Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic #228 - Orbs you glad I didn't say banana?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nrrr posted...

https://www.thenation.com/article/honduras-dictatorship-refugee-crisis-immigration/

Good article that sort of highlights something that is usually lost in the immigration debate - much of the reason these immigrants are coming to the US is because of US backed regimes creating environments that cause people to flee. I don't suspect this would change the mind of anyone who loves our concentration camps, but it certainly highlights the fact that one step in a progressive immigration policy must be a change in our foreign policy (and also addressing climate change)

I think a lot of Trump supporters would go for this, actually. Remember the reasons why a lot of people don't want illegal immigration:

1. To stop them or their children from voting for Democrats.
2. To protect American jobs.
3. Sovereignty - the right of America to self-governance.
4. People being lawful neutral.

Trying to fix the problem in Central America would knock out all 4. Now, you may think, won't it cost a lot of money that will require higher taxes? Yes, but...

1. That's only if we pay for it through taxation instead of borrowing.
2. Income taxes are paid overwhelmingly by the affluent! The top 1% pays about 50% of the total income tax and the vast majority of the rest is paid for by the next 20%. That means that rich and upper middle class Americans will be predominantly paying for aid to Central America. Whereas if they come here they are competing directly for working class jobs.

If the left casts this argument in economic terms, you have a winner. If you instead continue with accusing working class Americans of opposing illegal immigration out of racism, you proceed at your peril - Trump's reelection should fall on your shoulders.
---

These concentration camps cost $775/kid/day. I'd think conservatives would think that's wasting taxpayer dollars. But then again, they never seem concerned when Trump wants to spend nearly $100M on a parade. "Fiscal Responsibility" means never spending money to help people, but helping yourself to whatever frivolous shit you want. That's why I left the Republican Party a long time ago, and the Libertarian party not long after that.

Also reminder that a jury heard days of testimony, live, and was in the best position to evaluate the reliability of that testimony. It's kind of ridiculous to second guess the jury based on reading short excerpts or even second hand summaries of selected portions of the testimony.
---

Kingfrost posted...

These concentration camps cost $775/kid/day. I'd think conservatives would think that's wasting taxpayer dollars. But then again, they never seem concerned when Trump wants to spend nearly $100M on a parade. "Fiscal Responsibility" means never spending money to help people, but helping yourself to whatever frivolous shit you want. That's why I left the Republican Party a long time ago, and the Libertarian party not long after that.

Again, who is paying for it matters. Federal taxpayer dollars are based on a progressive income tax, where 90%+ of the burden will fall on the top 20%. This same 20% experiences virtually zero competition from illegal immigrants for their jobs - and in fact, they can save money by hiring illegal immigrants at wages below what Americans will accept and with worse conditions than they will tolerate.

On the other hand, virtually all of the economic competition from having illegal immigrants in the country falls on the working class - the people who compete with them for jobs directly. This is fundamentally a class issue, but affluent liberals refuse to see it as one, probably because they have too much to lose economically. They don't want to pay higher taxes so that we can help build safe, prosperous countries in Central America. And so they resort to accusing people in worse economic circumstances than themselves of racism.
---

Don't be so disingenuous. Conservatives are always crying about how they don't want THEIR Tax Dollars going toward abortion. Or healthcare. Or Welfare. But they're perfectly fine with expensive parades and private companies running detention facilities that mistreat migrants. They don't want their tax dollars going toward south american countries either (Just Saudi Arabia, where they use it to fund terrorists)

It'll never change because conservatives always think they know more than everyone else, and refuse to listen to anyone who isn't a conservative. It's why they bitch about Obama golfing all the time, but are fine with Trump golfing even more. It's why they bitch about Obama wearing a tan suit, but are fine with Trump being accused of rape by more than 20 women.

Kingfrost posted...

