Biden's Paying Illegal Immigrant Families......

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 02:49 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I feel like this forum is closer to Smack Talk than Jungle Noise. You come in here more to dunk on the other side when you perceive something bad for their reputation has occurred and not so much to come up with the right path forward.

If people here are actually looking for discussion or debate, I haven't really seen it that much. Most people do not have intentions to debate their strongly held beliefs. If anything, they hope to convert others.

I do think there are certain things that are factually driven, but even those can be hard fought battles in this forum. It can be tiring sometimes. I don't know why I still come here haha.

I wish I could disagree with you.  I can recall several instances of my being exposed to new information or positions on this board.  Bel has talked me off the ledge regarding the difference between a CA Democrat and a VA one, although I don't think the gap is as large as it once was.  The trend now is to ignore what you can't refute or dunk on people who have an odd or less than factual take.  I'm not a fan of a large percentage of Brad's positions, but his threads seem to be the only ones that attract attention, and that largely just to "dunk on him".  Oh well, I suppose you can only do what you can do.

[CJD]

(11-02-2021, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish I could disagree with you.  I can recall several instances of my being exposed to new information or positions on this board.  Bel has talked me off the ledge regarding the difference between a CA Democrat and a VA one, although I don't think the gap is as large as it once was.  The trend now is to ignore what you can't refute or dunk on people who have an odd or less than factual take.  I'm not a fan of a large percentage of Brad's positions, but his threads seem to be the only ones that attract attention, and that largely just to "dunk on him".  Oh well, I suppose you can only do what you can do.

Admittedly, I do often check into and comment on Brad's threads more than others. When I see a new thread from Brad, my first thought it usually "Okay, let's see what crazy thing Brad is overreacting to today." It's hard to ignore such low hanging fruit. Very easy dunking material, if you will.

The truth is a lot of politics are frustrating, sad or depressing. The Rittenhouse trial, for example (literally, just an example. Don't want to derail the conversation), is one that I don't heavily comment on because, while I don't think those people deserved to be killed, especially since they appear to have been unarmed (at least initially) and I think bringing a gun to a place that you know will be volatile with emotions running high is literally asking for trouble, I also understand that Kyle is a young man and, whether or not he should have brought the gun, he did (and having that gun was arguably legal, depending on the whole state lines discussion...). And, in that moment when he was being chased (prior to the first shot), he was probably panicking and fearing what would happen to him if the guy (who was crazy enough to chase after a guy with a ***** gun strapped to his chest) was able to take his gun away from him. He probably considered it a life or death situation, which it likely was. So was he justified in that moment in killing that guy (and the subsequent people who later attacked him after he killed the first guy)? I would say a hard...probably? But I also think he shouldn't have been there and definitely shouldn't have brought a gun in the first place. So what's the correct outcome to this trial?

It's that moral gray area that makes it more frustrating to talk about than enlightening because, obviously, nothing we say in this forum will have any impact on the outcome of that trial anyway. Whether he is found guilty or not will depend largely on who happens to be sitting in the jury. 

So....yea. When my options are depressing moral gray areas and dunking on Brad, it's difficult to choose the former haha.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 05:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Admittedly, I do often check into and comment on Brad's threads more than others. When I see a new thread from Brad, my first thought it usually "Okay, let's see what crazy thing Brad is overreacting to today." It's hard to ignore such low hanging fruit. Very easy dunking material, if you will.

The truth is a lot of politics are frustrating, sad or depressing. The Rittenhouse trial, for example (literally, just an example. Don't want to derail the conversation), is one that I don't heavily comment on because, while I don't think those people deserved to be killed, especially since they appear to have been unarmed (at least initially) and I think bringing a gun to a place that you know will be volatile with emotions running high is literally asking for trouble, I also understand that Kyle is a young man and, whether or not he should have brought the gun, he did (and having that gun was arguably legal, depending on the whole state lines discussion...). And, in that moment when he was being chased (prior to the first shot), he was probably panicking and fearing what would happen to him if the guy (who was crazy enough to chase after a guy with a ***** gun strapped to his chest) was able to take his gun away from him. He probably considered it a life or death situation, which it likely was. So was he justified in that moment in killing that guy (and the subsequent people who later attacked him after he killed the first guy)? I would say a hard...probably? But I also think he shouldn't have been there and definitely shouldn't have brought a gun in the first place. So what's the correct outcome to this trial?

