Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

NYT - Trump Administration Considers a Drastic Cut in Refugees Allowed to Enter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    This statement right here shows that you have ZERO interest in anything other than leftist talking points.

    Source: Politifact

    Although five of the seven nations in the order have Muslim-majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Justice Roberts added, saying that the policy covered 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and was limited to countries previously designated by Congress or other administrations as posing national security risks.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Oh, come off it. Trump was explicitly calling for a Muslim ban during the campaign. It was on his web site. His supporters agreed with the position. After the election Guiliani told reporters that Trump asked him to implement it in a legal way -- and it still took three tries before SCOTUS green-lit a version of it.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
      What's the USCIS budget for asylum applications? Again, do you even care to know?
      It's not the application budget. It's the staff to process them. Try and read what I actually post.

      Ken Cuccenelli is currently helping the administration not only reduce the number of asylum claims that can be arbitrated in court but reducing the number of people who can claim asylum altogether, increasing speedy deportations.
      Leftist talking point. Ken is doing no such thing.

      We're not -increasing- asylum capacity; we're increasing detention capacity, which is also unnecessary, expensive, and cruel.
      Lies. It is not unnecessary or cruel to detain people from flowing into this country without having a clue whether they carry disease, are mules for the cartels, are trafficking in humans, or are here for other nefarious purposes. And the expense canard is your own side's double edged sword. Leftists complain about "run-down conditions" and then out of the other mouth, gripe about the cost of upgrading them. It must be grand being able to control both sides of an argument so no matter who disagrees, you have a side you can bastardize.

      That's not a considered, evidenced reason, it's another smokescreen ... which anyone who gave a tinker's damn about the wellbeing of asylum seekers and refugees would know from a quick google.

      --Sam
      Horse crap. You just hate Trump, just like Jim. None of your responses are evidence-based. They are emotional manipulation and thorough ignorance of how a government works.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It's not the application budget. It's the staff to process them. Try and read what I actually post.



        Leftist talking point. Ken is doing no such thing.



        Lies. It is not unnecessary or cruel to detain people from flowing into this country without having a clue whether they carry disease, are mules for the cartels, are trafficking in humans, or are here for other nefarious purposes. And the expense canard is your own side's double edged sword. Leftists complain about "run-down conditions" and then out of the other mouth, gripe about the cost of upgrading them. It must be grand being able to control both sides of an argument so no matter who disagrees, you have a side you can bastardize.



        Horse crap. You just hate Trump, just like Jim. None of your responses are evidence-based. They are emotional manipulation and thorough ignorance of how a government works.

        You just don't have any real idea about this stuff and, because you don't particularly care, mistake aggravated frustration with pure emotional argument.

        Cuccinelli is supportive of the Trump administration's push to deport more asylum-seeking families without trial. And, no, we do not have to detain asylum-seeking families for weeks, months, and years -- as the Trump administration is doing -- to control for disease or trafficking. Families are being kept in detention long after initial screening. In 2017, the Trump administration closed an asylum management program that had a 95%+ retention rate using case managers and tracking hardware that cost ~$16/week for an asylum-seeking family released pending trial. What the administration is currently doing is detaining these families, past the maximum date of the Flores Agreement in many cases, with a cost of ~$150 - $300 per day, per person.

        People who really care about this know all this information already. People who don't really care have the option to start, and to learn.

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          Refugees awaiting resettlement don't "choose" their country of residence.
          That's not what I claimed. Refugees only choose the option of third country settlement after rejecting voluntary return and local integration. And they mostly do have the option to decline the third country that chooses them, and remain in the country they fled to.

          They apply to UNHCR, interview, (sometimes) get paired to a country, interview and then (sometimes) get resettled. Inasmuch as they can choose at all, it's through the "illegal immigration" that Conservatives have seen fit to demonize.
          Before that, they have options. And many choose to stay in the country that accepts them as refugees.


          But most refugees, if they don't get matched to a new country through UNHCR, stay in camps. And many of them die there, awaiting resettlement.
          Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681956995/number-of-migrant-deaths-in-mediterranean-fell-in-2018


          According to the IOM, 4,503 migrants died across the world in 2018.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Most drowned in the Mediterranean.

          https://missingmigrants.iom.int/ shows the number from this year. Again, half have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea.

          Deaths at camps are mainly due to local sectarian violence between the refugees themselves and local residents, and not from refugees being turned down for third country settlement.

