Biden 2024 State of Union Speech

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2024, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, it's been about a decade now since the AP Stylebook has dropped the usage of the term "illegal immigrant," saying that actions are illegal, not people. In general, I think that is a good approach to it. There is also the nuance of the complications of the immigration system and statuses of individual immigrants that often makes the term inaccurate. For instance, in the case of this individual he may have entered the country illegally, but my understanding is that he was going through the asylum process which means he was not in the country illegally. In fact, his release was within the letter of the law. This nuance is lost in the propaganda that is pushed by some segments, though.

It's their status in the US. 
If you are an immigrant, you are either here Legally or Illegally.

No gray area.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2024, 11:12 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's their status in the US. 
If you are an immigrant, you are either here Legally or Illegally.

No gray area.

I would put more stock in this line of thinking if there wasn't consistent use of the term to inaccurately describe asylum seekers who are not in the country illegally.

There is nuance in everything. Only Sith deal in absolutes.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2024, 10:20 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  No doubt her murder is being used as a political bludgeon. 

 How much does Joe care about her?

 Just enough to go on MSNBC & apologize for calling the murderer an illegal immigrant.

 That's how much. 

 

Are you ok knowing that the gop doesn't really care either, they are just using her murder as a political tool, as long as you can say Biden doesn't care?


Because that's another problem with politics and discourse today.

[CJD]

(03-11-2024, 11:12 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's their status in the US. 
If you are an immigrant, you are either here Legally or Illegally.

No gray area.

The problem is those terms have connotations that do not always reflect the person's situation.

For instance, my wife was born in a small country in southern Africa.

Her parents came to America legally when she was 11 months old. They originally came on a student visa for her father, and then applied for a student visa for her mother after she was here. For the first 7 or 8 years they were here, they were planning on coming back to their native country once they were done with their degrees.

Then, my wife, still in elementary school, was diagnosed with a heart defect. That's when they moved to Cincinnati so she could go to Cincinnati Children's Hospital. She had 2 major surgeries and had semi-annual follow up meetings with the doctor for what ended up being about 20 years to make sure nothing went wrong.

During her recovery, her parents realized that their native country did not have the means to monitor and treat this heart defect, so they applied for permanent residency. They had a daughter in America in this time, so they applied since she was a US citizen. At the time, my wife was about 10.

The parents eventually got their green cards when my wife was 23 years old. They were "processing" the request for 13 years. During those 13 years, their student visa had expired.

Since my wife was 23 years old when the green cards were approved, she was denied permanent residency because she was no longer under her parents' care (18 years old or younger). She was ordered to be deported back to her native country. A place she had never lived in her conscious life.

She was, by all accounts, an "illegal immigrant." But, if the courts could have processed their green cards within 8 years rather than 13 years, she would have been considered a minor in her parents' care and would have also received a green card.

Her case was appealed and eventually the courts settled on "administratively closing" her case. We got married a year later, and she got her green card 2 years after that, after a frustrating period of lawyers and courts doing stupid stuff to hold up the process.

So, from about 15 years old to 25 years old, my wife was an "illegal immigrant" in America, but she was 100% in the system and under processing. She was even allowed to work since she had a work authorization during this processing period.

Her situation was nothing like that of someone who comes into the country and applies for asylum or jumping a wall without going through immigration. 

But that's all that comes to mind when you use those two words.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2024, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would put more stock in this line of thinking if there wasn't consistent use of the term to inaccurately describe asylum seekers who are not in the country illegally.

There is nuance in everything. Only Sith deal in absolutes.

Agreed, words have meanings and should be used when appropriate, not when expedient.

(03-11-2024, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Are you ok knowing that the gop doesn't really care either, they are just using her murder as a political tool, as long as you can say Biden doesn't care?


Because that's another problem with politics and discourse today.

Problem with that is the GOP actually does care about street level crime, it is the Dems who have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, that they care more about criminals than the rest of the population.  The GOP has its warts, sometimes massive ones, this is not one of those cases.  This is a purely a boil on the Democratic party, maybe even a carbuncle. 

[Dill]

(03-11-2024, 09:04 AM)pally Wrote: and just imagine, the Oscars are apparently as rigged as the Emmys are

Well I have to say that is no surprise.

The Academy is mostly Hollywood elites and does not require voter IDs for its 8,000 members. 

It also allows mail-in voting. Plus they hire undocumenteds workers for their mail room.