It's that moral gray area that makes it more frustrating to talk about than enlightening because, obviously, nothing we say in this forum will have any impact on the outcome of that trial anyway. Whether he is found guilty or not will depend largely on who happens to be sitting in the jury. 

So....yea. When my options are depressing moral gray areas and dunking on Brad, it's difficult to choose the former haha.

I appreciate the response and completely get your point.  I also do not want to derail the thread, so I'll simply point this out about the Rittenhouse trial.  It certainly is a moral grey area, but it absolutely is not a legal grey area.  Your own admission that Rittenhouse "probably" acted in self defense is grounds for acquittal.  Probably justified is a huge distance away from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'll end with this, I have never, in twenty years of doing this job seen a more clear cut case of self defense, based solely on the video evidence alone.  

[CJD]

(11-02-2021, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate the response and completely get your point.  I also do not want to derail the thread, so I'll simply point this out about the Rittenhouse trial.  It certainly is a moral grey area, but it absolutely is not a legal grey area.  Your own admission that Rittenhouse "probably" acted in self defense is grounds for acquittal.  Probably justified is a huge distance away from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'll end with this, I have never, in twenty years of doing this job seen a more clear cut case of self defense, based solely on the video evidence alone.  

Yea, I don't think it's a legal gray area. If we go by the book rather than a moral sense of what is "right" I think acquittal is the correct judgment. The video evidence suggests that the crazy guy chasing him was the beginning of the physical confrontation and, if it wasn't, there's no evidence of anything beforehand. That's self defense, in my opinion.

I think the left's outrage about it is more moral, as many probably believe that walking around a protest with a gun strapped to you could be some form of incitement (similar to that Missouri couple who were arrested for brandishing their guns at protesters.) If people perceive you as a threat, they will naturally act hostile towards you, which I imagine is what happened in this case. 

So, legally, I think it's pretty open and shut, but I do hope this leads to some kind of reform on what it means to brandish a weapon (I'm not counting on it though. That conversation doesn't even seem to be occurring, let alone reaching some sort of resolution). Cuz, in my opinion, it's pretty ****** up that you can bring a gun somewhere and then if people react with hostility towards you implicitly threatening their life ("If you do something I perceive as wrong, who knows, I may shoot you. You better hope I'm not a crazy person!"), you may have grounds to kill them. If Kyle left the gun at home, no one dies and Kyle isn't sitting in jail right now.

But yea, I digress etc. These kinds of conversations are depressing. The point is, telling Brad facts about who separated more families and then watching him try to avoid the factual answer with stock photos of a guy making a silly face pointing at a response that doesn't mean what he thinks it means is just....way easier and way more cathartic. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-02-2021, 09:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I love wasting my time typing out logical and coherent reasonings for something our government is doing only for the thread to continue down a rabbit hole of ****ery.

Had to censor my own damn f-bomb because that is apparently not a recognized word.

(11-02-2021, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed.  Sadly, I don't see much desire for an actual debate/discussion from those who claim to desire it either.  I took a week or so off after Hollo correctly called me out for making things personal with a certain poster on a regular basis.  I resolved to restrict myself to fact based discussion of an argument rather than expressing my personal feelings on the person posting.  Well, we saw how well that went in the Rittenhouse thread.  Not one single attempt to discuss the fact based position I advanced, not one.  No response to articles posted that clarified or refuted points made.  It really looks like this place has become an echo chamber for some and a place to swing at low hanging fruit for others.  

