Author Topic: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion  (Read 21418 times)

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #100 on: September 28, 2017, 08:50:54 AM »
At the moment it's not politically feasible. The hard-right of the GOP is opposed to anything that smells like amnesty and they have too much influence in the House.

Maybe in 2019 if the Dems retake the House and the GOP maintains Senate control. I am not sure Donnie would sign off on immigration reform, but he might just to say he's the guy who "solved" it.

Just saying that it probably doesn't behoove anyone to think too much about the specifics of a policy at the moment. Maybe float some trial balloons and that's it. There's no feasible immigration plan that's going to deport 10 million people, but no plan that's NOT that would pass the House right now. So it's all academic at the moment.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 08:54:26 AM by A Definite Beta Guy »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #101 on: September 28, 2017, 09:52:27 AM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 09:55:34 AM by Poundwise »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #102 on: September 28, 2017, 10:13:57 AM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.

Are you against deportation of any in this country illegally or just some them?

Are you against the wall because you don't think it will work, is wholly unfeasible, or are you just against the concept of immigration control?

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #103 on: September 28, 2017, 03:18:21 PM »
I would rather not have to think about it at all, but with Schumer possibly ready to trade funding for a wall in return for DACA hostages... feel like I need to know what I support.  In this area there are people living in fear... ICE has been coming to public schools to inquire about 4th graders, etc.  It seems a more pressing issue now than it was last year, and maybe this is a chance to open up the discussion while people are paying attention. Plus there isn't that much time until 2019... a year is hardly long enough to educate oneself on an issue of this complexity.

Is a wall that may cost at least  $15 billion (GOP estimate) and possibly $67 billion (Dem estimate), or more, a good use of our resources to solve the problems that immigration presents?  Obviously I'm biased against the wall but I'm not ready to discount it altogether. Seems impractical, but kinder than deportation.

Are you against deportation of any in this country illegally or just some them?
I'm not against every deportation.  My gut feeling on it is very conditional and along a continuum. 

Things to consider would be how long they had been in the country and how old when they came here, criminal record, etc.  For instance, I favor deportation of violent and repeat criminals. But what about the guys who came here because they were adopted as babies, but the paperwork wasn't properly processed by their adoptive parents?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/world/asia/south-korea-adoptions-phillip-clay-adam-crapser.html
Of course those seem to be extreme cases but there ought to be room for an exception.

But, suppose that we had a great immigration system where every family had a chance to be reunited within, say, 2 years. Suppose we were able to accommodate at least every endangered child refugee and an adult caretaker for at least a 5 year period during which time hopefully their home country would be stabilized with the help of the international community.  Suppose we streamlined the process for employers to sponsor workers to fill true gaps in the labor force, and these workers would have equal pay and rights to native workers, until they were sent home at the end of the labor shortage. 

Then in this ideal-ish world, that would leave only adult refugees and recent economic migrants come to work under the table. Then I think I would be okay with deporting adults who had lived here less than, arbitrarily, 7 years. Maybe the time scale could be more lenient for adults from dangerous countries. For immigrants who had been there longer, I think I'd favor some sort of amnesty with a sliding scale of fees maybe by wage garnishment to penalize them for line jumping, as well as any unpaid taxes, but not so much as to ruin them entirely. But of course designing a fair, watertight system would be as hard as building a secure 2000 foot wall.

I think the advantage of a pay-for-amnesty solution is that it would hopefully pay for itself or even become a source of revenue for the US, unlike the wall. The thing I don't like about this plan is that it would either favor richer immigrants (if a flat fee) or would incentivize people to hide wealth (kind of like taxes.) I'm sure there would be tons of loopholes and the poor slobs of life would lose out as always.

Quote
Are you against the wall because you don't think it will work, is wholly unfeasible, or are you just against the concept of immigration control?
From what I have heard about the existing barriers, the wall doesn't sound like it will provide a good value. Most people are flying in anyway and overstaying their visas. It might work to some extent but basically a good ladder will render it useless unless it's manned, so that would be a repeating cost.  Drug dealers will just dig tunnels. Suppose we also do a better job of tracking overstayed visas.  Then how about the Canadian border? Will we have to build a wall there, too?

There are other reasons to dislike a wall, too. Effect on wildlife, and also the optics of it.  I remember when the Berlin Wall was still standing.  It and the DMZ were such symbols of distrust and basically, failure.  I also remember when the Berlin Wall came down and the joy and hope everyone had at the time (and I would guess that most Germans today would say it was a good thing.)

But no, I'm not against all immigration control.  I don't want everyone who wants two cars and a flat-screen TV to flood into the US. But my intuition is that if we don't want people coming over here to stay illegally, it would be more effective to work on the reasons why. I mean, what if we spent the wall money to create jobs (infrastructure?) and to train/move US citizens to where the jobs are, or enforce legal employment?  If there weren't the jobs, the economic immigrants wouldn't come.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #104 on: September 28, 2017, 03:25:48 PM »
One more point. I read somewhere that when the borders were tightened, laborers from Mexico who used to come when there were jobs, and leave when there weren't,  began to settle down in the US. So in some ways, more immigration was caused by making the cost of crossing the border so expensive.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #105 on: September 29, 2017, 10:23:36 AM »
Poundwise:

I'm going to respond to a few of your points.  FWIW, it's difficult to respond point by point to such a long post.

Wall - I'm undecided.  If it were and effective and feasible deterrent, I would be all for it.  I'm not sure it will be.

Refugees/Etc - You seem to set out a plan to allow any refugee and their caretaker into this country.  While I feel for the plight of these people, we don't have the resources to allow everyone in.  In addition, once in the US, they will never leave as your post intends.

Amnesty/etc - I feel for the DACA people who are here and productive.  If they are college educated or in the military, we can talk about them staying.

Long time in US illegally/Amnesty - The US does a terrible job of deporting and tracking those to be deported.  If we tell you to leave, it may take 10 years or more to get to the deportation stage.  I'm feeling a lot less generous about these situations but understand the humanitarian implications.

