Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s hardline policy on immigrant children has become a tes
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s hardline policy on immigrant children has become a testing time for the White House
The polling is not good for the President. According to a CNN poll two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the practice of taking undocumented immigrant children from their families and putting them in government facilities on US borders, Only 28% approve.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Frankly I'm surprised I haven't read on Twitter that it's all fake news and these kids are actors hired by the Mexican government and the Clinton foundation.
"I don't understand why children are being separated from their parents. Either they are legal migrants and the family stays together in entering the USA, or they're illegal migrants and the family stays together in not entering the USA."
The families are not simply bounced from the border, the parents are charged with illegal entry into the United States, that's the nub of the change the mandatory criminalisation of people caught crossing the border.
The parents aren't simply thrown back south, they go to jail. The kids can't go to jail, hence they go into the care of the state. (in this case a big cage).
It's brutal, but it'll work very quickly. Why risk going north when this may happen?
The one silver lining to this is that Trump is acting like a kind of cartoon super-villain discrediting a lot of banal state-perpetrated evil that's been going on since governments started trying to manage which humans lived on which side of their imaginary lines.
Plus of course it will not be Trump on the ballot in the midterms but Republican Congressmen, Governors and State Legislatures
Many many people try legally to get a green card and legal permanent residency and then US citizenship. Same with entry into Europe. If crossing the Mexican border or the Med and landing gives you effectively the same thing why should anyone bother going via the legal route?
You could equally argue that it is cruel to jail any parent who commits a crime in the UK - in case their child has to go into care?
In the end if you care about your kids and their welfare - don't break the law including immigration law.
That doesn't of course absolve the US government from looking after these kids properly - but parents who commit crimes shouldn't just be absolved of them because they have children?
The clip stops but even the host on a Fox news show looks like he is about to question that or at least point out they (Fox or maybe him) are not actually endorsing that point of view.
Should I be worried that I find her very attractive..........
My big issue - as a US resident - is that the system is designed to have no penalties for those who hire or benefit from (cheap, no insurance needed) illegal immigrants.
The consequence of this is that those (like property developers) who have business models based around hiring illegal immigrants to keep costs down, keep demanding them. There is huge demand for undocumented labour in the US, and there are next to no penalities for hiring illegals. This keeps demand high, and therefore people flowing in.
By all means, prosecute those who try and come to the US illegally. But if you do not impose penalties on those who cause the demand for illegal work, then I believe you (a) are not going to solve the problem, and (b) are acting imorally, in that you are creating demand for an illegal product.
To use an analogy, imagine there were no penalties whatsover for drug taking and possession, but appalling penalties for dealing. It would be insane, yes? That is the situation in the US today.
In the US, employees are expected to fill in an I-9 demonstrating a right to work. However, employers are not required to check that any of the paperwork the I-9 refers to is actually correct, and there have been successful legal cases brought against employers who were overzealous in checking the eligibility of workers.
And of course it would seem they aren't looking after them properly, therefore a bigger wrong is being committed by the state in the name of some idealised justice.
I try not to overly judge countries on their immigration policies, since ultimately it has to be up to a country how open they want to be and oftentimes critics implicitly or explicitly act as though any amount of sending people back is unconscionable, but surely some methods, even if effective, are not justified just because a crime has been committed?
If I stomped on your foot I'd be in the wrong and should expect consequences, but that wouldnt make it reasonable or proportionate to chop my legs off at the knee. It'd be effective and I wouldn't do it again, but it'd be a bit of an overeaction.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44543352
It says 'more than 100' demanded such though. Is that news? Surely they have tens of thousands of employees?
I believe that the government over promised on its compromise last time, which is not good, but they did compromise to some degree and it was rejected, and if that was, reasonably or not, as far as they could go in compromising with the other side of the debate, it feels like Grieve is being disingenuous by acting as though he is willing to meet the Gov halfway when they would claim they've already done so and wants them to come three quarters of the way .
What he says the amendment does not do seems pretty in line with what the opposition say it will do.
