Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 47700
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 783 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Nyarlathotep » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:32 am

ed wrote:Sorry

NP.

I just saw stuff that didn't sound like the person it was attributed to. Figured you might appreciate the heads up because of that.
Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King!

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71465
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3333 times
Been thanked: 1230 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:32 am

Just for Nyar.

No need to thank me buddy. 8)
Grammatron wrote: I don't understand how you can support checkpoints and "some sense of control" but bemoan immigration policies against those who actively avoid those checkpoints
RCC: Act II wrote:Sometimes people get away with things because there is no way to stop it without wholesale violations of civil liberties and/or human rights violations.

When does it end? At some point it becomes a question of shooting people. Is that the line?
Grammatron wrote:Why must it end in such violence? Where do all these blood fantasies come from?
RCC: Act II wrote:Unless you think the state should kill to prevent every crime, then at some point a state just has to concede that shit happens and let it go. Like it does now. Factually guilty people going free because of officer misconduct. We let it go. Only way to stop a shoplifter is to shoot him? Let him go. Etc.

Removing children from parents without even bothering to keep track is violence. Kidnapping is a violent crime most states punish quite harshly. Taking a child from parents based on a legal pretense and putting that child in some other permanent placement because you can't find the parents is child trafficking.

There's your chain of misery.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor by comparison.

I think a government apparatus that will snatch children without any due process and without any plan of reunification is capable of pretty much anything, and that those that defend the former will continue to defend the latter.
ed wrote:Putting ones child in harms way is also criminal.
I see a lot of complaining but damn little of a productive nature.

To that other guy (not Nyar) :cowbell: [/quote]
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 47700
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 783 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Nyarlathotep » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:45 am

Now things make much more sense
Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King!

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71465
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3333 times
Been thanked: 1230 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:09 am

BTW I've spotted a right wing rationale for getting rid of ICE.

Put immigration enforcement back in the hands of the Justice Department as one step toward getting rid of DHS entirely.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by RCC: Act II » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:15 pm

ed wrote: Putting ones child in harms way is also criminal.
.
When you are defending government action by comparing same to the acts of criminals, you are making my point for me.

Of what good is a government that does not hold itself up to a higher standard than those it considers criminal?

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33594
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1751 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Grammatron » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:21 pm

RCC: Act II wrote: Unless you think the state should kill to prevent every crime,
No I do not think that.
then at some point a state just has to concede that shit happens and let it go. Like it does now.
But it doesn't. Only certain crimes have a statute of limitations for prosecution.
Factually guilty people going free because of officer misconduct. We let it go. Only way to stop a shoplifter is to shoot him? Let him go. Etc.
Or chase them down. Or investigate where the shoplifter lives. There's a plethora of ways to address this without shooting people or getting all authoritarian.
Removing children from parents without even bothering to keep track is violence.
Agreed; it's not what's happening.
Kidnapping is a violent crime most states punish quite harshly.
Usually when government detains somebody it's not kidnapping.
Taking a child from parents based on a legal pretense and putting that child in some other permanent placement because you can't find the parents is child trafficking.
Not if the parents abandon the child.
There's your chain of misery.
No that sounds like a legal clusterfuck. The chain of misery is the human trafficking that leads up to the border with assaults of all kinds along the way and continues inside the country from predatory entities that feel they have leverage over illegal immigrants.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor by comparison.
The scale is the issue and the solution to the scale is to control the flow and minimize places people may come through illegally.
I think a government apparatus that will snatch children without any due process and without any plan of reunification is capable of pretty much anything, and that those that defend the former will continue to defend the latter.
Agreed; it's not what's happening.

User avatar
Giz
Posts: 1273
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 165 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Giz » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:13 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote: Putting ones child in harms way is also criminal.
.
When you are defending government action by comparing same to the acts of criminals, you are making my point for me.

Of what good is a government that does not hold itself up to a higher standard than those it considers criminal?
Right. Like how we are not allowed to run red lights but sometimes government vehicles can. Why doesn’t the government hold police to a higher standard?? No breaking the speed limit or running red lights for law enforcement pursuit vehicles!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by RCC: Act II » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:40 pm

Giz wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote: Putting ones child in harms way is also criminal.
.
When you are defending government action by comparing same to the acts of criminals, you are making my point for me.

Of what good is a government that does not hold itself up to a higher standard than those it considers criminal?
Right. Like how we are not allowed to run red lights but sometimes government vehicles can. Why doesn’t the government hold police to a higher standard?? No breaking the speed limit or running red lights for law enforcement pursuit vehicles!
You are confusing act and the motive behind the act. Of course to some extent the government does things any private citizen can not. The whole point of political life is to manage the use of these powers. A government that exercises these powers as would a criminal is no better than the criminal, and will surely lose the respect of those it governs.

That being said, the example is still silly.

Government vehicles have no innate right to disregard traffic laws. It is only when necessary for the public safety. If an officer decides to use the siren and speed somewhere to get a pizza, he's breaking the law. He's almost always going to get away with this, but there we go.