Employers/current policy - We need to crack down on employers hiring these people.  This is a nice start. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/asplundh-treee-undocumented-workers-montco.html 

Finally - Before we talk about amnesty at all, we need to stop the current inflow.  In addition, if we consider amnesty, I think their extended family's should move to the bottom of the list for immigration.  They and their family's should not be rewarded for jumping the line any more than they already have. 

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
    • Military Saints
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #106 on: September 29, 2017, 02:14:44 PM »
One more point. I read somewhere that when the borders were tightened, laborers from Mexico who used to come when there were jobs, and leave when there weren't,  began to settle down in the US. So in some ways, more immigration was caused by making the cost of crossing the border so expensive.

The father of one of my best friends growing up in Oregon had a small business installing and maintaining sprinklers/irrigations systems. His job involved a lot of digging ditches. He said that over the years every time he tried to hire a white guy they would quit within a day or two. He usually had a couple of Mexican guys working for him as they were willing to do that hard labor at probably pretty minimal wages ($10-12/hour? I don't really know for sure but this was 15-20 years ago). They would come north and work for part of the year then go back to their families in Mexico and live the rest of the year off the money they had earned. However, after 9/11 when border security tightened up the cost of a coyote to get across the border went from something like $500 - $1,000 to $2,000 - $3,000. Pretty soon they stopped going back to Mexico and instead brought their families up to live with them. I imagine this scenario repeated itself many times over across the country.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #107 on: September 29, 2017, 05:26:07 PM »
Poundwise:

I'm going to respond to a few of your points.  FWIW, it's difficult to respond point by point to such a long post.


Completely understood, I'm throwing a lot out there because it is such a vast subject and I'm thinking out loud.

Quote
Refugees/Etc - You seem to set out a plan to allow any refugee and their caretaker into this country.  While I feel for the plight of these people, we don't have the resources to allow everyone in.  In addition, once in the US, they will never leave as your post intends.

Well, if I were queen of the world, there would be no war and all children would be well cared for.  Since that is not the case, could the US at least let in all the kids fleeing war zones, plus someone to take care of them? I looked it up, and Unicef estimates about 28 million children are fleeing active conflict in the world:
https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/emergencies/child-refugees

In fiscal year 2016, the US officially took in only 84,995 refugees (both adult and child)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

You may be right that they will never return. Although traditionally refugees are different than migrants in that they are forced to leave their homes rather than choosing to do so, looking at the Vietnamese, it seems like reverse migration has been rare even after peace.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-vietnamese-americans-return-20150430-story.html
On the other hand, IOM says that about 1 million Iraqis out of 3.2 million displaced have returned home.
https://www.iom.int/news/million-iraqis-return-home-iom-displacement-tracking-matrix

How many immigrants could/should the US absorb, total?
I don't know, though the following article gives us a ballpark about how many immigrants would be needed for a growth economy: 18 million over the next 18 years (though I think ultimately growth economies are a pyramid scheme).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-population-through-at-least-2035/

If we stopped letting in family and economic migrants, we could take in a lot of refugees.  That won't happen.

How many should we take? Assuming the US has a population of 323.1 million out of 1.2 billion people total in the developed world,  our fair share of the care of the endangered refugee children would be 28 million * 0.269 = roughly 7,539,000 children. Ugh.  Fortunately for us, I believe most of them are still milling around their war-torn countries, and the rest are stuck in Turkey, Iran, Chad and such.
http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/videos/2017/2/58b3f4714/which-countries-host-the-most-refugeesquest.html

No, you're right. We can't (won't) take in all the children. But we could take in more.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 05:35:29 PM by Poundwise »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2017, 05:28:27 PM »
Quote
Amnesty/etc - I feel for the DACA people who are here and productive.  If they are college educated or in the military, we can talk about them staying.
  I keep thinking about that poor guy from Korea who was adopted as a toddler (but too old to be eligible for DACA)... adopted, abused, then abandoned, bounced around from foster home to foster home, living a life of petty crime, reformed, applying for a green card, then deported to the country that didn't want him in the first place. Just one case but I'm soft-hearted and probably anybody could talk me round.

Quote
Long time in US illegally/Amnesty - The US does a terrible job of deporting and tracking those to be deported.  If we tell you to leave, it may take 10 years or more to get to the deportation stage.  I'm feeling a lot less generous about these situations but understand the humanitarian implications.
Yes, a significant percentage are detained (effectively, jailed) for over 6 months, and some have even been detained for 4+ years, with poor food, medical care, etc. I read that longer stays have been associated with legal nonresidents who never should have been detained, while their legal cases percolate through.  Some detainees have even have been forced to work for no pay (enslaved) in privately held detention centers.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0301/Forced-to-work-60-000-undocumented-immigrants-may-sue-detention-center

One issue I have with deportation is that it is so black and white, plus it is expensive (over $10K/deportation according to http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2017/04/28/deportation-costs-illegal-immigration/99541736/). 

I think we might all be happier with a pay-to-stay option. It feels to me like illegal immigration is an economic wrong. Indeed it is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. I think it could be fixed with money.  I don't think amnesty should be free. Those who have benefited unfairly from jumping the line, can pay some percentage of their gains to smooth the way for people legally in line, and to compensate citizens for administrative expenses and drop in quality of life. Plus money is not so black and white as detention... you can adjust fees according to situation. Not a perfect solution but probably better than detention in many cases.

Quote
Employers/current policy - We need to crack down on employers hiring these people.  This is a nice start. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/asplundh-treee-undocumented-workers-montco.html 

Agree. Employers need to pay a living wage.  Not sure how this will play out for landscapers and restaurants... restaurants especially seem to function on very thin margins.  It personally does not affect me as we do our own landscaping and rarely eat out, but I would guess that a crackdown would seriously affect many. But perhaps it would work with programs to bring in workers from high unemployment areas from the US, and increased access to worker visas if not enough labor could be found.

Quote
In addition, if we consider amnesty, I think their extended family's should move to the bottom of the list for immigration.  They and their family's should not be rewarded for jumping the line any more than they already have.

Agree. 

