(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

(09-23-2018 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

Your last comment makes my point perfectly - these ideas really only seem fringe because you disagree with the underlying premise. Both parties have equally “crazy” type ideas to those in the other party because they do not agree with a lot of the fundamental ideas driving those policy positions.

Im not the person saying 'Abolish ICE' doesnt mean 'Abolish ICE', am I? Sorry that is the jig you are dancing right now....

I’m not dancing a jig and not suggesting that people saying abolishing ICE doesn’t result in ICE being abolished. I’m using my reading comprehension skills to evaluate statements made by Democratic lawmakers that explain what abolishing ICE would do, and how many, if not all, of ICE’s responsibilities would be transferred elsewhere.

I’m actually looking past the first sentence and recognizing that the majority of lawmakers advocating for that position include an explanation of what that would mean. I’m surprised to see such a critical thinker stop so short in this instance.

Anyways, as I said in another post, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I do have a strong opinion that we should read pst the tag line.

"Abolish ICE" is not the same as "Restructure Immigration". Say what you mean, mean what you say.

And everybody seems to have forgotten what the "C" in ICE stands for.

(09-23-2018 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

Your last comment makes my point perfectly - these ideas really only seem fringe because you disagree with the underlying premise. Both parties have equally “crazy” type ideas to those in the other party because they do not agree with a lot of the fundamental ideas driving those policy positions.

Im not the person saying 'Abolish ICE' doesnt mean 'Abolish ICE', am I? Sorry that is the jig you are dancing right now....

I’m not dancing a jig and not suggesting that people saying abolishing ICE doesn’t result in ICE being abolished. I’m using my reading comprehension skills to evaluate statements made by Democratic lawmakers that explain what abolishing ICE would do, and how many, if not all, of ICE’s responsibilities would be transferred elsewhere.

I’m actually looking past the first sentence and recognizing that the majority of lawmakers advocating for that position include an explanation of what that would mean. I’m surprised to see such a critical thinker stop so short in this instance.

Anyways, as I said in another post, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I do have a strong opinion that we should read pst the tag line.

Much as I use my reading skills to note those same people deem "deportation" is an act that "doesnt work" and that it is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".

So let's recap what we know: they want a stop to the the most basic of immigration enforcement tools, call that tool 'cruel' and 'abus[ive]', want to shutter ICE. But yet the rallying cry of 'Abolish ICE' is some benign cosmetic terminology about how to change to the immigration regime. Got it. Makes perfect sense to me.

I find it funny that people that believe the term 'Build the wall' means literally building a giant fracking wall then hop, skip, and jump to find a benign meaning to 'Abolish ICE'. Bizarro world, I tell you.

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it



If we are not going to deport anybody, we have open borders.

If we are going to deport some people, we need an enforcement agency.

(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

So 'build the wall' and 'make america great again' is shorthand for keep all the brown people out, and 'Abolish ICE' means 'Gee Wally, lets ponder various methods of immigration reform.'

This Orwellian doublespeak where 'x really means y' stuff keeps getting better and better. Pretty soon I wont be able to make the OK sign with my hand before someone pops a cork....

This is as good as Robert using the subject of his trying to walk away from a crash he caused while drunk as snot as a bootstrap to social justice.

Tell me Lad, when I say 'The Department of Energy should be broken apart and the parts shot into the sun', do I get a free pass to say that *really* means 'perhaps we should have a lasting discussion about energy policy'? My take is that should sound right to you. Yes?

(09-23-2018 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

So 'build the wall' and 'make america great again' is shorthand for keep all the brown people out, and 'Abolish ICE' means 'Gee Wally, lets ponder various methods of immigration reform.'

This Orwellian doublespeak where 'x really means y' stuff keeps getting better and better. Pretty soon I wont be able to make the OK sign with my hand before someone pops a cork....

Soon you won't be allowed to use your hand without a permit. People have used their hands before to hurt people or to make them feel bad.