If I am rushing a dying person to the hospital and carefully run some reds and speed a bit, a government that charges me with a traffic violation is committing the very offense I speak of is telling me that to be a law abiding citizen I must let my friend die. A government that does that rightfully loses the respect of the governed.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by RCC: Act II » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:56 pm

rcc wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a government apparatus that will snatch children without any due process and without any plan of reunification is capable of pretty much anything, and that those that defend the former will continue to defend the latter.
Agreed; it's not what's happening.
Which part? The children being taken from their parents without a plan of unification?

The zero tolerance policy is that the adult is arrested and the child treated as if they crossed the border alone. There is no data tying one to the other, and that is a prerequisite for having any plan of reunification.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33594
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1751 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Grammatron » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:42 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
rcc wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a government apparatus that will snatch children without any due process and without any plan of reunification is capable of pretty much anything, and that those that defend the former will continue to defend the latter.
Agreed; it's not what's happening.
Which part? The children being taken from their parents without a plan of unification?
Are you suggesting that all the minors that have been reunified with parents or relatives after their detention have been reunited by accident?
The zero tolerance policy is that the adult is arrested and the child treated as if they crossed the border alone. There is no data tying one to the other, and that is a prerequisite for having any plan of reunification.
There's no data because the parents (or whoever that children's guardian at the border is [assuming those children are not being trafficked against their will]) do not provide documentation and at times do not provide their real names and countries of origin.

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 2062 times
Been thanked: 2827 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Witness » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:19 am

The Guardian wrote:Officials admit they may have separated family – who might be US citizens – for up to a year

The Department of Justice (DoJ) told a federal judge Tuesday that it may have mistakenly separated a father and toddler who could both be US citizens for as long as a year, in the process of enforcing the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the revelation “horrific” and blamed the administration’s poor execution of the practice of family separations.

“The fact that a citizen got caught up in this mess shows just how poor the government’s record-keeping was, and this is just the latest example,” said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On 26 June, in a suit filed by the ACLU against the government over the separation of families at the southern border, federal judge Dana Sabraw granted a preliminary injunction requiring the reunification of children under the age of five by 10 July.

In a hearing on Tuesday, just before the deadline, the DoJ was asked to account for each failed reunification of the 102 younger children in its care. It noted 27 cases where it found reunification was not currently feasible, including one “because the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year … and records show the parent and child might be US citizens”.

Previously the DoJ had only revealed that the child’s father could not be located. The ACLU and the court were only made aware that both father and child might be US citizens on Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-citizens

User avatar
Giz
Posts: 1273
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 165 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Giz » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:26 am

Witness wrote:
The Guardian wrote:Officials admit they may have separated family – who might be US citizens – for up to a year

The Department of Justice (DoJ) told a federal judge Tuesday that it may have mistakenly separated a father and toddler who could both be US citizens for as long as a year, in the process of enforcing the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the revelation “horrific” and blamed the administration’s poor execution of the practice of family separations.

“The fact that a citizen got caught up in this mess shows just how poor the government’s record-keeping was, and this is just the latest example,” said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On 26 June, in a suit filed by the ACLU against the government over the separation of families at the southern border, federal judge Dana Sabraw granted a preliminary injunction requiring the reunification of children under the age of five by 10 July.

In a hearing on Tuesday, just before the deadline, the DoJ was asked to account for each failed reunification of the 102 younger children in its care. It noted 27 cases where it found reunification was not currently feasible, including one “because the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year … and records show the parent and child might be US citizens”.

Previously the DoJ had only revealed that the child’s father could not be located. The ACLU and the court were only made aware that both father and child might be US citizens on Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-citizens
How is that possible? Wouldn’t the US citizen parent be bugging the government to give his child back? How can he not be located?

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67677
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3432 times
Been thanked: 2174 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Doctor X » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:30 am

You know how kids just wander off.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21768
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1412 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:31 am

On the politics:

Poll: Voters oppose abolishing ICE
Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33326
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 779 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by ed » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:31 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
Giz wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
ed wrote: Putting ones child in harms way is also criminal.
.
When you are defending government action by comparing same to the acts of criminals, you are making my point for me.

Of what good is a government that does not hold itself up to a higher standard than those it considers criminal?
Right. Like how we are not allowed to run red lights but sometimes government vehicles can. Why doesn’t the government hold police to a higher standard?? No breaking the speed limit or running red lights for law enforcement pursuit vehicles!
You are confusing act and the motive behind the act. Of course to some extent the government does things any private citizen can not. The whole point of political life is to manage the use of these powers. A government that exercises these powers as would a criminal is no better than the criminal, and will surely lose the respect of those it governs.

That being said, the example is still silly.

Government vehicles have no innate right to disregard traffic laws. It is only when necessary for the public safety. If an officer decides to use the siren and speed somewhere to get a pizza, he's breaking the law. He's almost always going to get away with this, but there we go.

If I am rushing a dying person to the hospital and carefully run some reds and speed a bit, a government that charges me with a traffic violation is committing the very offense I speak of is telling me that to be a law abiding citizen I must let my friend die. A government that does that rightfully loses the respect of the governed.
Agree. And a government that cannot enforce it's sovereignty and demand that foreigners respect it's laws similarly looses respect.

