Senate The US Politics discussion

No, but you haven’t argued for a “functioning immigration policy.” You argued in favor of the maximally traumatic option of forcibly separating minors from their parents and then incarcerating them. This, even though it is not only morally repugnant, but logistically and financially complex as an undertaking of the federal government. You've deliberately ignored the multiple other methods for tackling this problem.

 

Please understand this, @J-Rod.

 

There's a very good reason that he hasn't talked about possible alternatives.

It's because those aren't currently happening, and his doctrine dictates that he has to defend the administration's policies.

Offering alternatives would undermine his loyalty to the president.

 

Favoring taking children from their parents as a matter of policy and locking them in cages in camps or else being for totally open borders with no immigration policy is a false choice and a lie. If people have to defend this specific policy by talking about anything but this specific policy, they’re resorting to propaganda because they can’t defend it. It’s a conversation tactic that exists to persuade observers against their inner compassionate instincts by distracting them. The goal of the propagandist is merely to combat the general sentiment from turning vehemently opposed to the policy in this case. It’s to fool people into thinking there are two equal political positions and on one side they’re just alarmists, so that people get frustrated and go back to watching t.v.

 

Let's break this down as simply as possible.

Nobody is questioning your opinion on the need for an anti-immigration policy.

What people are questioning is how you defended locking children up in cages, with no guardians qualified to care for them, left to cry for their parents for up to 22 hours a day. We've even gone on to learn that, because of the way the policy of separation was enacted, many of those children won't ever be able to be reunited with their families. So many of these children will be held in these conditions indefinitely, even with the policy of separation redacted.

How can you turn a blind eye to how terrible this policy is?

 

Can we also just interject once again that this had nothing to do with "the law?" It was an arbitrary determination by the Trump Administration whose consequences had not been thought through in the slightest, beyond how happy it would make racists.

 

I


Was


Only


Following


Orders

 

The Nazis weren't just inspired by the US policies. They actually sent German lawyers and officials to the US to its study discriminatory laws so that they could do their best to copy them. When they arrived, they were welcomed by the NY Bar Association, even though the Germans had just passed their first round of exclusionary laws weeks prior. American legal scholars conducted many lectures to explain how the US discriminatory system was codified in law. An interesting article that I remember from the Atlantic about this.

 

More clearly, I was arguing that Trump's zero tolerance policy was better than doing nothing at all. I didn't mean to give the impression that it was the best thing to do. Hell, or even the right thing to do.

But that it was better than doing nothing.

And in absence of any alternatives, that's still how I feel; It's better than the complete anarchy we have right now regarding our borders.

You'll note that while I feel that not enforcing immigration laws amounts to anarchy, I haven't called anyone an anarchist.

Bracelets wouldn't work. I like that it's an idea, tho. An alternative.

What would I do? First, I'd make it a felony in the United States to smuggle a child into the US.

Secondly I'd pressure the UN to make smuggling a child across international borders without the permission and knowledge of the host nation a human rights violation.

Third I'd propose a Constitutional Amendment proclaiming that at least one parent of a child born in the US must be a citizen/legal resident for that child to be a citizen.

Fourth I'd have severe penalties for knowingly hiring an undocumented worker.

Finally I'd enforce the restrictions on non-citizens accepting public money.

It's simple and I'd dare say that a wall wouldn't be necessary if these simple steps were taken.

 

That amounts to a death sentence for a lot of innocent people. That is still evil policy.

 

You've misunderstood me. The host nation would be the nation receiving the people.

See my clarification.

 

^A very important point. For those who are interested, here's a recent, fairly short (6.5 pages) and accessible (not full of scholarly jargon) article that gives a broad overview of the historical process WriterMan refers to above. It's written by a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee, Gregory Jay ( https://uwm.edu/english/our-people/jay-gregory/ ) (critical race theory is one of his research and publication areas):

"Who Invented White People?"
http://uuwhiteness.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/READING_-Who-Invented-White-People.pdf

 

J-Rod, it still doesn't make any sense. Would you seriously propose that if a Syrian Christian family were fleeing hot pursuit by ISIS, their most reasonable course of action would be to file a letter of intent to cross into Turkey, then wait patiently at the border for a notarized acknowledgement receipt, lest they be charged with a "human rights violation?" You don't think there should be any deference given to the fact that they are trying to avoid being raped, executed, or both?