I’m a big fan of logic and sound reasoning. But this isn’t the court house or a final draft about to be sent off to the publisher. This is more or less an anonymous message board where we can come talk like we are in neither of those two situations. Especially when it comes to politics.

I like facts and well thought out replies and I thank you gentleman for that. I also like hearing unfiltered thoughts from people with a wide range of backgrounds.

I expect if I come on here saying some crazy bullshit to get called out and corrected as to why it is bullshit.

I think the 24/7 news cycle and media’s realization that division and hate gets clicks means more people are fed up with politics and don’t even want to read or comment on it.

[Vas Deferens]

I won’t bring up the 20k lb elephant question in the thread. It’s just frustrating to know it can’t be brought up because someone who believes they are on the same level is incapable of seeing the forest from the trees.

I certainly wish we didn’t need to pay out settlements like this, but I said as such when the bad faith actions were occurring. My conscious is clear.

[masonbengals fan]

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-contemplates-terrible-immigration-idea-opinion-1644677

I believe this to be a reasonable take.

[*Nately120*]

(11-03-2021, 12:38 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-contemplates-terrible-immigration-idea-opinion-1644677

I believe this to be a reasonable take.

Seems like a bi partisam shit sandwich to me.  Maybe Biden can settle by just pulling a Reagan and granting millions of illegals amnesty under the narrative that they are critical to bolstering an economy lazy entitled Americans refuse to participate in. 

[GMDino]

Update.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/politics/joe-biden-family-border-separation-settlements/index.html

Quote:Biden says families separated at the border under Trump won't receive $450,000
[/url]
[url=https://www.cnn.com/profiles/jason-hoffman]By Jason Hoffman, CNN

Updated 5:53 PM ET, Wed November 3, 2021

(CNN)President Joe Biden said Wednesday that families separated at the border under the Trump administration's so-called zero-tolerance policy will not receive payments of $450,000, but he did not go into detail about any possible monetary settlements for them.


Biden, following remarks about Covid-19 vaccine authorization for children ages 5 to 11, was asked if payments of that size might incentivize people to try and enter the country illegally. The President responded by calling the report "garbage."

"It's not true," he said.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced its "zero tolerance" policy, in which the Justice Department initiated criminal prosecutions of every adult illegally crossing the border, and was ended after widespread opposition. The policy resulted in the separation of thousands of families, including those with infants, some only a few months old, because children can't be kept in federal jail with their parents.

A source familiar with the matter told CNN last week that migrant families who were forcibly separated at the US-Mexico border under the policy could receive hundreds of thousands dollars in compensation as part of settlement negotiations between the Justice Department and the families' lawyers.

More than 3,000 children were separated from their families at the US-Mexico border under former President Donald Trump. It's unclear how many people would be eligible for payments.

Negotiations are ongoing and it's unknown what the final figure will be, the source familiar with the matter told CNN at the time, noting that different numbers have been discussed at various times. Financial compensation would likely vary and not all would get the maximum agreed-upon amount.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the federal government was considering payments of $450,000 per individual affected by the policy. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit in 2019 seeking damages for the toll the separations took on families, and attorneys representing families have filed separate claims.

In a statement Wednesday, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said Biden must right the wrongs of the Trump administration.

"President Biden may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department as it carefully deliberated and considered the crimes committed against thousands of families separated from their children as an intentional governmental policy," Romero said. "But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families. We respectfully remind President Biden that he called these actions 'criminal' in a debate with then-President Trump, and campaigned on remedying and rectifying the lawlessness of the Trump administration."

Outside groups and a government watchdog have found over the years that children separated from their families under the policy experienced trauma. A 2019 Health and Human Services inspector general report included accounts of facility staff detailing the inconsolable crying of children when they were separated, the kids' confusion and belief they had been abandoned by their parents.

[BmorePat87]

Settling now is the smart thing to do from a fiscal standpoint. Trump's immigration policies, driven by a known white supremacist who shouldn't have been anywhere near the West Wing, screwed us. We're going to have to pay for it. Better to pay less now than much more later.