Tanq, you and I as border babies know that both sides of the river are not only equally brown, but that a lot of Mexicans and other hispanics look just like any of us Yankees. O'Rourke could be Hispanic, based just on appearance, and at first I assumed he was, based on the name. I don't think Hispanics need a hispanic to represent them, any more than I think whites need a white. But sometimes people like to vote for somebody they feel has a kinship to them.

I like to vote for people who share my beliefs in the best ways of doing things.

(09-23-2018 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

So 'build the wall' and 'make america great again' is shorthand for keep all the brown people out, and 'Abolish ICE' means 'Gee Wally, lets ponder various methods of immigration reform.'

This Orwellian doublespeak where 'x really means y' stuff keeps getting better and better. Pretty soon I wont be able to make the OK sign with my hand before someone pops a cork....

This is as good as Robert using the subject of his trying to walk away from a crash he caused while drunk as snot as a bootstrap to social justice.

Tell me Lad, when I say 'The Department of Energy should be broken apart and the parts shot into the sun', do I get a free pass to say that *really* means 'perhaps we should have a lasting discussion about energy policy'? My take is that should sound right to you. Yes?

So wait, since you’re saying Build the Wall is attached to a more nuanced stance, then why can’t Abolish ICE be?

You’re trying to catch me on something that catches you on the very same thing... Lol. Heck, I’ve even said that a part of the abolish ICE platform is abolishing ICE, but it’s coupeld with policy changes that continue to carry out a lot of, if not all of, the same responsibilities. So it’s not X really means Y, it’s X really means X and Y, and Z, and AA, and so on. X is just the branding.

It’s almost as if one can say something isn’t working and should be stopped so a better solution can be created.

I have issues with Build the Wall because it’s a colossal waste of money and will likely be incredibly ineffective. I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful. So I agree that they’re both built around sentiments that aren’t conveyed by the short hand.

(09-23-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

So 'build the wall' and 'make america great again' is shorthand for keep all the brown people out, and 'Abolish ICE' means 'Gee Wally, lets ponder various methods of immigration reform.'

This Orwellian doublespeak where 'x really means y' stuff keeps getting better and better. Pretty soon I wont be able to make the OK sign with my hand before someone pops a cork....

This is as good as Robert using the subject of his trying to walk away from a crash he caused while drunk as snot as a bootstrap to social justice.

Tell me Lad, when I say 'The Department of Energy should be broken apart and the parts shot into the sun', do I get a free pass to say that *really* means 'perhaps we should have a lasting discussion about energy policy'? My take is that should sound right to you. Yes?

So wait, since you’re saying Build the Wall is attached to a more nuanced stance, then why can’t Abolish ICE be?

You’re trying to catch me on something that catches you on the very same thing... Lol. Heck, I’ve even said that a part of the abolish ICE platform is abolishing ICE, but it’s coupeld with policy changes that continue to carry out a lot of, if not all of, the same responsibilities. So it’s not X really means Y, it’s X really means X and Y, and Z, and AA, and so on. X is just the branding.

It’s almost as if one can say something isn’t working and should be stopped so a better solution can be created.

I have issues with Build the Wall because it’s a colossal waste of money and will likely be incredibly ineffective. I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful. So I agree that they’re both built around sentiments that aren’t conveyed by the short hand.

But you get caught in that same issue Lad.

If you wish that stance the 'Build the Wall' means 'Build the Wall' for Lad.
Abolish ICE means 'gee Wally lets have a national discussion about immigration.'

And we each have one jig according to the other. Big improvement.

The issue that you seemingly overlook is that most people on your side actually think that 'Build the Wall' is codespeak for 'keep the mudpeople out', havent you heard? I guess you have heard, you just stated your belief in that above. How about them apples?

What is 'lets get rid of the Energy Department' codespeak for?

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful in open borders.

Fixed your attempt at demonization of one side and soft padding of the other. Nice try though.

I guess I should say "'Build the Wall' is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful, jsut like how Abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes in open borders" if I want to exhibit the same soft peddle knee jerk but reverse bias, but in reverse, that your first attempt conveyed.

(09-23-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have issues with Build the Wall because it’s a colossal waste of money and will likely be incredibly ineffective.

Me too.

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful.

I presume you mean anti illegal immigrant sentiment. You guys are always forgetting that little modifier, and it does, ahem, modify the meaning.

Harmful in what way, and to whom?

(09-23-2018 05:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful.

I presume you mean anti illegal immigrant sentiment. You guys are always forgetting that little modifier, and it does, ahem, modify the meaning.

Harmful in what way, and to whom?

Why stop doing that when that omission adds *so* massively *and* scrumptiously* to the end emotional reaction?

Thats the *entire* point, OO....

I am still in awe of the 'demonization/padding' pair Lad puts forward.

Anti-immigrant status v. 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'. The sublime change of 'open borders' to 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'..... I think he needs to volunteer more for Robert's campaign with that deft wording....

(09-23-2018 05:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I have issues with Build the Wall because it’s a colossal waste of money and will likely be incredibly ineffective.

Me too.

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful.

I presume you mean anti illegal immigrant sentiment. You guys are always forgetting that little modifier, and it does, ahem, modify the meaning.

Harmful in what way, and to whom?

Sorry, in this case I should have used the word illegal. We’ve had a similar conversation before, and you know I don’t have an issue using the term “illegal” like some on the left do.

Things like reducing the number of refugee slots in 2019 would be an example of anti legal immigrant sentiment, which I accidentally suggested the Wall was.

And I’m not an advocate for abolishing ICE, so I can’t really provide you a lot of details on why some find it harmful. I’d suggest you read that Atlantic article, it helps explain the thought process of some proponents.

(09-23-2018 06:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful.

I presume you mean anti illegal immigrant sentiment. You guys are always forgetting that little modifier, and it does, ahem, modify the meaning.

Harmful in what way, and to whom?

Why stop doing that when that omission adds *so* massively *and* scrumptiously* to the end emotional reaction?

Thats the *entire* point, OO....

I am still in awe of the 'demonization/padding' pair Lad puts forward.

Anti-immigrant status v. 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'. The sublime change of 'open borders' to 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'..... I think he needs to volunteer more for Robert's campaign with that deft wording....

I can’t even figure out where to start. In Tanq world there is either open borders or there is what, a Wall? Is there no place in between, where people might not want an open border, but a different approach to managing our immigration than what we have?

How do you actually believe that this giant middle ground doesn’t exist?

(09-23-2018 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote: I do think a lot of the support is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, just like how abolish ICE is rooted in a sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful.

I presume you mean anti illegal immigrant sentiment. You guys are always forgetting that little modifier, and it does, ahem, modify the meaning.

Harmful in what way, and to whom?

Why stop doing that when that omission adds *so* massively *and* scrumptiously* to the end emotional reaction?

Thats the *entire* point, OO....

I am still in awe of the 'demonization/padding' pair Lad puts forward.

Anti-immigrant status v. 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'. The sublime change of 'open borders' to 'sentiment that believes our border policies are harmful'..... I think he needs to volunteer more for Robert's campaign with that deft wording....

I can’t even figure out where to start. In Tanq world there is either open borders or there is what, a Wall? Is there no place in between, where people might not want an open border, but a different approach to managing our immigration than what we have?

How do you actually believe that this giant middle ground doesn’t exist?

Lad, I believe the "middle ground" I would like to see is a managed and enforced immigration so that we know who is in our country, why, where they are, and how long they plan to be here. I think we have the right to pick and choose who we want here, and who we don't want here. Just because somebody 'wants a better life for their family" does not mean we have to accept them.

I would like immigrants - legal ones - to be people of good character and the skills to support themselves and become taxpayers(Federal income tax). Wading a river does nothing to demonstrate those attributes. In fact it tends to point to the more likely absence of them. Engineers and doctors do not wade the river, nor do skilled workmen.