Let alone the fact that I still don't understand how any nation's "human rights" would be violated by someone passing through it.

 

Well, it seems like you are open to an acceptable alternative that is less cruel and traumatizing to families, and especially their children.

So, you'll be happy to hear the ankle bracelets do work. The former acting director of ICE states in this interview: "99 percent - or 96 depending upon which statistic you're looking at - of the people who are placed on an ankle bracelet actually show up at their hearing in the immigration court."

I think we've found a compromise!

 

There would be standing forms of permission. If Turkey was supportive of it, they could make any kind of open agreement they'd like.

ICE certainly knows more about it than I do. If it works, then it works! I'd be open to that.

EDIT: I'd be happy, personally, with 80%!

 

Better the child end up dead than in America, ey J-Rod?

 

Options: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17483...tion-alternatives-immigrant-detention-centers

This should go without saying but even the best immigration reform isn't going to fix all of our immigration issues. I only say that because sometimes people will essentially say, "X won't completely solve our problems so we shouldn't even try it". Even if the options suggested in the article linked above don't magically fix our immigration laws they're better than separating kids from their families and/or locking up entire families in cages.

 

So then, J-Rod, I’ll commend you for responding to new data and trying what works. That’s how things should work.

But please consider: this is Trump’s number one issue. ICE is an agency he controls. He had ready access to this information showing exactly how effective this safer, more humane, less costly option was.

He still ignored that evidence and did the most morally indefensible thing possible. Why? What kind of person does that? Are they really worth supporting?

 

The thing is, Hitler did start by targeting entire races, and defending and rationalizing it. It's already present in his 1920 speeches and, of course, in his writing four years later. You'll find nothing on the same scale in Trump's writings and speeches - he's racist alright, but nothing is out in the open hinting at the intent to remove and replace entire populations (granted, the USA don't quite have the same territorial limitations as post-WW1 Germany did...) Trump, of course, does have the beginnings of the rhetoric, and there quite evidently exists a reservoir into which to tap for full extermination policies, but so far, we have not seen the beginning of intentionalist genocidal policy on Trump's end. To be blunt, if an extermination policy were to be implemented, preparing the USA to accept it and taking precautions diplomatically to avoid very brutal repercussions takes us to Trump himself being on the other side of 80.

For those interested, I'm going to point at the differences between the two, using the 14 fascist signs above, and pointing out which of the two men goes the furthest - under spoiler, it's a huge wall of text. Trump comes out of the comparison looking a lot less dangerous (which should be obvious...) - not really because he "scores" less (I have them at Hitler 7 - 6 Trump) but because of why.

Spoiler

Powerful and continuing nationalism: Hitler > Trump.
Sure, Trump is staunchly nationalist, clearly believes in the superiority of America, and always has. He also makes no secret of his contempt for other nations, but his approach to handling them is bully-ish and competition-oriented, and Trump isn't quite so interventionist he'd even change a regime in a foreign country without. He's more concerned with a preservation of a status quo, and does not seek to establish a world order completely under his country's heel.

Hitler took that a very long way further. His approach to nationalism was a messianic one, and he openly described himself as destined to bring Germany to greatness as the rightful leader of the world. His approach to diplomacy involved not only interventionism, but the destruction of entire countries and the deliberate enslavement or extermination of their populations, and the complete reshaping of the world's organization into a pyramid with Germany at the top, and the states permitted to exist in that world as junior allies or vassal states at best.


Disdain for human rights: Hitler > Trump.
Sure, Trump is no defender of human rights by a long shot, except perhaps for political communication purposes, and he's just proven he's not averse to the implementation of some frankly disturbing measures when he thought he could get away with it.

Hitler, however, presented the whole concept as corrupt from the very start. And quite unlike Trump's, whose expressed vision for humanity is stratified and racist, Hitler's was eugenicist, openly seeking not only to reduce or eliminate the races he labelled as inferior, but also to cull what parts of his own population he regarded as defective, (Hitler openly advocated the extermination of the disabled and of the homosexuals - he presented the latter as a disease).