It's absolutely stupid from a political standpoint. Just kick the can down the road until it's someone else's problem. Don't screw over the next Democrat trying to get into office by being responsible for cleaning up Trump's mistake. The American people aren't going to be rational about it. Hell, if it goes to trial it won't be anyone but Trump's fault because a judge will be ordering the payment due to Trump's decision. It'll be easier to avoid that political bullet.

[BFritz21]

So, if someone breaks into my house with their child being with them, and then they get separated because the adult is taken to an adult jail and the child is taken to a juvenile center, the police can be sued?

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2021, 09:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So, if someone breaks into my house with their child being with them, and then they get separated because the adult is taken to an adult jail and the child is taken to a juvenile center, the police can be sued?

No, and that doesn't accurately describe this scenario.

There's evidence that the decision to change the policy to zero tolerance was to force family separations as a deterrent. Infants were separated from mothers. There was no effort made to track children and parents, causing officials to still be unable to connect hundreds of children with their parents nearly 3 years later. Family arriving and legally requesting asylum were illegally detained and separated. 

The above scenario would be accurate if the person committed a crime that we normally briefly detain and then give a court date for but instead locked them up. The child would normally be taken to social services for a relative to be contacted only being placed in foster care if one couldn't be found. In your scenario they would have to be placed in a juvenile center crammed with dozens of other children of all ages, to the point that there's no room. The court would then have to have made no record of the relationship between the the parent and child. The two would likely be in different states now too. There also would be other kids there whose parents entered a police station and asked for a place to live because of domestic violence at home but were instead arrested.

If all of that occurred, they absolutely could sue the government that did that. Because that's really shitty and what is likely to happen when one of your top immigration advisors is an open white supremacist who emails journalists and tells them to write about obscure white supremacist books about poop eating immigrant (all real).

[BFritz21]

(11-05-2021, 09:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, and that doesn't accurately describe this scenario.

There's evidence that the decision to change the policy to zero tolerance was to force family separations as a deterrent. Infants were separated from mothers. There was no effort made to track children and parents, causing officials to still be unable to connect hundreds of children with their parents nearly 3 years later. Family arriving and legally requesting asylum were illegally detained and separated. 

The above scenario would be accurate if the person committed a crime that we normally briefly detain and then give a court date for but instead locked them up. The child would normally be taken to social services for a relative to be contacted only being placed in foster care if one couldn't be found. In your scenario they would have to be placed in a juvenile center crammed with dozens of other children of all ages, to the point that there's no room. The court would then have to have made no record of the relationship between the the parent and child. The two would likely be in different states now too. There also would be other kids there whose parents entered a police station and asked for a place to live because of domestic violence at home but were instead arrested.

If all of that occurred, they absolutely could sue the government that did that. Because that's really shitty and what is likely to happen when one of your top immigration advisors is an open white supremacist who emails journalists and tells them to write about obscure white supremacist books about poop eating immigrant (all real).

Ok. So what gives the immigrants, who don't pay taxes and aren't legal citizens, the right to use tax payer funds to be detained and what gives them rights in a foreign country?

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2021, 09:44 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok. So what gives the immigrants, who don't pay taxes and aren't legal citizens, the right to use tax payer funds to be detained and what gives them rights in a foreign country?

Per the philosophy behind the formation of our current form of government, being human gives them rights (our rights are natural), some of which are protected by our Constitution. Rights are protected in this country for everyone, citizen or not, to varying degrees. 

There's no federal provision that bars people who don't pay taxes from receiving benefits or services funded through taxes, but with regard to the specific scenario of being detained, I am a bit unsure of what point you're trying to make. 

Under the Trump zero tolerance policy, all people crossing the border were to be detained for an extended period of time pending an appearance before a judge and deportation. Under previous policy, when detention occurred, it was usually temporary and they were released pending their appearance before the immigration judge unless they were also a suspected violent offender. 