Biden is taking our country to some dark places.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed, words have meanings and should be used when appropriate, not when expedient.


Problem with that is the GOP actually does care about street level crime, it is the Dems who have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, that they care more about criminals than the rest of the population.  The GOP has its warts, sometimes massive ones, this is not one of those cases.  This is a purely a boil on the Democratic party, maybe even a carbuncle. 

Specifically the gop cares about this case just because an immigrant is alleged to be her killed.

They don't show a lot of "caring" for anything else.  Well, other than thoughts and prayers.

[*pally*]

(03-11-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed, words have meanings and should be used when appropriate, not when expedient.


Problem with that is the GOP actually does care about street level crime, it is the Dems who have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, that they care more about criminals than the rest of the population.  The GOP has its warts, sometimes massive ones, this is not one of those cases.  This is a purely a boil on the Democratic party, maybe even a carbuncle. 

The Democrats understand that solving crime requires more than just putting people in jail forever.  Just like we understand that until you solve the reasons for someone having an abortion it will never be legislated out of existence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2024, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Specifically the gop cares about this case just because an immigrant is alleged to be her killed.

Most definitely.

Quote:They don't show a lot of "caring" for anything else.  Well, other than thoughts and prayers.

Incorrect.  They show a lot of caring for victims of crime when they properly prosecute and incarcerate their victimizers.

(03-11-2024, 12:50 PM)pally Wrote: The Democrats understand that solving crime requires more than just putting people in jail forever.  Just like we understand that until you solve the reasons for someone having an abortion it will never be legislated out of existence.

Incorrect.  The Dems hung their hat on the "judicial system is inherently racist and patriarchal".  As a result "progressive" DA's, or equivalents, routinely undercharge criminal activity and often refuse to add enhancements on crimes, such as using a firearm (all while complaining about needing more strict gun laws).  This enables recidivists, you know the small percentage of criminals who commit the majority of the crime, to continue victimizing people.

You are correct that incarceration alone cannot solve this issue, but it absolutely must be part of the solution.  When you have a gang related murderer receive a disposition of home on probation, for murder, you have a broken system run by broken people who do not care about victims.  I know you can't criticize anything about the Democratic party, but this is as low hanging a fruit as can exist.  The Dems are 100% wrong on this issue, and consequences have been deadly.  There are literally tens of thousands of victims of crime that would not have been victimized if the Dems hadn't allowed this rot to permeate their party.  Having had to deal with the consequences, and speak to the myriad victims for the past four years I will never forgive them until they thoroughly repudiate that stance and excise all of its adherents from their party.

[masonbengals fan]

(03-11-2024, 12:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The problem is those terms have connotations that do not always reflect the person's situation.

For instance, my wife was born in a small country in southern Africa.

Her parents came to America legally when she was 11 months old. They originally came on a student visa for her father, and then applied for a student visa for her mother after she was here. For the first 7 or 8 years they were here, they were planning on coming back to their native country once they were done with their degrees.

Then, my wife, still in elementary school, was diagnosed with a heart defect. That's when they moved to Cincinnati so she could go to Cincinnati Children's Hospital. She had 2 major surgeries and had semi-annual follow up meetings with the doctor for what ended up being about 20 years to make sure nothing went wrong.

During her recovery, her parents realized that their native country did not have the means to monitor and treat this heart defect, so they applied for permanent residency. They had a daughter in America in this time, so they applied since she was a US citizen. At the time, my wife was about 10.

The parents eventually got their green cards when my wife was 23 years old. They were "processing" the request for 13 years. During those 13 years, their student visa had expired.

Since my wife was 23 years old when the green cards were approved, she was denied permanent residency because she was no longer under her parents' care (18 years old or younger). She was ordered to be deported back to her native country. A place she had never lived in her conscious life.

She was, by all accounts, an "illegal immigrant." But, if the courts could have processed their green cards within 8 years rather than 13 years, she would have been considered a minor in her parents' care and would have also received a green card.

Her case was appealed and eventually the courts settled on "administratively closing" her case. We got married a year later, and she got her green card 2 years after that, after a frustrating period of lawyers and courts doing stupid stuff to hold up the process.

So, from about 15 years old to 25 years old, my wife was an "illegal immigrant" in America, but she was 100% in the system and under processing. She was even allowed to work since she had a work authorization during this processing period.