Identification of enemies as unifying cause: Equivalent.
Both men have used a very wide variety of identified enemies as a unifying cause. The true difference between both men is Hitler's writings and speeches on political theory show a mastery of that principle much earlier in his career, where Trump has essentially been reusing the same communication technique everybody uses in western democracies nowadays.


Supremacy of the military: Trump > Hitler.
I know, this one looks counter-intuitive.

Ultimately, however, Hitler's approach to the military was very utilitarian, and he never quite trusted the army as an institution. His eventual post-war plans actually looked to disarming all other countries and reducing Germany's own armament levels somewhat. Nor did he even believe in the necessity to completely transform Germany's industry towards armaments, to the point the more serious and organized armament efforts (and the first appointment of a competent organizer for it) only occur in 1942, 3 years into the war, and WW2 Germany never managed to hit the armament production levels of WW1.

It's obviously not how things went in the USA.


Rampant sexism: Trump >> Hitler.
There's a dose of relativism to introduce there - Hitler was, after all, born in 1889, and had a very traditionalist vision of the role of women in society that's simply not implementable today, even if your name is Donald Trump.

On the other hand, Hitler was very respectful of women, and very courteous with them, attested to throughout his career and later on by those women in his entourage who survived him. He'd have utterly despised Trump for his infamous "just grab them by the pussy" statement, and you'll be hard pressed to find a word about Hitler sexually harassing a woman, even after his death and universal revilement.

I don't know about you guys, but frankly, it's a little disgusting that Hitler could be the one teaching Trump something about properly behaving towards women...


Controlled mass media: Hitler >>> Trump.
For all his whining about the media and their "fake news", Trump is doing very little against them, and is more preoccupied with setting up "alternate" sources of information.

Hitler eliminated all free media within the span of a year, and never hid his intentions to establish complete information control.


Obsession with National Security: Trump > Hitler.
I know, another surprising one, but really, this is resultant from the far, far more ambitious designs of Hitler's in foreign policy, which would have resulted, if successful, in making the notion of threats to Germany's national security a non issue.


Religion and Government intertwined: Hitler >> Trump.
Let's face it, religion isn't the guiding principle of Trump's actions, and he hardly cares about being a sinner. He's not trying too hard to favor the influence of religions in government either. Hitler, however, cared even less personally, and intended to systematically remove the influence of religions in government.

Then why largely favor Hitler here? Because he intended to dissolve all religions in Germany and replace them by National-Socialism, and to establish himself as its messiah. Not out of a spiritual concern either, but out of concern for posterity - Hitler estimated that his successors could never quite match him, and sought to give their power better foundation by establishing himself as a mythical figure they could continue invoking for a thousand years. One example of that approach is his anxiety to see the dome of his Great Hall in Berlin completed during his lifetime so he could inaugurate the monumental structure, explaining that it would be seen by the masses as his "sanctifying" the building.


Corporate power protected: Trump >> Hitler.
Trump is very much a businessman with businessman pals, actively seeking to enrich other billionaires and to favor big business.

Hitler suffered the existence of big business and large corporations because he viewed their dismantling as damaging to his plans of world domination. He fully intended to have them dismantled and to have economy socialized later. Large corporations, in addition, represented a counterweight to National-Socialism's power, and Hitler didn't quite intend to leave any of those standing.


Labor power suppressed: Hitler >> Trump.
The latter has very little use for labor power, but knows what its used for and has interacted with it, and he isn't quite going after labor power. He can't quite afford to either at this point, considering he built his victory over the vote, notably, of disenfranchised white blue-collar populations.

No such qualms for Hitler, who always advocated the end of independent labor organizations, and went one step further by replacing them with a state-sanctioned labor organization to keep laborers placated with as little and as efficient expense as possible.


Disdain for intellectuals & arts: Trump > Hitler.
In Hitler, disdain for intellectuals and arts was specific and ideologically motivated. He was, however, far from lacking personal culture (although he was self-cultivated rather than culturally educated), and saw the necessity of both intellectuals and arts for society, and his denunciation of intelligentsia tended to be accompanied by qualifiers.

The entire notions seem to fly above Trump's head, whose personal culture, by all evidence available, seems to fall painfully short of Hitler's.


Obsession w/ crime & punishment: Hitler >>>> Trump.
Trump actively undermines his own federal police and under-funds his judicial system compared to what he demands of it. Sure, there are more prisoners per capita in the USA than any other country in the world, but that's old news, largely business-motivated, and Trump isn't working to make drastic changes.

Pre-war Nazi Germany's incarceration rates varied between two and five times as high as the contemporary USA's once the regime had a few months to get going, with a constant increase in the number of "inmates". It went even much higher after the war began. Courts were not necessarily competent over adjudicating crime and punishment either - on a regular basis, the SD and Gestapo just took the decision out of the judicial system's hands and arbitrarily threw "suspects" in KLs. In rough terms, out of ten "suspects" apprehended that way pre-war, one was liberated before the war ended, and six died. The entire system was conceptualized and implemented within two years of Hitler's nomination as Chancellor, and later provided the Nazis with slave labor.

And that's not even getting into the modifications about what constitutes a crime... Trump and his administration haven't exactly made leaps and bounds there. Hitler? He worked bloody fast.


Rampant cronyism and corruption: Trump > Hitler.
This one is arguable, and the direction offered is more of a result of assessing each man's personal character - both Hitler's Germany and Trump's USA had corruption aplenty. Trump just doesn't seem to particularly care.

Hitler, however, wasn't really one for cronyism. He did let Bormann organize his entourage along such principles because he derived a use out of it, and even his friends were not safe from his wrath if they failed to meet his demands. Personally, Hitler placed his vision of Germany's interests over his friendships if he really had to choose (it was the last lesson he ever taught Ernst Röhm), and while very willing to trust, he took very harshly to what he perceived as betrayal.

With regards to corruption, Hitler was incredibly cynical. He despised the corruption in human beings as a matter of principle, and was himself largely impervious to attempts at corrupting him... unless (generally earlier on in his career) he risked aggravating someone he had use for, in which case he would be receptive, but didn't tend to make much of it afterwards. Personally content with a comfortable lifestyle, he didn't care for extravagance unless it served to enhance his importance in his official capacity, and he followed a very frugal and surprisingly healthy regimen (Hitler was a vegetarian, never drank a drop of alcohol, and smoking in his presence was an absolute "no").

As mentioned, Hitler's approach to corruption in running a state was, in contrast to his personal abhorrence of it, a very utilitarian one. If you were useful in helping run his regime, you could indulge in about every excess and stay in Hitler's favor, as long as you didn't overshadow Hitler in an official capacity in a manner he could perceive and decide to correct. The corrupt individuals in his machine, however, got very little respect out of it from the Führer, and he just as cynically was prepared to use it to control a person, or even to expose a person's corruption to ease their elimination once he deemed it necessary (again, Röhm is a good example).


Fraudulent elections: Hitler >>> Trump.
One asks the governor of a territory if both the Senators it would send to Washington as a state would be from his party, and whines about electoral fraud by the opposition and the participation of certain categories of voters when he was elected with a minority of the nationwide popular vote, and did nothing serious about it. The other eliminated all other parties in seven months and had dictatorial powers voted for himself the very first day a parliament in which he held a majority was in session (and had 60 freshly elected members of said parliament arrested before the session opened). Let's face it, Trump's respect of the electoral process is infinitely superior to Hitler's, who had absolutely no intention to preserve it and never made a secret of it.

Different topic - since I saw Turkey brought up about helping regulate illegal immigration, don't even think about it. Erdogan openly used the threat of flooding Greece and Bulgaria with Syrian refugees if the EU refused to cave in to some of his demands.

 

We've done it! It seems we may have a deal!



And to J-Rod after all the **** I've given him the last few days.

 

I agree Turkey under Erdogan is not a credible actor. I was just using the scenario of religious persecution as I thought J-Rod might understand it better than he apparently does other situations where large criminal gangs relatively uncontested by the state and with a transnational reach are threatening to destroy your whole family.

 

While Trump isn't throwing people into oven the policies he supports do disproportionately affect people of color and the poor. Taking people's healthcare away, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, along with gutting medicaid and social security will kill people and Trump and the Republicans are working on it all the time. Doing nothing to stop police violence and cutting funding to stop right wing violence isn't helping matters either.

 

You won't see me argue against that either There's a reason I was arguing for the Democrats using all means necessary to win the upcoming midterms a couple dozen pages back.