Of course, I suspect that's because immigrants are attracted to cities with lots of opportunities, and cities with lots of opportunities tend to have lower crime rates.
It is more as though drug dealers, who conincidentally donate large amounts to politicians, face no penalties and users face draconian ones, even for drug use three or four decades back, or for a first offence ....
It is perhaps also worth pointing out that the demand for the extraordinarily lucrative drugs trade, which has played havoc with law enforcement in Mexico, and created the conditions where many would be migrants can credibly claim to be seeking asylum, is almost largely from the US.
So far, every one (admittedly, just three) of my World Cup match bets has failed. Cunningly, I've been playing with very small stakes, but still.
Any word on the CDU/CSU situation?
When it comes to having cake and eating it, he's rather good.
I just think putting a man who screams about his principles and then quietly and effectively sacrifices the lot without people noticing to get what he wants would be a rather good negotiator. Also, people like him personally and consistently underrate him. With Davis, people dislike him and every time you think he can't top the last cock up, he somehow does it.
On a tangential issue: the Airports Commission report would have relied on future projections of usage of the various UK airports. Due to (IMO) stupidity, nothing has been done on the report in three years since it was published.
But it would be interesting to see how those projections matched the reality of growth over the last three years ...
What were their figures 2010 pre-GE?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/19/trump-border-children-inflammatory-rhetoric-655479
Without context it's meaningless: turnover? profits? donations? time spent on internet forums?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-cohen-wants-trump-to-pay-his-legal-fees-1529447136
What a sad place Trump's America has become.
Looks like we now rarely detain families and when we do we keep them together.
The post-WW1 system is a massive failure. It's arbitrary, immoral, and the costs are unfathomably immense - something like 100% of world GDP - ie but for this disastrous experiment in command-and-control, the world would be something like twice as rich as it currently is.
Immigration controls in the UK date from the Aliens Act of 1905.
Pedant hat OFF.
More on the Aliens Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_Act_1905
It’s a view.
Anyway, nothing initially tempting.
Calling John Mann, Caroline Flint...
It confirms the sense there is something intrinsically recessional about Brexit. It is a cause for a Britain the Brexiteers themselves do not think worth prizing and it is hard to avoid the thought that matters and may one day make a difference.
Brexit must, again, happen. But while Brexit may be forgivable, the Brexiteers are not.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/brexit-has-become-englands-white-whale/
Even those who claim we didn't need the EU to guarantee our behaviour because we are above those standards anyway miss the point that by being a part of that club we helped to force those standards in places that couldn't take them for granted
I agree with you that the EU has supported the export of more liberal values, democratic institutions, rule of law etc. and I hope they stand firm on this.
*If* Hungary bring in a harsh law, it'll be interesting to see how the EU react.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-trump-seems-to-be-saying-more-and-more-things-that-arent-true/2018/06/19/c1bb8af6-73d5-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html
Not sure the EU is the stepladder to the moral high ground you think it is.
Mr. Borough, if MPs seek to rule out 'no deal' then the EU will simply dictate terms and the UK's only option will be to sign.
Similarly, a second referendum (having done their best to thwart the first) would simply provide an incentive to the EU to offer the worst possible deal so that the electorate has the 'opportunity to change its mind'.
Grieve et al. are undermining the UK's negotiating position, such as it is, and giving succour to the other side of the table. They've lost the vote but want to win the process.
"According to an analysis by The Post’s Fact Checker through the end of May, Trump had made 3,251 false or misleading claims in 497 days — an average of 6.5 such claims per day of his presidency."
We truly live in extraordinary times.
Yes it is a view, just like nearly every other post on here. It is a view. It is.
For what it is worth I think the Gov has decided there's no point trying to compromise further as Grieve won't accept anything, despite his claims to the contrary, and that they will just lose as the temptation to bloody the Gov proves too enticing for a couple of lab leavers. After all, if a couple of tories say the amendment won't bind the Gov etc, that's cover for them changing their vote while saying they still believe what they said before.
Tick, tock.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44543286
Of course, he might just love the sound of his own voice.