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #109 on: September 29, 2017, 05:31:30 PM »
So my trial balloon for immigration reform clearly has a lot of problems.  But there is tremendous room for improvement in the current system.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #110 on: November 28, 2017, 08:06:54 AM »
Wow, I really killed this discussion with my long boring posts on immigration, didn't I? Well, at least it got me to really do some research and form an opinion.  One strange side effect of the whole Trump thing is that I've been steadily moving left all year.  A lot of positions where I think I used to be more conservative, like guns and immigration, were due to my not having paid much attention. Also the GOP has left me on fiscal policy, which they used to be more responsible about.

On another subject, MonkeyJenga wrote:
Quote
Voting in my own election was surprisingly difficult. It took me over three hours of travel round-trip to get to the Board of Elections. New York has pretty terrible election laws. Any NY'ers interested in helping improve our electoral system, sign up with Easy Elections NY.

MJ, I'm all for Easy Elections except for the electronic pollbooks. In voting, as far as I'm concerned, the more paper, the better.  Being green is great and all, but we waste paper on so many unimportant things... let's save paper for an important thing like voting.  Electronic devices are too easy to hack. But I did read that the electronic pollbooks would only supplement the paper ones, in which case, maybe it's not so bad. I just think that they would be hard to secure, would require expensive upgrading frequently, and training the election workers (who trend elderly) would be difficult.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #111 on: November 28, 2017, 09:18:01 AM »
Poundwise, you didn't kill the discussion, so don't worry about that. I am still in the midst of figuring out all of my thoughts, and yes, things have shifted in my thinking as well. It's just that so much is going on these days, it's hard to do a deep dive on one thing, when so many issues deserving of attention crop up weekly at least, daily usually.

Shit, I have barely been in the forums at all recently, and I freaking love it here. I will choose to set some time aside to get my thoughts down and coherent by tomorrow the a weekend.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 07:46:57 AM by jordanread »

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2017, 09:39:30 AM »
Wow, I really killed this discussion with my long boring posts on immigration, didn't I? Well, at least it got me to really do some research and form an opinion.  One strange side effect of the whole Trump thing is that I've been steadily moving left all year.  A lot of positions where I think I used to be more conservative, like guns and immigration, were due to my not having paid much attention. Also the GOP has left me on fiscal policy, which they used to be more responsible about.

On another subject, MonkeyJenga wrote:
Quote
Voting in my own election was surprisingly difficult. It took me over three hours of travel round-trip to get to the Board of Elections. New York has pretty terrible election laws. Any NY'ers interested in helping improve our electoral system, sign up with Easy Elections NY.

MJ, I'm all for Easy Elections except for the electronic pollbooks. In voting, as far as I'm concerned, the more paper, the better.  Being green is great and all, but we waste paper on so many unimportant things... let's save paper for an important thing like voting.  Electronic devices are too easy to hack. But I did read that the electronic pollbooks would only supplement the paper ones, in which case, maybe it's not so bad. I just think that they would be hard to secure, would require expensive upgrading frequently, and training the election workers (who trend elderly) would be difficult.

A note on electric polling machines. I worked for Illinois elections for a while and the machines we used were a pain, but they had the benefit of printing everything out on paper as well as on the computer. A voter selected all the choices and then a printout shows what they voted for. They had to say yes or no for accuracy. At the end of the day, a worker (me :P) had to count the total number of ballots and compare to the electronic count to confirm it worked properly. It's not completely foolproof, but since the paper ballots are sent electronically to be counted anyway it's basically the same thing. It is slightly greener since the paper to print on was receipt-sized and thin instead of full legal sheets often used for punch voting.

When I moved states and voted I was very displeased to see that not everyone has that paper copy.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #113 on: December 13, 2017, 07:50:41 AM »
So my massive immigration post draft is on my other computer, but I realized that the entire point of this board (in my mind) is to challenge and be challenged, and investigate different views. So I'll probably post bits and pieces instead of waiting until it's all polished. After all, the point is to have it ripped apart, flaws exposed, etc. It doesn't need to be perfect for that. In the meantime though, I just posted something in my journal, related to the political atmosphere currently, and some fears I have. Here it is:

Well, looks like Alabama has a Democratic Senator. Cool. The margin for error on both sides is super slim now, which I think is good for bipartisan cooperation. If you can't depend on your party to back your bill, you might have to make a decent one to get it passed. That's an ideal. I also haven't seen any really good legislation that has come down, and since it seems I do more due diligence (you know, reading the proposed legislation), I almost wonder if rooting for some of these things to fail is similar to Mitch McConnell's stupid goal of blocking all legislation from Obama. I know that was more of a sound bite, but I think it was something he took seriously. These elected positions are too important, too powerful, and too influential globally to stick to party lines. There was stuff that GWB put forward that I liked, and stuff that Obama put forward I didn't. What the hell is the big deal with making an informed decision? This is an interesting time to be following politics. I just found out that a candidate for Governor of Colorado in the gubernatorial race did a reddit AMA, which is awesome. I like it when responses are something based on thought instead of a form letter (which is what I get from Gardner, Hickenlooper, Bennet) when I contacted them about legislation. And can I say how much I love term limits? I can? Awesome. I love term limits.

One additional thing that came out during the celebration of Jones' win was a tweet, that I think is a horrible stance.



Quote from: Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
I am grateful to the women who had the courage to come forward. Because of them and so many others like them, we are seeing meaningful change. I look forward to finding opportunities to work with Doug Jones in the Senate to support middle-class families. -SB

As I typed out the quote, I realized the comment was a touch more generic, but my initial gut reaction was
"Congrats Mr. Brown! With your timing of this tweet, and combining two issues, you just managed to politicize sexual misconduct."
I will admit that I haven't looked too much into the details of the #metoo movement, as I focus more on the national conversation more than specific movements. I will say that the movement, and the sudden shift away from stigma of the 'victim' is creating an environment that creates a space for people to come forward instead of remaining silent. While I'm pleased that Roy Moore lost, I have a bit of a fear that reporting inappropriate behavior will come to be looked at as a political move, and less of a simple report of inappropriate behavior allowing all involved to make the world a better place. I think things will be better if people realize that people on both sides of the aisle (not just elected) deal with this. By politicizing it, I feel like anytime a Republican gets assaulted or harassed, they have to weigh the political repercussions of reporting, and could very well choose to bury it for political reasons, allowing the people who engage in these kinds of behavior to keep doing it, whether out of maliciousness or ignorance.