I also want control of our borders so minimize the possibility of terrorists slipping in through open gates. No, we won't get them all, but we don't have to make it easier for them.

Letting in uneducated and unskilled workers is not a good policy. A generation of low income life later, it will swell the ranks for those voting for Democrats, as their American born children come of age, which I believe is one of the reasons they want looser immigration and less deportation.

If unskilled and illiterate workers are needed, let's have a guest worker policy.

There is no reasonable reason to have loose borders. The world is different now than the 19th century.

But most of the left doesn't like my "middle ground". From the left I hear only of sanctuary cities, free driver's licenses, and abolishing ICE. I would like to abolish the Democratic Party. By that, I of course mean that I would like to restructure it into a more reasonable group. Something more in the middle.

Quote:How do you actually believe that this giant middle ground doesn’t exist?

First, if you bother not to leap to stunning bald ass conclusions, my personal position is that I have no issue with the current immigration laws and policy. If you want to come in -- you are more than welcome to do that in the legal manner. I welcome immigrants who can hit the ground running and make an impact.

I have no issue with a well run temporary worker program.

I have no fking clue why we reward illegal behavior. Or want to reward illegal behavior.

I have no fking clue why we make demands that those who break the law should be *entitled* not just to stay, but to be championed to get permission to stay *ahead* of those who make the hard effort to do so legally. I am perplexed why your side not just wishes, but wholeheartedly works tirelessly to reward that illegal behavior (actually I do and I voiced that prior).

And, at the same time, relish to call those who dont see that point of view of opening the floodgates to every single person as valid as 'anti-immigrant'. Sometimes they actually love to make the comparison of those 'anti-immigrant, keep out the darkie types' to their nirvana view where they cover up their 'open up the floodgates' point of view with 'something better' -- much like you did in your comparison. Glad you didnt mean 'open up the floodgates' like many on your side of the fence do, but you do use the same verbiage-pokey in how you phrase it though.

I can only come to two endpoints based on your comment above.

1) You have no fking idea what my stance is and assume I am a 'build a land mine strip and keep all the darkies out' type person; or
2) You actually think my view on illegal immigration is an edge case, since I am ostensibly nowhere near a 'middle ground' in your point of view.

Which is it in Lad-world?

You want 'something different'? Great. A huge number of you all actually want open borders. Glad to know at least one prog doesnt.

But I do find it funny that you pop your cork at my apparent 'black/white' troglodyte view. When your own verbiage always soft pedals the extreme of your side's position and always seems to emphasize the extreme of the opposite side.

By your own comment you believe that 'the Wall' really channels 'anti-immigrant' types as a default while your impassioned defense that 'Abolish ICE' has nothing in the fing world to do with the open borders types tells me a whole bunch about the pre-existing bias that rolls over here.

And I will be utterly honest here: the idea of the Wall may just in fact refer to an ideal of completely closed borders to some small gorup of people that support the President. No doubt about that, but I dont self-blind myself to the fact that it does.

I suggest you do the same in Lad-world re: the scream to "Abolish ICE".
And sanctuary cities.
And calls for drivers licenses (i.e. voting IDs) to illegals.
And 'resistance cities' that refuse to aid ICE.
And governments that actively thwart ICE activities by barring interaction between police and ICE on transfers.
And governments that try to bar ICE from public courtrooms.
And city officials that tweet about knowledge of upcoming enforcement activities.
And resistance cities extending voting rights to illegals.

And every other program out there that screams that a substantial number of the left simply want to lift the gate wide open. The parades and rallies of tens of thousands all carrying signs that call for *all* of the above scream volumes about the size and depth of that point of view on the progressive side.

But I forgot --- thinking that the Department of Energy should be disbanded is 'fringe' in your book.

My question to you still stands, mind you. What other functions of the Federal Government rank with State, Defense and Commerce as so 'core' to the *being* of the United States that calling for their abolishment is 'fringe'? We have established that Energy and Education are apparently *core* and *vital* functions that we simply *cant* live without in Lad-world, what about the Fish and Game Service? Obviously not ICE, but what about, say, the Raisin Council?