I am glad that we agree.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33326
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 779 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by ed » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:35 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
rcc wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a government apparatus that will snatch children without any due process and without any plan of reunification is capable of pretty much anything, and that those that defend the former will continue to defend the latter.
Agreed; it's not what's happening.
Which part? The children being taken from their parents without a plan of unification?

The zero tolerance policy is that the adult is arrested and the child treated as if they crossed the border alone. There is no data tying one to the other, and that is a prerequisite for having any plan of reunification.
A parent that puts their child in such a position should surely be investigated, no? And during the investigation that child ought to be in temporary foster care.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21768
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1412 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:43 am

Giz wrote:
Witness wrote:
The Guardian wrote:Officials admit they may have separated family – who might be US citizens – for up to a year

The Department of Justice (DoJ) told a federal judge Tuesday that it may have mistakenly separated a father and toddler who could both be US citizens for as long as a year, in the process of enforcing the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the revelation “horrific” and blamed the administration’s poor execution of the practice of family separations.

“The fact that a citizen got caught up in this mess shows just how poor the government’s record-keeping was, and this is just the latest example,” said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On 26 June, in a suit filed by the ACLU against the government over the separation of families at the southern border, federal judge Dana Sabraw granted a preliminary injunction requiring the reunification of children under the age of five by 10 July.

In a hearing on Tuesday, just before the deadline, the DoJ was asked to account for each failed reunification of the 102 younger children in its care. It noted 27 cases where it found reunification was not currently feasible, including one “because the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year … and records show the parent and child might be US citizens”.

Previously the DoJ had only revealed that the child’s father could not be located. The ACLU and the court were only made aware that both father and child might be US citizens on Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-citizens
How is that possible? Wouldn’t the US citizen parent be bugging the government to give his child back? How can he not be located?
Apparently some parents aren't actually interested in being reunited with their children. I read the whole article, and it's the omissions that stand out to me. The article doesn't say whether the parent is in custody, only that "the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year" which means he must not be in custody.

Maybe -- shock!! -- the father is happy for someone else to take on the burden of raising his child, and doesn't want to be found or reunited.

These sorts of things are hardly unheard of. I'm not sure exactly what the judge expects them to do in such cases.
In total the DoJ said it expected to have 38 children under five reunified by Tuesday’s 10pm PT deadline, 16 “soon thereafter” and another 20 depending on a number of conditions including whether or not parents can be located, and “if those parents request reunification”.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Sabraw said that the families were improperly separated and that he would not extend the deadline, meaning that the government is technically in violation of the court order as of Tuesday night. “These are firm deadlines. They’re not aspirational goals,” Sabraw said.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67677
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3432 times
Been thanked: 2174 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Doctor X » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:02 am

Anaxagoras wrote:Apparently some parents aren't actually interested in being reunited with their children. I read the whole article, and it's the omissions that stand out to me. The article doesn't say whether the parent is in custody, only that "the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year" which means he must not be in custody.

Maybe -- shock!! -- the father is happy for someone else to take on the burden of raising his child, and doesn't want to be found or reunited.
Why does not Trump know?!!!1!

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 2062 times
Been thanked: 2827 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Witness » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:12 am

Anaxagoras wrote:Apparently some parents aren't actually interested in being reunited with their children. I read the whole article, and it's the omissions that stand out to me. The article doesn't say whether the parent is in custody, only that "the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year" which means he must not be in custody.

Maybe -- shock!! -- the father is happy for someone else to take on the burden of raising his child, and doesn't want to be found or reunited.
Possible (in fact the thought crossed my mind) but there are other scenarios, from sitting in prison to trying to survive homeless to just having died. Clearly it's not people with a mansion and a lawyer.

And I read the omissions (which can also be just poor journalism) more as administration's inability of keeping track of what exactly it has done and what familial threads it has broken. Perhaps I'm wrong on that.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21768
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1412 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: Every Prospective Democrat Candidate For 2020 Now Calls For ICE To Be Abolished

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:21 am

Witness wrote:
Anaxagoras wrote:Apparently some parents aren't actually interested in being reunited with their children. I read the whole article, and it's the omissions that stand out to me. The article doesn't say whether the parent is in custody, only that "the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year" which means he must not be in custody.

Maybe -- shock!! -- the father is happy for someone else to take on the burden of raising his child, and doesn't want to be found or reunited.
Possible (in fact the thought crossed my mind) but there are other scenarios, from sitting in prison to trying to survive homeless to just having died. Clearly it's not people with a mansion and a lawyer.

And I read the omissions (which can also be just poor journalism) more as administration's inability of keeping track of what exactly it has done and what familial threads it has broken. Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
That's clearly the picture that the article is trying to paint. If he was in prison though, then the government would know where he is. So it's not that. He might have been in custody for some time, but typically these people are released and given a court date to show up for for a hearing. But they don't always show up. The omissions to me don't seem like mere sloppy errors, but because they don't fit the intended narrative. They don't say why they parent can't be located, they simply leave that for the reader to fill in the blank.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare