Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Biggerboat1 said:
KLAMarine said:

>Indeed that's on me: I'm a skeptic with very high standards.

What's 'on you'? Can you be more specific, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about...? Clothes on your body, egg on your face, wasting everyone's time?

I refuse to acknowledge the context in which you made that comment and lack the ability to apply basic deductive reasoning so could you please treat me like a particularly slow 5 year old and include the specifics please?

Ooft, my neck is getting sore from the weight of all these super-high standards crammed into my huge skeptic brain...!

"What's 'on you'? Can you be more specific, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about...?"

>Refer to sundin's post.

MrWayne said:
KLAMarine said:

"It's 2019 and Alabama made abortions basically illegal, something many people couldn't imagine happening in the 21st century. Don't take any of your rights for granted."

1)Is an abortion a right? Isn't that a privilege?

"These four women are elected for the US Congress, all they should care about are their voters and America. Why do they have to pass such an unrealistic test? If every american politician also have to be an successfull politician in a nother country than non of your politicians would be in office.

It doesn't sound that cool anymore if you think about it."

2)No one is saying they HAVE to pass any such test. Do you not know what a suggestion is?

1) What do you think is the difference between a right and a privilege? Rights are granted to everyone, an abortion right would grant abortions to everyone who can get pregnant (theoretically also to those who can't get pregnant but they don't really matter). Privilege on the otherhand always requires two groups, one privileged group and one unprivileged group, in case of abortion what would be the unprivileged group?

2) Typically if you suggesting something you also want it to happen or why did you even suggeste it in the first place. But this doesn't even matter in the discussion, Trump's suggestion was stupid and bigoted and I don't understand how anyone can defend him for that.

1) A privilege can be rescinded. A right cannot.

2) A suggestion isn't automatically enforceable. Trump's suggestion is not enforceable.



Around the Network

Trump supporters claim their fuhrer isn't racist, yet they're silent as Trump again retweets Katie Hopkins, that fanatical bitch who calls migrants roaches and demands a final solution for Muslims.



Some days I just blow up.

A new bipartisan push by Senators for the DHS to implement a program called Operation Safe Return.
1. Within 1-3 days, families would receive a U.S Border Patrol interview. Those who do not claim credible fear would be deported.
Those who do claim fear of returning home would get a second interview within the next two days. Translators would be provided.
3. Over their first 4 days in the U.S., all would receive a medical exam and be provided "fair access" to attorneys.
4. Within 9 days, asylum officers would conduct an interview.
5. Within 1 day of that interview, the officer’s determination will be sent to DOJ and homeland security.
6. Over the next 2-4 days officials would judge the case.
7. Within a total of 15 days, homeland security would remove family units “whose negative credible fear determinations are affirmed by the immigration judge.”
8. Those found to have a credible fear of returning will be steered to file an asylum claim.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-border-plan-migrants-get-15-days-to-prove-asylum-claim-or-leave



jason1637 said:
A new bipartisan push by Senators for the DHS to implement a program called Operation Safe Return.
1. Within 1-3 days, families would receive a U.S Border Patrol interview. Those who do not claim credible fear would be deported.
Those who do claim fear of returning home would get a second interview within the next two days. Translators would be provided.
3. Over their first 4 days in the U.S., all would receive a medical exam and be provided "fair access" to attorneys.
4. Within 9 days, asylum officers would conduct an interview.
5. Within 1 day of that interview, the officer’s determination will be sent to DOJ and homeland security.
6. Over the next 2-4 days officials would judge the case.
7. Within a total of 15 days, homeland security would remove family units “whose negative credible fear determinations are affirmed by the immigration judge.”
8. Those found to have a credible fear of returning will be steered to file an asylum claim.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-border-plan-migrants-get-15-days-to-prove-asylum-claim-or-leave

While I support speeding up the asylum process, there are a few issues that I have with this.

First of all, Border Patrol agents should not be tasked with making the initial determination. CBP officials are not properly trained to conduct these interviews, there is a severe risk of bias and there is also an issue with how trustworthy these officials and agencies are. There have been numerous accusations of mistreatment and with recent news regarding the private Facebook groups, it does not seem prudent to place this responsibility in the hands of such a group. This should be handled by asylum officers in all cases where an individual is seeking asylum.

Second, while expedited processing is beneficial is many cases, the asylum seeker should be allowed to postpone certain aspects in order to protect due process. If an individual needs more than 15 days to gather evidence, they should be granted some additional time.

Third, this does very little to push back against the abuses of the system which are being pushed by Trump. We need a system which clearly and fairly defines criteria for asylum and does not allow room for such abuses. Trump has made it clear that he wishes to reduce asylum as much as possible. The new policy to refuse asylum to anybody who hasn't claimed it in a county that they have passed through must be abandoned, and we need clear language allowing asylum claims related to domestic violence and gang violence (both of which Trump and his administration have sought to reduce).



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:
A new bipartisan push by Senators for the DHS to implement a program called Operation Safe Return.
1. Within 1-3 days, families would receive a U.S Border Patrol interview. Those who do not claim credible fear would be deported.
Those who do claim fear of returning home would get a second interview within the next two days. Translators would be provided.
3. Over their first 4 days in the U.S., all would receive a medical exam and be provided "fair access" to attorneys.
4. Within 9 days, asylum officers would conduct an interview.
5. Within 1 day of that interview, the officer’s determination will be sent to DOJ and homeland security.
6. Over the next 2-4 days officials would judge the case.
7. Within a total of 15 days, homeland security would remove family units “whose negative credible fear determinations are affirmed by the immigration judge.”
8. Those found to have a credible fear of returning will be steered to file an asylum claim.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-border-plan-migrants-get-15-days-to-prove-asylum-claim-or-leave

While I support speeding up the asylum process, there are a few issues that I have with this.

First of all, Border Patrol agents should not be tasked with making the initial determination. CBP officials are not properly trained to conduct these interviews, there is a severe risk of bias and there is also an issue with how trustworthy these officials and agencies are. There have been numerous accusations of mistreatment and with recent news regarding the private Facebook groups, it does not seem prudent to place this responsibility in the hands of such a group. This should be handled by asylum officers in all cases where an individual is seeking asylum.

Second, while expedited processing is beneficial is many cases, the asylum seeker should be allowed to postpone certain aspects in order to protect due process. If an individual needs more than 15 days to gather evidence, they should be granted some additional time.

Third, this does very little to push back against the abuses of the system which are being pushed by Trump. We need a system which clearly and fairly defines criteria for asylum and does not allow room for such abuses. Trump has made it clear that he wishes to reduce asylum as much as possible. The new policy to refuse asylum to anybody who hasn't claimed it in a county that they have passed through must be abandoned, and we need clear language allowing asylum claims related to domestic violence and gang violence (both of which Trump and his administration have sought to reduce).

I feel that if there's a standard set of questions and answers are documented I feel that border patrol could handle the first interview but it'd would have to be doen correctly. 

Eh 15 days sounds like a reasonable amount of time but on a case by case basis some extra time would make sense but they should make sure that there isn't a loophole that allows for an absurd amount of extensions.

The asylum policy makes sense for the time being. When the border patrol spending increase goes into effect and the overcrowding issue gets better I think the asylum police should then be dropped.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:

I feel that if there's a standard set of questions and answers are documented I feel that border patrol could handle the first interview but it'd would have to be doen correctly. 

Eh 15 days sounds like a reasonable amount of time but on a case by case basis some extra time would make sense but they should make sure that there isn't a loophole that allows for an absurd amount of extensions.

The asylum policy makes sense for the time being. When the border patrol spending increase goes into effect and the overcrowding issue gets better I think the asylum police should then be dropped.

I disagree with your first two points, but there isn't really much there to argue. As for the third point, which asylum policy are you talking about? The current one of this proposal? Further, what do you mean when you say "the asylum police should then be dropped". I assume that was supposed to say "policy" but it still needs to be explained further.



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

I feel that if there's a standard set of questions and answers are documented I feel that border patrol could handle the first interview but it'd would have to be doen correctly. 

Eh 15 days sounds like a reasonable amount of time but on a case by case basis some extra time would make sense but they should make sure that there isn't a loophole that allows for an absurd amount of extensions.

The asylum policy makes sense for the time being. When the border patrol spending increase goes into effect and the overcrowding issue gets better I think the asylum police should then be dropped.

I disagree with your first two points, but there isn't really much there to argue. As for the third point, which asylum policy are you talking about? The current one of this proposal? Further, what do you mean when you say "the asylum police should then be dropped". I assume that was supposed to say "policy" but it still needs to be explained further.

I was referring to the policy that was put in place earlier this week about having to seek asylum in another country before you can do so in the United States.



jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

I disagree with your first two points, but there isn't really much there to argue. As for the third point, which asylum policy are you talking about? The current one of this proposal? Further, what do you mean when you say "the asylum police should then be dropped". I assume that was supposed to say "policy" but it still needs to be explained further.

I was referring to the policy that was put in place earlier this week about having to seek asylum in another country before you can do so in the United States.

Ah, okay.

I vehemently disagree with you on that one. Approval of asylum claims should be determined based upon their merit. Turning individuals away for reasons such as this abandons our responsibility as a country and likely violates both international and domestic law. At the end of the day, if an individual has a valid asylum claim and we reject them, we are putting these individuals in danger and preventing that should be priority number one with this subject.



KLAMarine said:
Machiavellian said:

I am sure you would believe it sounds cool for "progressive" to go to some other country and help fix their problems as long as they are not trying to fix the problems within their own country.  Hell, you should be Trump tweet writer the next time.

What four congresswomen is Trump referring to? Still not seeing names.

Names! I need names!

Even on the off chance that you couldn't figure out who he was obviously referring to, someone who genuinely needed the names, repeating it multiple times across several posts as you did, would have googled "the squad" + "congress".
And evidently you didn't need the names for any reason other than ceasing to ask about them.

You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?

Wasting people's time like this isn't cool. If that's how you're going to be in here then "it would be cool" if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done.

⚠️

Until then, move on from this subject. 



Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

What four congresswomen is Trump referring to? Still not seeing names.

Names! I need names!

Even on the off chance that you couldn't figure out who he was obviously referring to, someone who genuinely needed the names, repeating it multiple times across several posts as you did, would have googled "the squad" + "congress".
And evidently you didn't need the names for any reason other than ceasing to ask about them.

You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?

Wasting people's time like this isn't cool. If that's how you're going to be in here then "it would be cool" if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done.

⚠️

Until then, move on from this subject. 

"would have googled "the squad" + "congress" "

>There are zero references to any squad in Trump's original three tweets. There isn't even a count:

"You think it's "cool" to send four congresswomen of color, three of whom were born in the US, to some countries where they have no authority, to fix some unspecified problems?"

>If the fixing is feasible, why not?

"if you would go to some other forum and fix that problem first, and then come back and show us how it's done."

>This forum seems as good as any other.

"move on from this subject."

>You gonna stir the pot and then ask people to move on?