Her situation was nothing like that of someone who comes into the country and applies for asylum or jumping a wall without going through immigration. 

But that's all that comes to mind when you use those two words.

Shouldn't have taken 8 years let alone 13.

Far different situation than the killer from Georgia.

To me your in-laws are the success story it's supposed to be.

[CJD]

(03-11-2024, 02:08 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Shouldn't have taken 8 years let alone 13.

Far different situation than the killer from Georgia.

To me your in-laws are the success story it's supposed to be.

That's our immigration system. It's broken. Which is why I am not a fan of the term "illegal immigrants."

[GMDino]

(03-11-2024, 02:08 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Shouldn't have taken 8 years let alone 13.

Far different situation than the killer from Georgia.

To me your in-laws are the success story it's supposed to be.

Well, that will involve investing in more people to process the paperwork.

And no one seems to have the desire to spend more money unless it's on a wall, razor wire, prisons, etc.

[masonbengals fan]

We all agree it's broken.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2024, 02:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, that will involve investing in more people to process the paperwork.

And no one seems to have the desire to spend more money unless it's on a wall, razor wire, prisons, etc.

Well, some people do. But then a certain former POTUS speaks out against it and then it becomes a political non-starter.

[*pally*]

I've said all along...until we fix the legal immigration system we will never solve the problem of undocumented immigration. Crazydawg's story is not unique.

[*Nately120*]

(03-11-2024, 02:16 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: We all agree it's broken.

And we allow politicians and pundits to benefit from it being broken and then wonder why they don't go out of their way to fix it and kill their goose that is laying the golden egg.  Well, maybe we won't wonder that much longer, who knows.

If an illegal killing Laken Reiley helps get Trump re-elected I know that he and a lot of people will be glad it happened.  Life is cheap and the ends justify the means, and stuff like this goes for all manner of people and political sides and so on and so forth.  This is a fortunate break, sure we will call it a tragedy but let's face facts, stuff like this can be used to benefit people and they'll do so.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2024, 12:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The problem is those terms have connotations that do not always reflect the person's situation.

For instance, my wife was born in a small country in southern Africa.

Her parents came to America legally when she was 11 months old. They originally came on a student visa for her father, and then applied for a student visa for her mother after she was here. For the first 7 or 8 years they were here, they were planning on coming back to their native country once they were done with their degrees.

Then, my wife, still in elementary school, was diagnosed with a heart defect. That's when they moved to Cincinnati so she could go to Cincinnati Children's Hospital. She had 2 major surgeries and had semi-annual follow up meetings with the doctor for what ended up being about 20 years to make sure nothing went wrong.

During her recovery, her parents realized that their native country did not have the means to monitor and treat this heart defect, so they applied for permanent residency. They had a daughter in America in this time, so they applied since she was a US citizen. At the time, my wife was about 10.

The parents eventually got their green cards when my wife was 23 years old. They were "processing" the request for 13 years. During those 13 years, their student visa had expired.

Since my wife was 23 years old when the green cards were approved, she was denied permanent residency because she was no longer under her parents' care (18 years old or younger). She was ordered to be deported back to her native country. A place she had never lived in her conscious life.

She was, by all accounts, an "illegal immigrant." But, if the courts could have processed their green cards within 8 years rather than 13 years, she would have been considered a minor in her parents' care and would have also received a green card.

Her case was appealed and eventually the courts settled on "administratively closing" her case. We got married a year later, and she got her green card 2 years after that, after a frustrating period of lawyers and courts doing stupid stuff to hold up the process.

So, from about 15 years old to 25 years old, my wife was an "illegal immigrant" in America, but she was 100% in the system and under processing. She was even allowed to work since she had a work authorization during this processing period.

Her situation was nothing like that of someone who comes into the country and applies for asylum or jumping a wall without going through immigration. 

But that's all that comes to mind when you use those two words.

Sorry to hear all of that, but I think her lawyer or whoever advised them in the first place was incorrect. She would have needed a Medical VISA, B-2.

Why did it take so long to process her VISA? 
Because of line Jumpers down South clogging up the system??? 
There needs to be a faster way to stream-line the process. But..Biden's Bill that he wants passed, would give the authority to the USCIS to decide if someone is applicable for Asylum. 
With that approach, ACLU will sue to block it saying that Immigrants aren't getting their Legal due process, and USCIS would likely reject 90% of those Asylum Apps.