You could argue that we absolutely spent more tax payer money under the Trump policy than the previous policy, which is why I said I wasn't sure of what point you were attempting to make.

[BFritz21]

(11-05-2021, 09:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Per the philosophy behind the formation of our current form of government, being human gives them rights (our rights are natural), some of which are protected by our Constitution. Rights are protected in this country for everyone, citizen or not, to varying degrees. 

There's no federal provision that bars people who don't pay taxes from receiving benefits or services funded through taxes, but with regard to the specific scenario of being detained, I am a bit unsure of what point you're trying to make. 

Under the Trump zero tolerance policy, all people crossing the border were to be detained for an extended period of time pending an appearance before a judge and deportation. Under previous policy, when detention occurred, it was usually temporary and they were released pending their appearance before the immigration judge unless they were also a suspected violent offender. 

You could argue that we absolutely spent more tax payer money under the Trump policy than the previous policy, which is why I said I wasn't sure of what point you were attempting to make.

How many of those people that were released returned for their court dates? Why would they? 

We may have spent more money detaining them, but wouldn't that save money from the services that they'd use in our country and keep them from just fleeing and not coming back?

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2021, 10:03 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How many of those people that were released returned for their court dates? Why would they? 

We may have spent more money detaining them, but wouldn't that save money from the services that they'd use in our country and keep them from just fleeing and not coming back?

Based on the Justice Department, roughly 56% show up, but that number did not count people who show up but then have their cases postponed, so the number is higher for people coming to that first court date. When looking at asylum cases, the number is nearly 90%. There's a lot of benefits to being able to become a legal resident, so there's reason to go to court.

Hard to gauge the total cost of immigrants versus the value they add to our economy. Undocumented immigrants work at higher rates than Americans and a higher percent of them pay taxes than Americans do. We collect about $11b a year in taxes from them. They contribute to social security taxes but can't receive benefits. They pay higher tax rates because they can't claim tax credits for their kids. The big cost comes with education, though the children of immigrants tend to be more successful in school than the average American and a review of DACA recipients shows that they start businesses at a higher percent than all Americans. 

[BFritz21]

(11-05-2021, 10:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Based on the Justice Department, roughly 56% show up, but that number did not count people who show up but then have their cases postponed, so the number is higher for people coming to that first court date. When looking at asylum cases, the number is nearly 90%. There's a lot of benefits to being able to become a legal resident, so there's reason to go to court.

Hard to gauge the total cost of immigrants versus the value they add to our economy. Undocumented immigrants work at higher rates than Americans and a higher percent of them pay taxes than Americans do. We collect about $11b a year in taxes from them. They contribute to social security taxes but can't receive benefits. They pay higher tax rates because they can't claim tax credits for their kids. The big cost comes with education, though the children of immigrants tend to be more successful in school than the average American and a review of DACA recipients shows that they start businesses at a higher percent than all Americans. 

All that sounds good.

So what's the point of even having a border?

[GMDino]

(11-05-2021, 11:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: All that sounds good.

So what's the point of even having a border?

Because we, as a species and in general, seem to be very very selfish and what WE have WE don't want anyone else ever to have.  And what THEY have, if we find it valuable to US, WE want to go and take.  Especially when talking about the people with the drive for power.  So we are fiercely war like and don't like THEM who ain't like US.  In a nutshell.

Here's a good podcast on the development of our border policy.

https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/general-chapmans-last-stand/

[BFritz21]

(11-06-2021, 08:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Because we, as a species and in general, seem to be very very selfish and what WE have WE don't want anyone else ever to have.  And what THEY have, if we find it valuable to US, WE want to go and take.  Especially when talking about the people with the drive for power.  So we are fiercely war like and don't like THEM who ain't like US.  In a nutshell.

Here's a good podcast on the development of our border policy.

https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/general-chapmans-last-stand/

So why do you have locks on your doors?

[BigPapaKain]

(11-06-2021, 09:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So why do you have locks on your doors?

Crazy white folks with guns as their entire personality.