Don't be so disingenuous. Conservatives are always crying about how they don't want THEIR Tax Dollars going toward abortion. Or healthcare. Or Welfare. But they're perfectly fine with expensive parades and private companies running detention facilities that mistreat migrants. They don't want their tax dollars going toward south american countries either (Just Saudi Arabia, where they use it to fund terrorists)

It'll never change because conservatives always think they know more than everyone else, and refuse to listen to anyone who isn't a conservative. It's why they bitch about Obama golfing all the time, but are fine with Trump golfing even more. It's why they bitch about Obama wearing a tan suit, but are fine with Trump being accused of rape by more than 20 women.

You're talking about actual conservatives. I'm talking about working class people who aren't really conservative but who swung the election to Trump last time and will do so again in 2020 if the Democrats don't change course.
---

Yes, I was talking about conservatives. I thought that was obvious by how I said "I'd think conservatives would think it's a waste of tax dollars.

But I wasn't talking about conservatives. That's why I said "Trump supporters" rather than "conservatives."
---

But I was talking about conservatives. I wasn't even responding to you.

You said "don't be so disingenuous." Was that not directed to me?
---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-immigration-border-crisis/index.html

93% of Democrats disapprove of how the migrants are being treated
60% of Independents disapprove
38% of Republicans disapprove
---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-immigration-border-crisis/index.html

93% of Democrats disapprove of how the migrants are being treated
60% of Independents disapprove
38% of Republicans disapprove

The significant factor here is that a majority of Republicans approve, meaning Trump has absolutely zero motivation to change anything.
---

Actually 38% within Republicans is uh oh
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146435093491277824

welp
---

Well, technically the DOJ lawyer's statement only said that they were printing the census forms without the citizenship question. That doesn't mean they can't later print a second version with the question, and use that one.
---

Good to know Republicans feel we can ignore the constitution as long as it fits our agenda. Might as well just shred the thing and make whatever laws we want when we win the Presidency again.
---

How does it ignore the Constitution if he pushes forward on it
---

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1145747419264503808

stolen from vlado's politics topic but probably worth posting here, as a lot of people don't read the vlado topic. add this one to the list of "fact checks" that are just a thinly-veiled excuse to bash bernie into the ground.

of course, muffin sided with the WaPo.
---

Nrrr posted...

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1145747419264503808

Fact checking still going strong

also stolen from here
---

oh, i actually did read that and forgot about it
---

Corrik7 posted...

How does it ignore the Constitution if he pushes forward on it

Depends exactly what he means. If he just means hes un-dropping the case, thats still fucked up and not how things are supposed to work, but I wouldnt call it ignoring the constitution. However, by the time that case is resolved, it very well may be too late to include the question.

If hes suggesting, however, that the DoC ignores the Courts decision and just includes the question right now, thats clearly a violation of the Constitution.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik7 posted...

How does it ignore the Constitution if he pushes forward on it

Depends exactly what he means. If he just means hes un-dropping the case, thats still fucked up and not how things are supposed to work, but I wouldnt call it ignoring the constitution. However, by the time that case is resolved, it very well may be too late to include the question.

If hes suggesting, however, that the DoC ignores the Courts decision and just includes the question right now, thats clearly a violation of the Constitution.

He's obviously not ignoring the Court.
---

I don't think that's entirely obvious! In fact, here's a sitting member of Congress urging him to do exactly that:

https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1146219816090554369
---

So if he escalates and ignores the Court......the Court holds everyone in the administration who is involved in printing the forms in contempt and orders them to be locked up. Trump issues a blanket pardon and orders law enforcement to obey him instead.

Then Congress impeaches and removes Trump from office. Andrew Jackson could ignore the Supreme Court but it has gained too much respect in the 190 years since then for that to happen again. Congress would enforce the Court's decisions by impeachment if necessary.
---

bernie is live again.

this time actually featuring bernie!
---

https://twitter.com/nouveaubougee/status/1146233106770190336?s=21

We NEED to try to get this boycott trending

Will they be dumb enough to buy it?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/nouveaubougee/status/1146233106770190336?s=21

We NEED to try to get this boycott trending

Will they be dumb enough to buy it?

