MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 month ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Castro take Biden to task for Obama's deportations
By ocean-kat on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 4:28pm |Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio put the pressure on Joe Biden on Wednesday for massive early deportation numbers during the Obama administration — accusing the former vice president of trying to diminish his role. According to FiveThirtyEight: "During the first few years of his presidency, [President] Obama earned the nickname 'deporter in chief' due to the high numbers of undocumented immigrants deported during his first term. This marked a sharp contrast with the comprehensive immigration reform he had promised on the campaign trail."
URL:
https://www.axios.com/castro-and-de-blasio-take-biden-to-task-for-obamas-deportations-599ba3a7-cbe3-4ff6-97f2-90fc24c14cfa.html
- Add new comment
- 5132 reads
Comments
I post this article because it illustrates how democrats can't seem to have honest discussions of issues. This story was well documented at the time with mostly agreement about what happened and why. The republicans would not pass any compromise comprehensive immigration reform. They claimed that democrats were for open borders and could not be trusted to enforce the law. Obama took them seriously and thought that if he could prove democrats would enforce border control laws the republicans would compromise and pass comprehensive immigration reform. So he began deporting record numbers of immigrants. In the end he discovered that no matter what he did the republicans refused to consider a immigration reform bill.
That's a factual summary. What follows in opinion. Republican politicians knew that democrats were not in favor of open borders. The claim was just a talking point. Obama foolishly believed it or thought he could score political points with conservatives by massive deportations to force through a compromise. Republicans continued to spread their false meme because it was politically effective.
Debates among politicians are only good to see who is good at debating. Issues aren't seriously discussed in debates. It's mostly just spin and jockeying for political advantage.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 4:56pm
The complete record on Obama immigration policy:
1.. Deported 5 millions less than GWB , 7 million less than Clinton.
2. Deported recent border crossers, "otherwise you have an open border." (not longer term ones with jobs, families like Trump).
3. Deported serious criminals, not petty violatiors (like Trump)
4.Ended business raid deportation round ups. Did not deport long term established undocumented immigrants .
5. Instituted DACA to protect those brought as children, after the Republicans refused compromise on new immigration legislation.
- ------------ ----------------------::----
"As detailed below, the Obama-era policies represented the culmination of a gradual but consistent effort to narrow its enforcement focus to two key groups: The deportation of criminals and recent unauthorized border crossers.
The most recent enforcement figures released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 30 offer the latest evidence of these trends. Eighty-five percent of all removals and returns during fiscal year (FY) 2016 were of noncitizens who had recently crossed the U.S. border unlawfully. Of the remainder, who were removed from the U.S. interior, more than 90 percent had been convicted of what DHS defines as serious crimes.". https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
---------------------- --------------------------
According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, more than 12 million people were "deported" -- either removed or returned -- from the US during the Clinton administration. More than 10 million were removed or returned during the Bush administration. Far fewer -- more than 5 million -- were removed or returned during the Obama administration. CNN
- Opinion - An open border Democrat will not likely win the Trump swing states, no matter what 'free stuff' they promise..
by NCD on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 5:16pm
The numbers of deportations depend on how one defines deportation. You're using the broadest definition, one that almost no other article on the subject uses.
I agree that an open border democrat cannot win. Please list the presidential candidates that you consider an open border democrat.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 5:56pm
My numbers are from what Wikipedia describes as a liberal advocate for immigration if you hother to check it out. Funded by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
What are your numbers, and where do you get them?
Mother Jones, link, on Warren and Castro and their open border positions. Mother Jones is a well known liberal leaning magazine.
by NCD on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:12pm
The most common number used in numerous articles on deportations during the Obama years is 2.5 million. There are a few reasons why the number you cited is several times larger. Most pundits writing on this issue only count deportations as a result of criminal proceedings, not those apprehended at the border and simply returned.
The only thing valuable in Drum's article is the link to Warren's page detailing her position on immigration. While some of her positions will be distorted and used to claim she is for open borders it's simply not true. Did you actually read her page or just the article that is so short is could barely be called a summary? Read Warren's position in her own words and then try to explain why you think she is for open borders. I'm willing to debate it with you if you do.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 9:00pm
Yeah I actually read it and Drum at Mother Jones accurately describes it:
"No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.