What say you?

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #114 on: December 13, 2017, 08:37:42 AM »
Hello jordanread,

On the subject of immigration, I originally liked proposals during the GWB administration to create a guest worker program. One of the biggest sticking points there, of course, was effects on citizen workers and unions.  However maybe with sector protections, enforced worker protections, and requirement that citizen or union employees be considered first for jobs, it could have improved things?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bush-proposes-new-temporary-worker-program

As for #Metoo.  Many rape and abuse victims have expressed fears that their more serious claims will lose impact and credibility. Although it seems good that the US have a "broken windows" environment where pinching and groping are seen as unacceptable, you are right about the politicizing.  I think the fair thing to do, going forward, is to limit the consequences to the individual, not the party.  For instance, if a legislator is accused of criminal acts, he should undergo investigation and if guilty, fired and disciplined according to law. However, there is no reason why his party should lose a seat, unless his actions were somehow a result of systemic misbehavior by the party. Does that make sense? If somebody in my place of employment commits a crime, there's no reason to punish the company unless it somehow encouraged or benefited by the criminal behavior.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #115 on: December 13, 2017, 08:45:42 AM »
Hello jordanread,

On the subject of immigration, I originally liked proposals during the GWB administration to create a guest worker program. One of the biggest sticking points there, of course, was effects on citizen workers and unions.  However maybe with sector protections, enforced worker protections, and requirement that citizen or union employees be considered first for jobs, it could have improved things?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bush-proposes-new-temporary-worker-program

As for #Metoo.  Many rape and abuse victims have expressed fears that their more serious claims will lose impact and credibility. Although it seems good that the US have a "broken windows" environment where pinching and groping are seen as unacceptable, you are right about the politicizing.  I think the fair thing to do, going forward, is to limit the consequences to the individual, not the party.  For instance, if a legislator is accused of criminal acts, he should undergo investigation and if guilty, fired and disciplined according to law. However, there is no reason why his party should lose a seat, unless his actions were somehow a result of systemic misbehavior by the party. Does that make sense? If somebody in my place of employment commits a crime, there's no reason to punish the company unless it somehow encouraged or benefited by the criminal behavior.

Pawn Al Franken would not have been toppled by his party if he were not in a clearly liberal state. He will be replaced with another of his kind. The Dems took him out as a sacrifice to their long game's end, taking down the President.

I dont think it was right to hound Franken for his fairly unimportant transgressions. Bring them up, publicize them, but keep the Democratic politicians out of it. Like my Senator
Claire Bear, for instance, who was very vocal about Franken due to her highly qualified status in this. Her qualifications are, of course, she is female.

I would like to see the voters of Minnesota decide his fate in the Senate and not the Claire
 Bears of the world.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 08:50:14 AM by iris lily »

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2018, 08:27:09 AM »
So the Cole memo. What do you all think about the use (recreational and medicinally) of weed, the role of federal, state, and county governments? How about this decision from Sessions? What do you think about H.R. 1227 (Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017)? Support or not support? Why?

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #117 on: January 08, 2018, 11:21:45 AM »
I think pot is a non-issue. My one concern is keeping people from smoking it and driving. I have no interest in using the stuff.

To me pot is the same as drinking. Smoke pot often? Lifestyle consequences. Drink often? Same side effects.

Some people will develop a dependence, some people will waste a pile of money on it, some people will manage it just fine.

I've never understood why some conservatives accept recreational alcohol but are on a lifetime Holy Crusade over pot. I have to wonder if there isn't a cultural war behind their beliefs. Can't let the dirty, hippies win anything. A carry over from the 60s and 70s.

Tons of lives wasted in jail over pot. Millions (billions?) of dollars spent on the war on drugs. Just get over it. Legalize it. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

Again prosecute the DUI drivers hard. Especially the ones that take other people's lives in the process.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #118 on: January 08, 2018, 11:54:10 AM »
Do you mean its a non-issue for you personally, or are you saying from a political perspective all of this is B.S.? I'm leaning towards the former, just want to make sure.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #119 on: January 08, 2018, 02:53:17 PM »
Not really inclined to feel one way or another. I'd prefer it be decriminalized at the very least, but the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know to really feel strongly about it.

I'm concerned about the growing opioid epidemic than I am with whatever marijuana is getting used.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #120 on: January 08, 2018, 03:43:55 PM »
Not really inclined to feel one way or another. I'd prefer it be decriminalized at the very least, but the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know to really feel strongly about it.

I'm concerned about the growing opioid epidemic than I am with whatever marijuana is getting used.

I've got stuff. But what you said struck a nerve (and not in a bad way). You said above that "the enforcement regime is not rigorous enough against people I know". I love that you phrased it in this honest way. I think you touched on something fundamental. If things affect people you know, people you deal with day to day, one takes action.
Is that a good thing? Is that avoidable?


I'm not going to post references, as I think it's a good thing when people do their own research.  Have you looked into weed as a potential treatment of opiod addiction?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #121 on: January 08, 2018, 03:53:10 PM »
The war on drugs is one of the biggest tragedies in modern American history, especially combined with the rise of the for-profit prison industry. I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

GettingClose

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #122 on: January 10, 2018, 01:18:42 PM »
Quote
I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

How would that work? 

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3378
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #123 on: January 10, 2018, 01:31:36 PM »
I think pot is a non-issue. My one concern is keeping people from smoking it and driving. I have no interest in using the stuff.

To me pot is the same as drinking. Smoke pot often? Lifestyle consequences. Drink often? Same side effects.

Some people will develop a dependence, some people will waste a pile of money on it, some people will manage it just fine.

