themselves, which is why I didn't consider them as a good thing and a part of the whole 'harming immigrants' thing I'm against, as of course they're just going to deport people even if all they did was, again, cross an imaginary line in the sand. If they'd be nonpartisan, I agree that would be fine. But I'm finding it harder and harder to trust the establishment, partcularly GOP backed establisment, all the time. I also assume all 5b of that would not go to judges, anyway.

Again, as I said, that's a huge ask, and I know that, so what my only real desire at this time is the abolishment of ICE and making it easier to immigrate or work here. This proposal is moving in the exact opposite direction which will, inherently, end with the wall even if it isn't built now. And frankly, we haven't even used up the allocated money for border security yet, so there's not much reason to put more into it, even if you're for maintaining the current status quo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, you're throwing out a bunch of points here that don't all hold water. First, there's no reason to believe that every new immigration judge appointed would be a Republican. I won't say it's not a concern at all since IJs are ultimately appointed by the Attorney General, they are not approved by the Senate as Immigration Proceedings are an Administrative Agency process. Still, while political bias in juridical appointments are illegal, they have been known to happen. However, I find it hard to believe every new judge would be a Republican and specifically a Republican so hateful of immigrants they would deny bona-fide, well supported asylum applications. Regardless, those outrageous cases would be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals where they would have a better chance of being overturned. Yet, even if the BIA rubber stamped such cases they could still be appealed to real judges within the Circuit Court of that particular region who would definitely not rubber stamp an outrageous decision by a frothing Republican IJ.

In short, your knowledge of the Immigration Court system is limited. We need more IJs, even if new appointees denied everything they would still be needed as those cases could be appealed. Instead, you've got a system where IJs are deciding 150 cases a day, 5-7 of which could be full individual hearings. And, I can assure you those judges are not always carefully reviewing the pleadings you submit beforehand and so you're already prejudiced at the start of a hearing.

Second, you argue that all 5 billion would likely not all go to the hiring of more IJs. Yes, that's most likely. However, that doesn't mean the government can spend the rest on whatever they want. Congress appropriates money for the federal government and can specify how those funds can be spent. The Democrats have already stated this deal is not for unrestricted funds, but that they would be appropriately specified. Thus, no wall, for example. There are actually other parts of the DHS that could use a lot more funding. U.S. Customs and Immigration Services could definitely use some more personnel to process various immigration/visa applications. Detention Centers need to be improved. Immigration Courts could use improvements. This list could go on. These are all things that could help immigrants

Lastly, it seems you take issue entirely with any penalties for immigration violations and the need for border security. That is an entirely separate issue that no one on the Left is arguing for. You won't find a single Democrat, no matter how liberal, in office arguing for "open borders" and the complete abolishment of any kind of border security. The call to "abolish ICE" is not a call to end all border security but to rid an agency riddled with bad practices and immoral leadership, most especially to remove it from being under the purview of DHS. Abolishing ICE is not a statement to rid the country of such an agency, but to replace it with something better. Also, ICE is different from CBP (Customs and Border Security) and I'm not even sure which one you're protesting against based on your post as they do two different things. Unless you want both abolished.
 
Last edited:
Greg NYC3

Greg NYC3

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,650
Miami
marrec said:
Border security is not white supremacy
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Trump's vision of it definitely is but the more important point to make is that the Democrats know two things the first being that Trump won't accept the deal anyway and the second being that even if he did the border patrol won't be able to spend even 20% of that money before the appropriations expire. It's an empty gesture to get on record that this standoff has nothing to do with an emergency or security even though a good 70% of the country seems to already understand that.
 
HStallion

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,793
Kyra said:
I wish i was this optimistic but i just don't think a deal like this will have this effect. 5 billion is too much for a headline reguardless of what the facts are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a wall. They want a wall. This is the entire point of this whole mess. It's not a matter of optimism on my part but looking at what's going on right in front of your face.
 
marrec

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
Number of Completion said:
There are actions being taken under Trump in the name of "border security" that absolutely are white supremacy in action. And this proposal would give him more money for that.
But hey - he can't spend it on his fucking wall! Victory!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm just going to copy and past my explanation of the appropriations process so that you understand what's actually going on:

There are so many fundamental misunderstandings of how appropriations work in relation to the House and Senate in this thread.

Right now, this is just a proposal, and not written legislation to vote on. Therefore we currently have NO IDEA how the 5bn for "border security" would be appropriated... there are clues however in previously stated democratic positions. We can assume that the 5bn would include the following:

1) Renovations and improvements to points of entry
2) Money for more judges to process immigrants in the system
3) Replacement of obsolete technology
4) New implementation of technology to help secure the border and identify immigrants
5) Training
6) Money for ICE and CBP salary increases and hiring

Importantly, these major tenants would be appropriated for both the norther and southern border.