I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings; if border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job."
by NCD on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 10:16pm
Decriminalization has nothing to do with border control. It's a good right wing talking point because most people are ignorant of the law and have no idea that there are civil and criminal infractions and civil and criminal courts. People erroneously believe that decriminalization means border crossing becomes legal. Before GWB illegal immigration was a civil infraction. That it was not a criminal offense didn't inhibit Clinton and previous presidents from returning and deporting millions of illegal immigrants. Returning to prosecuting illegal immigration as a civil infraction would not stop Warren from stopping people at the border and returning or deporting them as was done in Clinton's presidency. Drum is spreading this republican lie because it's such an effective lie to tell ignorant people. Are you one of the ignorant or are you knowingly spreading the lie?
Separating local law enforcement from ICE also has nothing to do with border control. This concerns illegal immigrants in interior cities most that have been here for more than a decade. To effectively police these cities law enforcement needs the cooperation of local citizens. If illegal immigrants and even citizens with friends who are illegal that are afraid of deportation they won't cooperate with police. Sanctuary cities is a stop gap solution to deal with the problem of 11 million illegal immigrants who have lived and made lives in America for more than a decade. Many have integrated into the community and have spouses and children who are American citizens. But sanctuary cities doesn't affect how one deals with the border. It doesn't stop ICE from arresting and returning illegal immigrants captured near the border.
Using a parole system instead of incarceration doesn't stop illegal immigrants from losing their court cases and being deported. All articles I've seen claim that the vast majority of illegal immigrants on parole show up for their court dates. Warren is not proposing to stop arrests at the border nor is she proposing to end legal prosecutions. She's simply planning to use parole instead of incarceration for those waiting for their court date. That's not open borders. None of this is open borders. It's a fucking lie to claim it is. And frankly NCD I think you're too smart not to know this.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:57pm
Could you use quotes from Warrens policy to make points, instead of your own beliefs.
. She mentions nothing on deportation except for "serious criminal activity" or "security concerns", calling it a "fair and welcoming immigration system." Drum points out she doesn't even mention e-verify, so it would be open season on hiring any immigrant, legal, illegal. This would go over like a lead balloon in swing states.
What I believe as to policy details is irrelevant, I do however think Obama did the best he could do as long as the Republicans block reform.
by NCD on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 1:10am
I feel I've made a good and comprehensive argument that is a fair description of Warren's policy as outlined on her web page. It deserves a response as comprehensive. But if you want to play games to avoid making that response. Could you use quotes from Warren's policy to make points, instead of Drum's beliefs.
It's true that Warren doesn't mention e-verify and I have no idea what her position on that issue is. But Drum and you are either lying or ignorant when you claim that " it would be open season on hiring any immigrant, legal, illegal." There are federal mandates that federal contractors use it. Those mandates would have to be changed and there is no evidence Warren wants to end them. Even if we assume without evidence she would attempt to end the federal mandates many states require all businesses in the state use e-verify. These laws have passed constitutional muster and would continue irregardless of Warren's position on e-verify.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 2:16am
Warren says she only deport 'serious criminals'.
The border and the country would be open to others.
It's not 'lying or ignorant" for Democrats to think about how a "immigrant welcoming" border policy (and other Dem proposals) will go over in Ohio, Pennsylvania etc. Democrats need ideas, but ones that will win the swing states, not give Trump a landslide.
by NCD on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 11:00am
Here's a June Zogby poll on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The seven states polled were: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin that gives some clues on this front. On the other hand, I can't believe the more well-funded candidates like Warren haven't similarly polled on this for themselves. But I think it's the messaging on this, rather than actual facts and policy proposals, that is a major swing voter factor (Going back to the late 19th century, too, in this country of immigrants you always have significant groups that want to pull up the drawbridge now. Is no different with other enlightenment era "new world" countries like Canada and Australia....)
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 1:41pm
Since Zogby was polling on the Trump immigration plan, and since swing state voters overwhelmingly supported it, one take is Democrats should not run on immigration plans.
If you read Martin Longman at link I posted, even with a Democratic trifecta (prez, senate, house), it's highly unlikely anything much 'progressive' can get done.