I've never understood why some conservatives accept recreational alcohol but are on a lifetime Holy Crusade over pot. I have to wonder if there isn't a cultural war behind their beliefs. Can't let the dirty, hippies win anything. A carry over from the 60s and 70s.

Tons of lives wasted in jail over pot. Millions (billions?) of dollars spent on the war on drugs. Just get over it. Legalize it. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

Again prosecute the DUI drivers hard. Especially the ones that take other people's lives in the process.


As probably one of the few conservatives on here I couldn't agree with you more! We are weak on DUI's rules should apply the same for pot! And it does seem hypocritical one is legal and the other not.

Opioids is what we need to get busy on and in a hard way! And all those involved from Doctors, trainers to Dealers. Having kids in sports the shit scares the hell out of me. We talk about this subject often but you never know and I know several people whos kids have gotten messed up on this.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #124 on: January 10, 2018, 02:22:06 PM »
Quote
I can think of few things more likely to drastically reduce gun deaths in the US than ending that senseless crusade.

How would that work?

Many ways. A significant number of gun homicides are gang/drug related (certainly way more people die from drug related gun crime than mass shootings). Many people in prison are there for victimless crimes related to drugs, which both increases their own likelihood of recidivism, if not escalation after they get out, and the number of children being raised in single/no parent households, which in turn creates many issues, that can be linked to gang participation, additional drug related crime, violence, etc. For profit prisons lobby for harsh drug laws because that gets them more inmates. The entire thing is disgusting and a stain on American history.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 01:47:10 PM by Lagom »

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #125 on: January 11, 2018, 09:01:41 AM »
Excellent post Lagom. I agree completely. Yes the opioid problem is a far bigger problem. Also heroin.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #126 on: January 11, 2018, 10:03:44 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-halts-evidence-based-205758273.html

Trump administration halts ‘evidence-based’ program that evaluates behavioral health therapies

Oh, this should help with the opioid crisis.  ::rolls eyes::

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #127 on: January 19, 2018, 10:15:05 AM »
The GOP complains the Democrats are holding the country "hostage" on the gov't shutdown.

Really? Eight years of GOP obstructionism (just say No to Obama) and the GOP thinks they have anything to complain about?

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #128 on: January 19, 2018, 10:32:35 AM »
The GOP complains the Democrats are holding the country "hostage" on the gov't shutdown.

Really? Eight years of GOP obstructionism (just say No to Obama) and the GOP thinks they have anything to complain about?

The House bill passed last night doesn't even have a majority support in the Senate from Republicans.

GOP leadership has promised for months clean bills on DACA and CHIP.  They stalled and now want to use kids as political bargaining chips.  It's disgusting.

The bipartisan deal reached last week has at least 56 votes in the Senate, but Trump killed it with the help of some hardcore anti-immigrant folks.  Mitch McConnell is too scared to just pass it and let Paul Ryan and/or Trump be the ones to veto the bipartisan effort.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #129 on: January 21, 2018, 02:55:06 PM »
And the shutdown. What do you think? Should it have been done?

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #130 on: January 22, 2018, 10:45:55 AM »

This viewpoint has been growing on me, lately. I'm still a strong believer that not everyone who voted for Trump is an overt racist/bigot/misogynist/etc*,

 It just sucks that you would even have to make such a statement!
Quote
someone so completely unqualified and unhinged
Talking about Trump here, really, completely unqualified, compared to who? Obama?
"Unhinged", no, different, ya, but he's not unhinged. The dems saying he has mental problems or is
into dementia, are the unhinged ones.




1.  why do the Republicans hate the ACA so much?
It starts with government is spending to much already, government programs are inefficient. We already have to many progarms. A small government program always gets bigger.
Quote
  Is it because it forces people to buy insurance? 
That's part of it, my Ins, Co. was forced to add things I didn't need and then my premiums increased 18.4%, 19.2% and 24%
the next 3 years after Obamacare Regulations started. Increases two and three times the preceding years.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #131 on: January 22, 2018, 12:31:30 PM »

This viewpoint has been growing on me, lately. I'm still a strong believer that not everyone who voted for Trump is an overt racist/bigot/misogynist/etc*,

 It just sucks that you would even have to make such a statement!
Quote
someone so completely unqualified and unhinged
Talking about Trump here, really, completely unqualified, compared to who? Obama?
"Unhinged", no, different, ya, but he's not unhinged. The dems saying he has mental problems or is
into dementia, are the unhinged ones.

I tried to read your comment.  I agree with the first part (in that it sucks I would need to make such a statement). The second part, I'm not sure what you are saying.

I have a fair amount of experience in decoding what people mean when they say things that make no sense to me, and it's worked well. However, I'm not willing to do that when it comes to politics. As I've said multiple times, words are important. Do you care to clarify your stance (or your comment)?


I'm going to write about the shutdown soon.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #132 on: January 31, 2018, 02:20:21 PM »
I will say that while I spend a fair amount of time thinking of the topics raised here, I don't do a good job of actually writing and posting it. In regards to everything mentioned though, something keeps coming to mind.

I was trying to square a few different thoughts regarding the role of government, specifically as it relates to immigration, but the landscape moves so quickly these days, and something else cropped up.

While I don't necessarily agree with the entire "America First" model, something was tickling me. And once I got that feather away, I figured out exactly what it was. It's somewhat related to the Paris Accord, but not entirely. Countries are arbitrary lines on a map, and nothing more*. Constructs of our own. But we all still live on the same planet. I would think that the most important thing is to ensure the habitability and health of the entire planet. I'm not a big fan of most wars and conflicts, but screwing up the planet for current and future generations seems like a good reason.

As much as many would like to believe countries have full control over everything in their borders, the planet doesn't respect that. Regardless of what you believe in regards to climate specifically, do you think that is a good approach? Am I off base? What are your thoughts?

*Not disparaging how those lines came to be.

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
    • Military Saints
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #133 on: January 31, 2018, 04:22:14 PM »
I will say that while I spend a fair amount of time thinking of the topics raised here, I don't do a good job of actually writing and posting it. In regards to everything mentioned though, something keeps coming to mind.