          For example:
          https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/lat...it-kenyan.html

          So, again, you speak without any facts.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            Oh, come off it. Trump was explicitly calling for a Muslim ban during the campaign.
            So what? He wasn't in office. When he COULD make decisions for the country, he was more specific about his intentions. So, YOU come off it and actually argue policy, if you can...

            It was on his web site. His supporters agreed with the position.
            Not really. Some did, some didn't.

            After the election Guiliani told reporters that Trump asked him to implement it in a legal way -- and it still took three tries before SCOTUS green-lit a version of it.

            --Sam
            And you trust Rudy… why?
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              That's not what I claimed. Refugees only choose the option of third country settlement after rejecting voluntary return and local integration. And they mostly do have the option to decline the third country that chooses them, and remain in the country they fled to.



              Before that, they have options. And many choose to stay in the country that accepts them as refugees.




              Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681956995/number-of-migrant-deaths-in-mediterranean-fell-in-2018


              According to the IOM, 4,503 migrants died across the world in 2018.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Most drowned in the Mediterranean.

              https://missingmigrants.iom.int/ shows the number from this year. Again, half have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea.

              Deaths at camps are mainly due to local sectarian violence between the refugees themselves and local residents, and not from refugees being turned down for third country settlement.

              For example:
              https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/lat...it-kenyan.html

              So, again, you speak without any facts.

              No, you just don't know what you're talking about here. You're using figures regarding the fatality rate among refugees (the IOM number is specifically about fatalities in transit, to boot) and not the mortality rate among refugees, which is significantly elevated. This is where the facts show that refugees are dying from preventable disease, lack of clean water/food, lack of health care access, etc.

              And many refugees cannot stay in their "host country" - either because they're not welcome (e.g., Rohingya from Myanmar in Bangladesh) or because they have chronic medical needs that cannot be served by the host country. Many can't go home, can't stay where they are, and are dependent on UNHCR to place them in a new country. And they don't get to choose where they go.

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                So what? He wasn't in office. When he COULD make decisions for the country, he was more specific about his intentions. So, YOU come off it and actually argue policy, if you can...



                Not really. Some did, some didn't.



                And you trust Rudy… why?
                So what? You're claiming that Trump's desire to enact a Muslim ban and Republican voters' support for it was "leftist propaganda" when he very publicly said that's what he was going to do. Then he did it in a way that was 1) ham-fisted, 2) disastrous and 3) unconstitutional and had to tweak it until Roberts would let it through.

                That pretty clearly shows motive and it's something you have to handwave away, not some sort of fake talking point on the Left.

                Guiliani, we know, is a flagrant liar. But he's a flagrant liar for Trump. It would be counter-productive, in the extreme, for him to make up a lie about the President ordering him to create a blatantly unconstitutional program. And we know that's how Trump rolls.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  You just don't have any real idea about this stuff and, because you don't particularly care, mistake aggravated frustration with pure emotional argument.
                  It would appear I know more than you do. All you have done is editorialized.

                  Cuccinelli is supportive of the Trump administration's push to deport more asylum-seeking families without trial.
                  More editorializing nonsense. Ken is a lawyer and knows that denying a trial for asylum seekers is unconstitutional. Unless you have a direct quote from Ken on this...

                  And, no, we do not have to detain asylum-seeking families for weeks, months, and years -- as the Trump administration is doing -- to control for disease or trafficking.
                  Then you have ZERO clue on how any of this works.

                  Families are being kept in detention long after initial screening.
                  No they aren't. They are routinely being released into the interior of the country after their initial asylum claim trial. Which just tickles you lawless leftists to death.

                  In 2017, the Trump administration closed an asylum management program that had a 95%+ retention rate using case managers and tracking hardware that cost ~$16/week for an asylum-seeking family released pending trial. What the administration is currently doing is detaining these families, past the maximum date of the Flores Agreement in many cases, with a cost of ~$150 - $300 per day, per person.
                  Citation?

                  Yet, in FY 18, the total retention rate is still near 90%. Out of 10,427 decisions in fiscal year 2018 for released asylum seekers, only 160 received removal orders because they missed a court hearing—resulting in a 98.5 percent court hearing compliance rate. So, despite "scrapping" the Family Case Management Program, which cost ~$36 per day according to ICE, not ~16 per week, the retention numbers are just about the same, and in many cases, other monitoring methods are cheaper than the $250 per week paid to GEO Care to manage and execute the program.

                  People who really care about this know all this information already. People who don't really care have the option to start, and to learn.