(09-23-2018 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.

And Ocasio makes it clear she opposes it because of "deportation". Apparently "deportation" of illegal aliens "doesnt work" (her words) for her.

It is spoken eloquently but the main point is still there when you actually read it. Apparently "deportation" is "cruel" and "abus[ive]".
Funny stuff.

I’m confused. We were talking about the repercussions of abolishing ICE, not issues with ICE and why people wanted to abolish ICE.

Again, even Cortez is saying that abolishing ICE would result in enforcing immigration policy, just in a reformed manner.

I read the Atlantic article, thanks for posting it. It does make clear, though, that even if "Abolish ICE" is taken to mean "Let's reform immigration policy," that "reform" must include the end of deportation as an enforcement mechanism:

Quote:Sean McElwee, a co-founder of Data for Progress and abolishice.org, has been a leader in the charge to eliminate ICE for several years. Abolish ICE “is fundamentally an anti-deportation movement,” he told me, and after the agency is gone, “the central aim has to be ensuring that mass deportation is not housed somewhere else in the government.”

That pretty much lets the cat out of the bag.

Quote:Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

Hmm, is this a potential reasonable middle ground? What would noncruel and nonabusive enforcement look like in practice?

Quote:Senator Kamala Harris of California, in a recent interview on MSNBC, said it would be necessary to “reexamine” the agency and perhaps consider “starting from scratch.” A spokesman for Harris told me that the senator hopes ICE funds can be directed more appropriately, and agents can be retrained “against targeting vulnerable populations such as victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, crime witnesses, pregnant women, and children.”

OK, so first it means granting asylum to anyone who says a few unverifiable magic words about having been a victim or witness in their home country, then it means women and children get a pass (and since "breaking up families" must be stopped as well, any family members attached to a nondeportable woman or child will be nondeportable) . . .

Quote:When asked whether broader changes to internal immigration enforcement were necessary—if authorities should stop pursuing undocumented immigrants altogether—most of the lawmakers I spoke with brought the conversation back to what they viewed as ICE’s current flaws. “It’s the indiscriminate, random use of deportations” that has to stop, said Pocan. “We know there are millions of people here who are technically not here legally, and yet many have been here for a very long time. I don’t think many people think that’s an effective use of ICE.”

So if you come here illegally and evade detection until some clock runs out, you become nondeportable as well? Seriously?

Quote:Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law: “In the abstract it’s okay to say that, yes, [Democrats] believe deportations should still happen, but when you dig deeper, then the choices become very difficult.” In other words, there hasn’t been a broader conversation about which undocumented immigrants could acceptably be removed by ICE and which shouldn’t be.

Here's my prediction: the only class of deportees that the Left will accept will be convicted felons. That is not a reasonable middle ground.

Quote: (McElwee again): “Now there is some idea of a world in which we don’t deport people. There’s finally beginning to be a left vision for immigration policy.”

Having an immigration system without any deportation at all, or effectively no deportation except in extremely limited circumstances, is just a deeply unserious idea, I'm sorry. It is at the level of John Lennon's "Imagine" and yet this idea finds purchase at the highest levels of the Democratic party. I maintain that Republicans have a far greater track record in not letting the inmates run the asylum.

I also like the term 'people here who are technically not here legally'.

I wonder what the specific 'technical term' is for an act that is 'technically not .... legal[]'. Lets put our collective minds together and figure out what that term should be. Tough one I tell you....

Also when I was a young lawyer, a *very* seasoned litigator who was one of our chaperones/mentors as we did our first cases offered this nugget: Whenever anyone conditions an answer with the term 'technically', you know there is something laying under that log they want to gloss over.

The article allows (actually highlights) the unfettered use of 'softie' terms to dance all around the core issue on the agenda. Reminds me of the salsa dance-like language some used in their rationale for teaching 'intelligent design'.

Why do all these violent extremists keep joining the Democrats?

deported six times