I was trying to square a few different thoughts regarding the role of government, specifically as it relates to immigration, but the landscape moves so quickly these days, and something else cropped up.

While I don't necessarily agree with the entire "America First" model, something was tickling me. And once I got that feather away, I figured out exactly what it was. It's somewhat related to the Paris Accord, but not entirely. Countries are arbitrary lines on a map, and nothing more*. Constructs of our own. But we all still live on the same planet. I would think that the most important thing is to ensure the habitability and health of the entire planet. I'm not a big fan of most wars and conflicts, but screwing up the planet for current and future generations seems like a good reason.

As much as many would like to believe countries have full control over everything in their borders, the planet doesn't respect that. Regardless of what you believe in regards to climate specifically, do you think that is a good approach? Am I off base? What are your thoughts?

*Not disparaging how those lines came to be.

If the average temperature rose 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next decade, would the planet become uninhabitable? Of course not. Even a 10 degree increase would not end life on earth as we know it. It would certainly require relocating a large portion of the human population that lives in coastal area that are at or below current sea levels. But humans would survive and adapt. A lot of other plants and animals probably wouldn't. Crops could still be grown but we might start growing oranges in Virginia instead of Florida and corn and wheat in Canada instead of the US Midwest.

It's the tragedy of the commons but on a global scale. Any individual action is insignificant on a global scale but when you multiple by millions or billions of people it adds up. The marginal pollution created by building one more widget won't do any harm in of itself but if you have a thousand factories producing a million widgets annually that pollution adds up and will cause negative health effects on the surrounding population.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #134 on: February 01, 2018, 08:56:52 AM »
Thanks for jumping in Michael. I know that we have extremely different views, and I'm glad you are still participating.

I am pretty certain a 10 degree increase would end life as we know it. It wouldn't end, but it would end as we know it. Shit, a fair amount of things have already changed. Think the bleaching of coral, the behavioral changes based on changing landscape, and stuff like that.

And according to the UN, it's not going to be a large portion that need relocated, it's going to be around 80% globally, and 40% just here in the US according to NOAA. Personally, I don't really see that being all that successful. But that's neither here nor there.

I'm going to make an assumption here, and if I'm off base, you can disregard the following. I'm assuming you are a supporter of the America First rhetoric (I only say rhetoric because it's not necessarily discussed in a very universally accepted manner). I think we can agree that wheat and corn are a pretty fundamental part of the diet of Americans. Wouldn't needing to import these staples weaken the US? We've got trade disagreements now, and we don't necessarily need imports to survive. Making trade agreements, or agreements of any kind, really, are successful more often coming from a position of strength. On a smaller scale, around these parts we call it FU money. If you have to deal because otherwise your people will starve, that's not a position of strength. If you think NAFTA was bad, can you imagine the concessions that would need to be made if we had no choice but to deal?

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
    • Military Saints
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #135 on: February 01, 2018, 09:37:35 AM »
Thanks for jumping in Michael. I know that we have extremely different views, and I'm glad you are still participating.

I am pretty certain a 10 degree increase would end life as we know it. It wouldn't end, but it would end as we know it. Shit, a fair amount of things have already changed. Think the bleaching of coral, the behavioral changes based on changing landscape, and stuff like that.

And according to the UN, it's not going to be a large portion that need relocated, it's going to be around 80% globally, and 40% just here in the US according to NOAA. Personally, I don't really see that being all that successful. But that's neither here nor there.

I'm going to make an assumption here, and if I'm off base, you can disregard the following. I'm assuming you are a supporter of the America First rhetoric (I only say rhetoric because it's not necessarily discussed in a very universally accepted manner). I think we can agree that wheat and corn are a pretty fundamental part of the diet of Americans. Wouldn't needing to import these staples weaken the US? We've got trade disagreements now, and we don't necessarily need imports to survive. Making trade agreements, or agreements of any kind, really, are successful more often coming from a position of strength. On a smaller scale, around these parts we call it FU money. If you have to deal because otherwise your people will starve, that's not a position of strength. If you think NAFTA was bad, can you imagine the concessions that would need to be made if we had no choice but to deal?

I'm a big proponent of free trade and comparative advantage. Why should we try to grow bananas when Costa Rica can do it much cheaper and we both benefit from trading our wheat for their bananas. It's the same reason I pay a doctor to help diagnose my medical problems rather than spend years learning how to do it myself. My time is better spent earning money at something I'm good at and paying other people to do the things they're good at and I'm not.


I proposed an extreme example. Realistically even if every human died tomorrow the planet won't instantly return to some pristine state with a multi-degree drop in temperatures in a matter of years. The processes that affect the climate are numerous and complex with some positively or negatively reinforcing others. We pump a bunch of soot in the air and temperatures drop from less sunlight but maybe we get some acid rain and lots of people dying of asthma and lung cancer. On the other hand that soot may have helped promote cloud formation which could result in increased rainfall in an otherwise drought-stricken area.

Either way, for any single individual there's no perceivable link between your actions and the whole planet. Which means that the only way to create any sort of global change is through persuasion (somewhat effective as we've seen in much of the developed world) or government force. I'm not a big fan of the latter as ultimately that force means the barrel of a gun. Once again it's extreme example but what if you were arrested for having your thermostat up too high in the winter or not recycling your cans? If you resist that you're going to be staring down the barrel of a gun. At the very least any sort of broad global change in terms of production and use of resources and energy boils down to lower standards of living for most people. If I have to pay a few cents or even a few dollars more for a gallon of gas my life won't really change. If some poor person in a developing country has to pay more for their food, clothing, energy, etc. it will probably make a much larger difference. It's basically saying "sorry, we got ours by you can't have yours".

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #136 on: February 01, 2018, 10:45:52 AM »
I actually remember India making that same argument during the Paris Accord. It is an interesting conundrum. We went this route, we now know that was shitty for the environment, but there are countries out there who are ready to go this route, and we say no?

While I am more than willing to discuss this particular issue at length, I would really like to hear thoughts on the role of government in this context. If I'm understanding your take correctly, you get the damage and potential consequences of destroying the environment.