So even thought the Immigrant bill sounds good, there is tons of dumb things in it that just doesn't do enough to actually solve anything other than to create more headaches at a failed policty.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2024, 03:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry to hear all of that, but I think her lawyer or whoever advised them in the first place was incorrect. She would have needed a Medical VISA, B-2.

Why did it take so long to process her VISA? 
Because of line Jumpers down South clogging up the system??? 
There needs to be a faster way to stream-line the process. But..Biden's Bill that he wants passed, would give the authority to the USCIS to decide if someone is applicable for Asylum. 
With that approach, ACLU will sue to block it saying that Immigrants aren't getting their Legal due process, and USCIS would likely reject 90% of those Asylum Apps.


So even thought the Immigrant bill sounds good, there is tons of dumb things in it that just doesn't do enough to actually solve anything other than to create more headaches at a failed policty.

But it did also allocate funds to increase resources for processing those in the asylum pipeline. And let's be clear, the bill Biden is pushing isn't "Biden's Bill" but rather a compromise put together that give far more to the GOP than it does to satisfy those in the Democratic party.

[CJD]

(03-11-2024, 03:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sorry to hear all of that, but I think her lawyer or whoever advised them in the first place was incorrect. She would have needed a Medical VISA, B-2.

Why did it take so long to process her VISA? 
Because of line Jumpers down South clogging up the system??? 
There needs to be a faster way to stream-line the process. But..Biden's Bill that he wants passed, would give the authority to the USCIS to decide if someone is applicable for Asylum. 
With that approach, ACLU will sue to block it saying that Immigrants aren't getting their Legal due process, and USCIS would likely reject 90% of those Asylum Apps.


So even thought the Immigrant bill sounds good, there is tons of dumb things in it that just doesn't do enough to actually solve anything other than to create more headaches at a failed policty.

I wasn't around at the time and my wife doesn't know the fine details, but the idea was that they'd get their green cards relatively quickly because of a citizen daughter, so there was no risk of her "aging out" of their care.

This was all occurring in the late 90s/Early 2000s, so I don't think the southern border played a factor in the clogging of the system.

I just think the US government is unwilling to properly invest in the system to make sure it's running smoothly. My suspicion is because they do not prioritize immigration and the quality of life of immigrants. Make them wait 13 years, paying 1000 dollars for a work authorization every year until we get around to their case. Just means more money for the government.

That was the thing that I found to be most interesting about the border deal. Hiring more people to get cases through the system faster would be a net benefit to the entire system. I think the reason there are so many people showing up at the border right now is they know that they can apply for asylum, then they'll be released into the country while they await their trial, in which time they are eligible to apply for work authorization after a 150 day waiting period. Then, they can just work for 4 to 6 years while they wait for their trial. Maybe they have children in that time and then apply to stay permanently via their US citizen children.

I think staffing up the court system so that that 6 years becomes 6 months or, better yet, 6 weeks, would not only eliminate the backlog, but it would also slow the inflow of immigrants at the southern border, because a certain percentage of them would not be willing to make the journey if they could be deported back to their country after just 6 weeks.

An underfunded, overworked, understaffed system will always fail. The only way to make it not fail is to fund it properly. Breaking the system entirely is not a solution, it's just a way to stop thinking about the problem. I understand why that's an attractive option for many people, but I believe in solving problems, not sweeping them under the rug.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2024, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But it did also allocate funds to increase resources for processing those in the asylum pipeline. And let's be clear, the bill Biden is pushing isn't "Biden's Bill" but rather a compromise put together that give far more to the GOP than it does to satisfy those in the Democratic party.

Do you see that listed? It's not there. they are counting giving the authority to the USCIS to speed it up. 

• Funding. The bill allocates an initial $8.3 billion to a “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust” fund. Out of that total, the bill makes the following allocations:
  
  • $3 billion for implementation during the first five years of the Border Security Results Strategy.
  • $2 billion over 10 years available to the DHS secretary in order to carry out recommendations made by the Southern Border Security Commission.
  • $1 billion must be used for fencing, infrastructure, personnel, and technology at ports of entry, with the option to spend an additional $500 million.
  • $750 million to expand and implement a mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification system, or “EEVS” (the federal government’s current, mostly optional EEVS is E-Verify).
  • $900 million for one-time start-up costs of implementing the bill.
  • $150 million available to be transferred to the secretaries of labor or agriculture or to the attorney general for costs associated with implementing the bill’s provisions.