Longman is a savvy guy, far more than the corporate punditry on tv.
by NCD on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 2:31pm
It's not lying or ignorant to think about these issues. I've never claimed it was. Drum lists several reasons why he believes Warren endorses open borders. You seem to be endorsing his views. I've challenged 4 of them as false. I've made a detailed argument why I think they are false. You've had several opportunities to argue your point of view against mine. You've declined, most likely because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
How exactly is decriminalization open borders? How exactly does parole instead of incarceration for those awaiting trial mean open borders? How exactly does support for sanctuary cities signal open borders? Why does lack of a mention of e-verify on Warren's web page mean that it would be open season for hiring any immigrant legal or illegal?
I thought you were better than this. I thought at least you would make rational arguments to support your views. But you're just another dumb ass dick. I get fucking nothing from you. No discussion, no pointed critique, no rational response.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 3:10pm
all I see going on is that you have totally separate interests on topic. He's doing cynical political analysis of candidate behavior including positions for public consumption, and you're looking for someone to honestly discuss policy wonkery with. (Mho, you need Bill Clinton as a moderator!
)
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 3:23pm
I don't think so. NCD seems to be making the claim that Warren endorses open borders. Drum explicitly makes that claim and NCD seems to endorse his arguments. He's not just claiming voters will perceive her position as open borders. He's not just saying these republican lies about Warren's policy will be believed by the public and be politically effective. He, and Drum, are claiming these lies are are an accurate analysis of Warren's policy. I don't often get into discussions about the political viability of a policy position and if that was all he claimed I'd likely not join in.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 4:29pm
The question is really what to do with those facts against this, which Trump tweeted during the debate:
Like Joy Reid said, the presidential election, it's all about whether the voters trust the guy or gal is looking after their interests. Most voters in national elections just don't have time for delving into the facts on execution, they go with the loud promises.
Trump traffics in symbolism and rhetoric that he's protecting certain interests. Not in facts nor in execution of promises.
The ones that still trust him don't check the facts, and don't believe the fact checkers. They believe he thinks like them because of the culture war speak he talks. Therefore they think he's the best chance of them getting their druthers executed than any of "the swamp" who spouted so many facts and nothing appeared to happen for them.
But many of the ones that don't are going to do the same thing with the guy or gal they chose to vote for. Not check facts and execution.
I suspect Trump never intended to do a lot of deportations. (Heck, he himself has got enough illegals working at Mar a Lago and the New Jersey place.) He wanted a wall and he wanted a Muslim ban, symbols, deterrent effect. All the talk of bad hombres and dangerous criminals: keep em out with a wall, not that much about hunting them down and deportations. He wanted his rhetoric for both a supposed deterrent effect and to please the fans. He wanted a wall to symbolize: don't come, we're full. He was happy with nasty detention centers and separation because he thought it would have deterrent effect. But once he saw many Americans reacted, and once he himself learned it was a lot of families coming on the "convoy" he tried to flip that and deny that it was intentional policy. And ya know what? I do believe he didn't follow what everyone under him was doing that much. In fact, he purposely doesn't get involved in particular execution of things, he just waits and sees what the minions do, in their attempt to try to read his mind about what he might want. Then he sees what everyone on Fox is saying about it (incluing their reports on what online people are saying about it) and then he either claims it as his own or denies it if it turns sour with people he'd like to have as fans.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 6:22pm
More and more I just think the smartest thing to do is to attack Trump on his plans and execution, that they are nonsense and outright lies, bullshit pandering, all hat,no cattle, doesn't know a single thing about how to regulate immigration and could in reality care less about it in reality. Just a bunch of embarassing stuff that has embarassed us as not being able to do things properly. This piece for example, is excellent, this is the kind of thing that should be made viral:
Trump: E-Verify Would Make It Too Hard to Hire Undocumented Workers
By Eric Levitz @ NYMag.com, May 19
Stuff just has to come from a source that doesn't have "NY" in its url. The damning statements were on Fox News.
It should be easy to make up ads that have him saying tons of contradictory stuff on immigration.
Am thinking that presidential candidates should be selling not a policy prescription but instead explaining how they will force Congress to sit down and come up with new law.
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 4:41pm