It seems to me that protecting the environment should be a priority for any government. Making sure that the country remains for the next generation seems like it should be a priority. What are your thoughts on that? I know I have a tendency to take the long view, but I'm curious as to if this should be a priority, or not.

On another note, you talk about looking down the barrel of a gun. This ties in with what I said earlier about planetary protection (not referring to what is probably the coolest job title ever) being one of the few reasons I can see for going to war.

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
    • Military Saints
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #137 on: February 01, 2018, 03:01:04 PM »
I actually remember India making that same argument during the Paris Accord. It is an interesting conundrum. We went this route, we now know that was shitty for the environment, but there are countries out there who are ready to go this route, and we say no?

While I am more than willing to discuss this particular issue at length, I would really like to hear thoughts on the role of government in this context. If I'm understanding your take correctly, you get the damage and potential consequences of destroying the environment.

It seems to me that protecting the environment should be a priority for any government. Making sure that the country remains for the next generation seems like it should be a priority. What are your thoughts on that? I know I have a tendency to take the long view, but I'm curious as to if this should be a priority, or not.

On another note, you talk about looking down the barrel of a gun. This ties in with what I said earlier about planetary protection (not referring to what is probably the coolest job title ever) being one of the few reasons I can see for going to war.

It's something of a game theory problem. If every country participates in reducing pollution and raises taxes on resource and energy production then it can probably make a difference. But if a few countries don't participate they can gain a competitive advantage at the expense of the rest. China can send ships out in the Pacific to sweep the ocean clean of fish to the detriment of everyone but to their individual gain. Saudi Arabia can pump more oil than ever if they know prices are rising because other countries are voluntarily reducing their production.

Ultimately it comes back to force. How do the rest of those countries compel anyone to participate in their climate accord? How do those government compel their citizens and companies that operate in their country? It's easy if you've got a concrete link between a single factory dumping toxic waste into a single stream. But when you disperse it across billions of people and millions of factories, what then? Most people would probably support having that single factory shut down when there is a clear link. But will people have the same support when it's something more nebulous like producing CO2? Here in New Mexico oil and gas comprise a significant portion of the state budget. Due to a combination of natural seepage and leaks in all the infrastructure there's a large amount of methane (natural gas) released into the atmosphere in the 4 Corners region of NM which produces a lot of natural gas. Shutting down any single well or small collector pipeline that's leaking gas probably won't bother anyone, but if the federal government came in and tried to shut all of it down it would destroy the local economy and create a huge backlash from the state which depends on severance taxes from that production and sales tax/income tax from all the economic activity surrounding it.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #138 on: February 01, 2018, 03:31:35 PM »
Michael, I agree with everything you said. I was mostly curious about government role. And I think you answered that, albeit not directly.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #139 on: March 31, 2018, 06:06:04 PM »
What does capitalism mean to you (your definition), how do you feel it has evolved in the US, and what are its failings/successes? What is the ideal for a society at our scale, and what (if anything) do you think should be done to move towards that ideal?

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #140 on: May 07, 2018, 04:47:08 PM »
Folks, this thread is to make sure the other one stays focused. Recently @TornWonder commented, and I want to expand here. If this person shows up, I'll post the actual thread that piqued my interest.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #141 on: May 08, 2018, 07:17:24 AM »
Folks, this thread is to make sure the other one stays focused. Recently @TornWonder commented, and I want to expand here. If this person shows up, I'll post the actual thread that piqued my interest.

Sure, what do you want to know?

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2018, 10:00:43 AM »
Folks, this thread is to make sure the other one stays focused. Recently @TornWonder commented, and I want to expand here. If this person shows up, I'll post the actual thread that piqued my interest.

Sure, what do you want to know?

Thanks for jumping in!

Here is the original comment that made me start wondering.

I live in a defacto sanctuary city, so I've been sending in names and numbers to ICE.  Viva la resistance!

I actually have 2 primary questions. The first is due to my ignorance of what goes on in Sanctuary Cities. I thought one of the main things that make a city a Sanctuary city is that ICE intentionally doesn't enforce things. So based on this assumption, I don't know that it would accomplish anything. Am I wrong in this? The other question I had is what guidelines you'd have for determining what names and numbers you'd send.

Of course, I'm operating on the assumption that the comment above wasn't just trolling (if it was, you nailed it though).

Which then brings up a more general question, and one that we've discussed previously here. I don't know that we asked this exact question, but we've discussed the issue (and yes, I know that I still owe most of you a good write up). I know a fair amount of people in this thread are right-of-center, and immigration stances reflect that. So the pure, most boiled down version of the question I have is why. Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #143 on: May 08, 2018, 10:12:36 AM »
The first is due to my ignorance of what goes on in Sanctuary Cities. I thought one of the main things that make a city a Sanctuary city is that ICE intentionally doesn't enforce things. So based on this assumption, I don't know that it would accomplish anything. Am I wrong in this?

That is incorrect.  Sanctuary cities are cities whose local police departments will not do the work of the feds (ICE).  ICE has jurisdiction everywhere as they are a federal agency.

But, what happens is a lot is that local police will pick up someone for drug possession or public intoxication or whatever, and while they're being held they will run their info by ICE to see if they've overstayed their visa or something along those lines.  Then, instead of being charged and/or released, ICE will come pick them up.

So sanctuary city just means the local law enforcement isn't going to do the job of ICE for ICE.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #144 on: May 08, 2018, 10:27:03 AM »
Folks, this thread is to make sure the other one stays focused. Recently @TornWonder commented, and I want to expand here. If this person shows up, I'll post the actual thread that piqued my interest.

Sure, what do you want to know?

Thanks for jumping in!

Here is the original comment that made me start wondering.

I live in a defacto sanctuary city, so I've been sending in names and numbers to ICE.  Viva la resistance!

I actually have 2 primary questions. The first is due to my ignorance of what goes on in Sanctuary Cities. I thought one of the main things that make a city a Sanctuary city is that ICE intentionally doesn't enforce things. So based on this assumption, I don't know that it would accomplish anything. Am I wrong in this? The other question I had is what guidelines you'd have for determining what names and numbers you'd send.