People need to stop thinking of this 5bn proposal as "5bn for CBP to buy more giant butterfly nets to catch children". This spending proposal is not only fundamentally good for incoming immigrants, it's also a small portion of what will eventually be appropriated for the DHS and border security.

Most importantly for some of you; if the bill is written by House democrats and passes the House and Senate, the DHS does not get to just wantonly spend the 5bn as they see fit. The money is appropriated down to the dollar, so the DHS can't just say "lol fuk u libs I'm buying more giant butterfly nets!"

Number of Completion said:
Or putting children in concentration camps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Detention centers.
 

Deleted member 32374

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2017
8,458
BossAttack said:
I mean, you're throwing out a bunch of points here that don't all hold water. First, there's no reason to believe that every new immigration judge appointed would be a Republican. I won't say it's not a concern at all since IJs are ultimately appointed by the Attorney General, they are not approved by the Senate as Immigration Proceedings are an Administrative Agency process. Still, while political bias in juridical appointments are illegal, they have been known to happen. However, I find it hard to believe every new judge would be a Republican and specifically a Republican so hateful of immigrants they would deny bona-fide and well supporting asylum applications. Regardless, those outrageous cases would be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals where they would have a better chance of being overturned. Yet, even if the BIA rubber stamped such cases they could still be appealed to real judges within the Circuit Court of that particular region who would definitely not rubber stamp an outrageous decision by a frothing Republican IJ.

In short, you knowledge of the Immigration Court system is limited. We need more IJs, even if new appointees denied everything they would still be needed as those cases could be appealed. Instead, you've got a system where IJs are deciding 150 cases a day, 5-7 of which could be full individual hearings. And, I can assure you those judges are not always carefully reviewing the pleadings you submit beforehand and so you're already prejudiced at the start of a hearing.

Second, you argue that all 5 billion would likely not all go to the hiring of more IJs. Yes, that's most likely. However, that doesn't mean the government can spend the rest on whatever they want. Congress appropriates money for the federal government and can specify how those funds can be spent. The Democrats have already stated this deal is not for unrestricted funds, but that they would be appropriately specified. Thus, no wall, for example. There are actually other parts of the DHS that could use a lot more funding. U.S. Customs and Immigration Services could definitely use some more personnel to process various immigration/visa applications. Detention Centers need to be improved. Immigration Courts could use improvements. This list could go on. These are all things that could help immigrants

Lastly, it seems you take issue entirely with any penalties for immigration violations and the need for border security. That is an entirely separate issue that no one on the Left is arguing for. You won't find a single Democrat, no matter how liberal, in office arguing for "open borders" and the complete abolishment of any kind of border security. The call to "abolish ICE" is not a call to end all border security but to rid an agency riddled with bad practices and immoral leadership, most especially to remove it from being under the purview of DHS. Abolishing ICE is not a statement to rid the country of such an agency, but to replace it with something better. Also, ICE is different from CBP (Customs and Border Security) and I'm not even sure which one you're protesting against based on your post as they do two different things. Unless you want both abolished.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Damn this was a good post Boss. A "Boss" post, as is it is said.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
marrec said:
It can be used as a dog whistle for "keeping brown people out of our country"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes

marrec said:
I'm just going to copy and past my explanation of the appropriations process so that you understand what's actually going on:

There are so many fundamental misunderstandings of how appropriations work in relation to the House and Senate in this thread.

Right now, this is just a proposal, and not written legislation to vote on. Therefore we currently have NO IDEA how the 5bn for "border security" would be appropriated... there are clues however in previously stated democratic positions. We can assume that the 5bn would include the following:

1) Renovations and improvements to points of entry
2) Money for more judges to process immigrants in the system
3) Replacement of obsolete technology
4) New implementation of technology to help secure the border and identify immigrants
5) Training
6) Money for ICE and CBP salary increases and hiring

Importantly, these major tenants would be appropriated for both the norther and southern border.

People need to stop thinking of this 5bn proposal as "5bn for CBP to buy more giant butterfly nets to catch children". This spending proposal is not only fundamentally good for incoming immigrants, it's also a small portion of what will eventually be appropriated for the DHS and border security.

Most importantly for some of you; if the bill is written by House democrats and passes the House and Senate, the DHS does not get to just wantonly spend the 5bn as they see fit. The money is appropriated down to the dollar, so the DHS can't just say "lol fuk u libs I'm buying more giant butterfly nets!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is pretty dumb. Money is fungible. To the degree that any discretionary funding was being spent on any of the purposes targeted by this bill, obviously CBP could respond to its passing by freeing up that discretionary funding and spending it on whatever they want. Most money appropriated for government agencies is discretionary in nature, so in practice this bill could represent a full handout to CBP to spend on whatever they want.

marrec said:
Detention centers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry, did you just use a euphemism for concentration camps? Does that improve your argument?

It's honestly surprising and deeply disheartening how many people in this thread seem to have seen CBP kidnap, torture, and occasionally kill literally thousands of children of color and now want to argue that we need to give them more money because of the good work they do. There is no desire for justice or reparation -- just the desire to move on and pretend the atrocities did not take place. It's hard to avoid the perspective that even people who claim to be staunchly progressive are ultimately pretty blase about what happens to children of color and would rather just sweep it under the rug.
 

Deleted member 32374

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2017
8,458
pigeon said:
Yes



This is pretty dumb. Money is fungible. To the degree that any discretionary funding was being spent on any of the purposes targeted by this bill, obviously CBP could respond to its passing by freeing up that discretionary funding and spending it on whatever they want. Most money appropriated for government agencies is discretionary in nature, so in practice this bill could represent a full handout to CBP to spend on whatever they want.



Sorry, did you just use a euphemism for concentration camps? Does that improve your argument?

It's honestly surprising and deeply disheartening how many people in this thread seem to have seen CBP kidnap, torture, and occasionally kill literally thousands of children of color and now want to argue that we need to give them more money because of the good work they do. There is no desire for justice or reparation -- just the desire to move on and pretend the atrocities did not take place. It's hard to avoid the perspective that even people who claim to be staunchly progressive are ultimately pretty blase about what happens to children of color and would rather just sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Improving the current immigration system =/= sweeping anything under the rug.

Your solution sounds like "starve all border enforcement, customs, immigration system" until people are brought to justice. Am I getting that?
 
BossAttack

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,907
pigeon said:
Sorry, did you just use a euphemism for concentration camps? Does that improve your argument?

It's honestly surprising and deeply disheartening how many people in this thread seem to have seen CBP kidnap, torture, and occasionally kill literally thousands of children of color and now want to argue that we need to give them more money because of the good work they do. There is no desire for justice or reparation -- just the desire to move on and pretend the atrocities did not take place. It's hard to avoid the perspective that even people who claim to be staunchly progressive are ultimately pretty blase about what happens to children of color and would rather just sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, a lot of ignorance in here about the immigration process.

Children do not go to detention centers. Unaccompanied Minors (UACs) or those minors who were separated from their parents at the time are first held with CBP (we're assuming these individuals were caught crossing the border). But, CBP is supposed to immediately transfer such minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that is where all minors are supposed to go and ORR is not a "concentration camp" or "detention center." At the ORR minors receive a number of services importantly education and access to legal services on top of medical services. Minors remain in ORR until a family member or some kind person/organization here in the United States agrees to take them into their own custody.

The major problem is that ORR facilities are currently overbooked so ORR often doesn't have the space to accept new minors, in which case minors have to remain in CBP custody until space in an ORR facilities opens up. Funding towards ORR would obviously help alleviate this problem.

Or you could continue to shout ignorant hyperbole.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
jkm23 said:
Improving the current immigration system =/= sweeping anything under the rug.

Your solution sounds like "starve all border enforcement, customs, immigration system" until people are brought to justice. Am I getting that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don’t know about starve. I think I said cut down to match existing border crossing security needs, which are lower than they were in the last 20 years. If there are “improvements” to be made, why not pay for them out of existing funding?

But, yes, I also think we should probably be first allocating funding towards finding justice for the children who were kidnapped and killed before we focus on hiring more people into the agency that kidnaps and kills children. Every person who works at CBP knows what their agency did and chose to remain there and contribute to it. It isn’t clear to me why you don’t think we should do something about that.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
BossAttack said:
Again, a lot of ignorance in here about the immigration process.

Children do not go to detention centers. Unaccompanied Minors (UACs) or those minors who were separated from their parents at the time are first held with CBP (we're assuming these individuals were caught crossing the border). But, CBP is supposed to immediately transfer such minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that is where all minors are supposed to go and ORR is not a "concentration camp" or "detention center." At the ORR minors receive a number of services importantly education and access to legal services on top of medical services. Minors remain in ORR until a family member or some kind person/organization here in the United States agrees to take them into their own custody.

The major problem is that ORR facilities are currently overbooked so ORR often doesn't have the space to accept new minors, in which case minors have to remain in CBP custody until space in an ORR facilities opens up. Funding towards ORR would obviously help alleviate this problem.

Or you could continue to shout ignorant hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I legitimately can’t tell if you are in favor of kidnapping children or just extremely ignorant of the events that occurred last year.
 
KoopaTheCasual

KoopaTheCasual

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,457
HStallion said:

In case anyone needed a reminder that Trump wants a wall, not border security. Pelosi and the Dems are playing his own constant talking point against him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As expected, this will likely fail, and just be used as Democrats to be like, "see? we totally tried, but your Chief wasn't havin it!"

Then Democrats will just go back to folding their arms and sitting back, while the Republicans and Trump approval numbers spiral downward.

Don't ever let Clyburn issue a statement ever again, on behalf of any Democrat. "Smart Wall"? Homie, shut the fuck up and sit down. Let AOC and Pelosi handle messaging
 
Status
Not open for further replies.