                  --Sam
                  So, start. Read. And learn.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    No, you just don't know what you're talking about here.
                    Sorry, but it's YOU who is throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

                    You're using figures regarding the fatality rate among refugees (the IOM number is specifically about fatalities in transit, to boot)
                    Because you brought it up.

                    and not the mortality rate among refugees, which is significantly elevated.
                    You can't even represent a study properly

                    Source: https://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13031-016-0082-9


                    Results

                    ... Mortality in refugees however is not significantly different from baseline mortality in the host countries (median DRR: 0.94, 95 % CI: [0.73, 1.1]).

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Do you even know what that means?

                    This is where the facts show that refugees are dying from preventable disease, lack of clean water/food, lack of health care access, etc.
                    At about the same rate as the non-displaced population they reside in.

                    And many refugees cannot stay in their "host country" - either because they're not welcome (e.g., Rohingya from Myanmar in Bangladesh) or because they have chronic medical needs that cannot be served by the host country. Many can't go home, can't stay where they are, and are dependent on UNHCR to place them in a new country. And they don't get to choose where they go.
                    "Many"? How about some hard data instead of your emotional blackmail?
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      So what? You're claiming that Trump's desire to enact a Muslim ban and Republican voters' support for it was "leftist propaganda" when he very publicly said that's what he was going to do.
                      He also said he'd get Mexico to pay for the wall. Political promises are not policy. So, unless you want to discuss ACTUAL policies, and not political promises, you have nothing of value to add.

                      Then he did it in a way that was 1) ham-fisted, 2) disastrous and 3) unconstitutional and had to tweak it until Roberts would let it through.
                      "Tweak" I love your legal expertise...

                      Jan. 27, 2017: Trump issues an executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." It suspends travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocks refugees for 120 days, and suspends travel from Syria indefinitely.

                      March 6: Trump issues a revised travel ban targeting only six countries and exempting visa- and green card-holder

                      Sept. 24: Trump issues his third version of the ban following what the administration says was a deep dive into international vetting procedures. Included indefinitely: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Chad was recently dropped from the list.


                      So, the only "tweaks" were clarifying the ban didn't affect citizens and green card/visa holders, and adding Chad back to the ban. Again, no "Muslim ban" in any of the 3 iterations.

                      That pretty clearly shows motive and it's something you have to handwave away, not some sort of fake talking point on the Left.
                      chang_spits_milk.gif

                      Guiliani, we know, is a flagrant liar. But he's a flagrant liar for Trump. It would be counter-productive, in the extreme, for him to make up a lie about the President ordering him to create a blatantly unconstitutional program. And we know that's how Trump rolls.

                      --Sam
                      Whatever you say, Sammy...
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Sparko - these worlds border on blasphemy. I think you need to pull it back a bit - we will give an account of our words. There is no theological basis for equating God's general commands to care for the poor, the stranger etc and specific commands associated with the establishment of the state of Israel, commands that are at best difficult to understand in ANY context - let alone a perverse gneralization of violence against any nation NOT the US.
                        he was using SPECIFIC instructions given to a SPECIFIC people at a SPECIFIC time in a SPECIFIC culture to equate to how our secular government should treat immigrants today.

                        Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          he was using SPECIFIC instructions given to a SPECIFIC people at a SPECIFIC time in a SPECIFIC culture to equate to how our secular government should treat immigrants today.
                          Even if one could make the case that this is an essentially Christian nation (which, I believe, was the intent of the Founding Fathers), it still wouldn't justify a blanket application of Old Testament laws to modern government policy.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • We clearly have a disconnect going on if your moral and ethical standard tries to fine-tune a difference between Trump routinely calling for a Muslim ban vs. trying to implement, to the best of his ability, a travel ban he repeatedly equated to his Muslim ban.

                            I fear we have nothing at all that can be discussed further because you're simply not operating within the realm of reality, let alone seriousness.

                            I'll wrap up my interest in this thread by saying again that we need to remember the stranger, the alien, the refugee. Christ has dark words for those who neglect them -- individuals and nations alike.


                            --Sam



                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            He also said he'd get Mexico to pay for the wall. Political promises are not policy. So, unless you want to discuss ACTUAL policies, and not political promises, you have nothing of value to add.



                            "Tweak" I love your legal expertise...

                            Jan. 27, 2017: Trump issues an executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." It suspends travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocks refugees for 120 days, and suspends travel from Syria indefinitely.

                            March 6: Trump issues a revised travel ban targeting only six countries and exempting visa- and green card-holder

                            Sept. 24: Trump issues his third version of the ban following what the administration says was a deep dive into international vetting procedures. Included indefinitely: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Chad was recently dropped from the list.