Of course, I'm operating on the assumption that the comment above wasn't just trolling (if it was, you nailed it though).

Which then brings up a more general question, and one that we've discussed previously here. I don't know that we asked this exact question, but we've discussed the issue (and yes, I know that I still owe most of you a good write up). I know a fair amount of people in this thread are right-of-center, and immigration stances reflect that. So the pure, most boiled down version of the question I have is why. Why do illegal immigrants bug you? What is the big deal about someone being here illegally? What concerns you most?

ICE is a Federal agency, so local politicians have little to no say in what they do.  Sanctuary cities are cities in which public policy is that local government agencies including the police will not assist and/or cooperate with the federal government in the matter of immigration enforcement.  I send the names and numbers of every applicant that does not have legal paperwork, I don't pick and choose.

As to why we need to enforce immigration laws?  Because they exist.  If enough people felt that there didn't need to be any control on immigration, representatives that run on that platform of immigration reform would be elected to change the laws and open the borders.  Since that hasn't happened and immigration laws are still in effect, those laws should be enforced like all of the others.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #145 on: May 08, 2018, 10:58:09 AM »
Ah, thanks for the explanation @DarkandStormy and @TornWonder . I guess I was off in my understanding a bit. Sanctuary cities aren't really something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you are sending info over to ICE based on documentation you do or don't receive in the course of whatever your job is, not necessarily going out and looking for whatever. If I've got this correct, I'd be curious if you did the same thing for things besides immigration. For me, I'll report traffic crimes, even though I doubt anything is actually done with those reports. I do this because I'm more concerned about people driving around with extremely dangerous weapons without being fully aware of what they are doing. I think that would make a bigger difference to the overall safety of the population than someone who doesn't have documents.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #146 on: May 08, 2018, 11:22:41 AM »
Ah, thanks for the explanation @DarkandStormy and @TornWonder . I guess I was off in my understanding a bit. Sanctuary cities aren't really something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you are sending info over to ICE based on documentation you do or don't receive in the course of whatever your job is, not necessarily going out and looking for whatever. If I've got this correct, I'd be curious if you did the same thing for things besides immigration. For me, I'll report traffic crimes, even though I doubt anything is actually done with those reports. I do this because I'm more concerned about people driving around with extremely dangerous weapons without being fully aware of what they are doing. I think that would make a bigger difference to the overall safety of the population than someone who doesn't have documents.

I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #147 on: May 08, 2018, 04:04:37 PM »
Ah, thanks for the explanation @DarkandStormy and @TornWonder . I guess I was off in my understanding a bit. Sanctuary cities aren't really something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you are sending info over to ICE based on documentation you do or don't receive in the course of whatever your job is, not necessarily going out and looking for whatever. If I've got this correct, I'd be curious if you did the same thing for things besides immigration. For me, I'll report traffic crimes, even though I doubt anything is actually done with those reports. I do this because I'm more concerned about people driving around with extremely dangerous weapons without being fully aware of what they are doing. I think that would make a bigger difference to the overall safety of the population than someone who doesn't have documents.

I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

Do you think ICE will take action based on your reports?

Fuck. I keep thinking that people have the same well thought out idea of speeding that I do. Meaning it's a fucking joke, and nobody should care. And now I'm worked up a bit. This is something I feel passionate about. As terrorists, racists, douchebags, and idiot 'incels' have found out, a vehicle is a weapon. A weapon that people think is some kind of right. I give no fucks about people speeding, so long as they are driving well. I'm not even getting into the response of drivers to bikers. Just people driving in general. I am a misanthrope, mostly, and driving confirms that is a valid and accurate viewpoint. When I say I report people, and their licenses, I do not mean for speeding. I mean for those fucking idiots who refuse to use blinkers properly, those who can't stay in their lane when making a turn, and miscellaneous other things that actually cause issues. Speeding isn't one of them.

TornWonder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2018, 07:43:51 AM »
Ah, thanks for the explanation @DarkandStormy and @TornWonder . I guess I was off in my understanding a bit. Sanctuary cities aren't really something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you are sending info over to ICE based on documentation you do or don't receive in the course of whatever your job is, not necessarily going out and looking for whatever. If I've got this correct, I'd be curious if you did the same thing for things besides immigration. For me, I'll report traffic crimes, even though I doubt anything is actually done with those reports. I do this because I'm more concerned about people driving around with extremely dangerous weapons without being fully aware of what they are doing. I think that would make a bigger difference to the overall safety of the population than someone who doesn't have documents.

I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

Do you think ICE will take action based on your reports?

Fuck. I keep thinking that people have the same well thought out idea of speeding that I do. Meaning it's a fucking joke, and nobody should care. And now I'm worked up a bit. This is something I feel passionate about. As terrorists, racists, douchebags, and idiot 'incels' have found out, a vehicle is a weapon. A weapon that people think is some kind of right. I give no fucks about people speeding, so long as they are driving well. I'm not even getting into the response of drivers to bikers. Just people driving in general. I am a misanthrope, mostly, and driving confirms that is a valid and accurate viewpoint. When I say I report people, and their licenses, I do not mean for speeding. I mean for those fucking idiots who refuse to use blinkers properly, those who can't stay in their lane when making a turn, and miscellaneous other things that actually cause issues. Speeding isn't one of them.

Well, back to my point about action being taken, I don't believe there is anything that law enforcement can even do if you report bad drivers unless you have dashcam footage of their moving violation and it accurately depicts the identity of the driver committing the act.  Without that there is no way for a ticket to hold up in court and it would be a waste of taxpayer money attempting to try.

Me supplying the identity of a person living in the US illegally should be easily verifiable and actionable.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Small Daily Acts of Political Discussion
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2018, 08:07:11 AM »
I'll report someone breaking the law if I think there will be any possible action taken.  I'm not going to call in every speeder on the street because it would be basically impossible for the police to do anything about it and would simply tie up resources that could be helping to save a life somewhere else.  If someone is obviously driving recklessly/drunk I will call the police and report it.

One could argue against what you (and ICE) are doing by the same logic.