                            So, the only "tweaks" were clarifying the ban didn't affect citizens and green card/visa holders, and adding Chad back to the ban. Again, no "Muslim ban" in any of the 3 iterations.



                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]39641[/ATTACH]



                            Whatever you say, Sammy...
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              That doesn't strike me as tenable, for the reasons mentioned earlier. If the right to privacy does indeed extend to abortion (in some circumstances), then it's a constitutional right and state legislatures aren't able to override the Constitution.
                              But it doesn't--or at least shouldn't--extend to abortion. If it extends to abortion, then it should logically extend to the usage of drugs, and thus heroin/crack/cocaine/etc. cannot be made illegal. While there are certainly arguments that their being illegal actually causes more harm than good, it is hardly unconstitutional to disallow their use. Some limited degree of "right to privacy" is given by the Constitution, but nothing grants or even implies the degree of "right to privacy" that is required to support Roe v. Wade... not in the Constitution, nor even in Supreme Court precedent. For that matter, outside of of course the cases specifically involving abortion, I do not believe there is any case after Roe v. Wade that relies on this voluminous right of privacy either (compared to the significantly more limited ones asserted before).

                              As the strongly pro-choice John Hart Ely pointed out all the way back in the 1970's, "privacy" (under the umbrella of "liberty") applies here no less than all kinds of other situations. Virtually all government laws cause some deprivation of liberty, which is exactly why the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments didn't say the government couldn't deprive someone of liberty (in contrast to the First Amendment, which has no such qualification), but that they could not without due process:

                              "Of course a woman's freedom to choose an abortion is part of the "liberty" the Fourteenth Amendment says shall not be denied without due process of law, as indeed is anyone's freedom to do what he wants. But "due process" generally guarantees only that the inhibition be procedurally fair and that it have some "rational" connection-though plausible is probably a better word -with a permissible governmental goal. What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure."

                              As for whether or not the fetus counts as a person under the Constitution, even if it does not, it does not really matter. Once again quoting John Hart Ely:

                              "But in any event, the argument that fetuses lack constitutional rights is simply irrelevant. For it has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense" nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest."

                              Beyond that, there is another major problem with Roe v. Wade that, while frequently articulated back then, often goes unmentioned now. Perhaps it's because it is somewhat moot in the current debate, but it bears mentioning as another example of how bad the decision was. Much like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford and the much-less-notorious-but-nevertheless-controversial Citizens United v. FEC, there was simply no need to make such a sweeping decision, as the case could have been resolved under more narrow grounds. Actually, in all three cases, the Supreme Court originally apparently was going to strike it down on more narrow grounds, but for one reason or another decided to go big or go home. In this case, striking down the law as vague (the original plan) would have provided resolution in the case, would not have required striking down laws in essentially every state, and wouldn't have required the level of legislating from the bench the decision involved in setting extremely specific rules as to what legislatures could or could not do. (I dislike the term "legislating from the bench" and feel it is overused, but it absolutely applies in Roe v. Wade)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                he was using SPECIFIC instructions given to a SPECIFIC people at a SPECIFIC time in a SPECIFIC culture to equate to how our secular government should treat immigrants today.
                                The verse in deuteronomy in the OP has broad, general application. It's opening sentiment is echoed and amplified by other sections of the OT, and by jesus in the new. Further, the verse begins with a command to circumcise the heart (not be like the world) and not to be stiff necked or harden ones heart (an appeal to compassion and mercy) followed by a GENERAL discussion of God's attitude towards the poor and destitute (which is therefore eternal and unchanging ) and from which then is DERIVED the specific appkication for that time and place.

                                So the first part applies to ALL who would reject, abuse, or otherwise cut oft the poor and the destitute.period. for all time. For all peoples.

                                Indeed, Gods judgement on a nation, any nation, is often presented as being based on its rejection of His principles and statutes. So, if our government takes on an attitude so abhorent to God as regards the poor and the destitute, then we can expect God's judgement on us eventually.

                                Indeed, this has often been the warning from conservatives wrt same sex marriage for quite some time. But the reality is God's abhorrence of the abuse of the poor is the subject of many parables of God's judgement from Jesus - far more so than any sexual sin - And I would think that aoone would cause us to reject Trumps thinking on these issues.

                                Indeed, he's already pushing back on homeless and destitute bahamians seeking refuge in the US. The man is begging for God's judgement on our nation.


                                Jim
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X