Of course not. But the way to do this would be for conservatives to boycott the census only if they live in blue districts.
---

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1146529858534694913

What a well-oiled machine

I'm just brimming with confidence in Trump's ability to manage a real crisis
---

Is it true that a tweet caused the justice department to reverse and now re-add the citizen question back into the census? Fuckin twitter....
---

Here's the whole conversation today between the judge, DoJ attorneys, and the plaintiffs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M3Y6vj3QlQpSdlYcCdq3BkbnnWIrEPlf/view

Pretty crazy
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik7 posted...

How does it ignore the Constitution if he pushes forward on it

Depends exactly what he means. If he just means hes un-dropping the case, thats still fucked up and not how things are supposed to work, but I wouldnt call it ignoring the constitution. However, by the time that case is resolved, it very well may be too late to include the question.

If hes suggesting, however, that the DoC ignores the Courts decision and just includes the question right now, thats clearly a violation of the Constitution.

I am under the impression the case was just sent back down to the lower courts, and it effectively kills it for 2020 because the forms have to be printed by june 28th or some shit.

The DoC or whatever was gonna drop it, but Trump is gonna keep it alive. I'd assume it can't affect 2020 now at this point.
---

Though I am actually unsure of what the issue is regarding the question. I'd assume illegal immigrants don't turn one of those in. So, what would be the issue with filling it out if a minority anyways? If illegal immigrants can fill them out, then I would question why was that ever allowed in the first place? Because it would create uneven representation for states regarding the house and electoral votes based off of people who are illegally in the state and do not hold the power to even vote.
---

Not surprised by the census news. Really the surprising part was that Commerce went on the record that quick that they were reversing course. This was always going to be a tweet storm away from continuing.

~~~

Anyway, in "totally ****ed it got to this point" news: Alabama DA declines to prosecute a woman who was shot and lost her pregnancy for manslaughter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-03/alabama-da-to-decide-on-fetal-manslaughter-prosecution

A woman was five months pregnant, shot in a fight, and lost the pregnancy. A grand jury indicted her for manslaughter having concluded that she intentionally caused the lost pregnancy by starting the fight knowing she was pregnant. (The same grand jury declined to indict the shooter, who had been initially charged with manslaughter, on the basis that she shot in self-defense.)

Good for the DA declining to prosecute but abhorrent it reached this point.
---

xp1337 posted...

A woman was five months pregnant, shot in a fight, and lost the pregnancy. A grand jury indicted her for manslaughter having concluded that she intentionally caused the lost pregnancy by starting the fight knowing she was pregnant. (The same grand jury declined to indict the shooter, who had been initially charged with manslaughter, on the basis that she shot in self-defense.)

Good for the DA declining to prosecute but abhorrent it reached this point.

That would have been crazy to prosecute the women over that.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Though I am actually unsure of what the issue is regarding the question. I'd assume illegal immigrants don't turn one of those in. So, what would be the issue with filling it out if a minority anyways? If illegal immigrants can fill them out, then I would question why was that ever allowed in the first place? Because it would create uneven representation for states regarding the house and electoral votes based off of people who are illegally in the state and do not hold the power to even vote.

The census counts all residents, whether or not they can vote. Children count. There is a question whether an illegal immigrant should count the same as a legal permanent resident (1) or the same as a tourist (0).
---

if corrik's coming back can red sox at least tag out for a few months
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Though I am actually unsure of what the issue is regarding the question. I'd assume illegal immigrants don't turn one of those in. So, what would be the issue with filling it out if a minority anyways? If illegal immigrants can fill them out, then I would question why was that ever allowed in the first place? Because it would create uneven representation for states regarding the house and electoral votes based off of people who are illegally in the state and do not hold the power to even vote.

The census counts all residents, whether or not they can vote. Children count. There is a question whether an illegal immigrant should count the same as a legal permanent resident (1) or the same as a tourist (0).

That is absolutely insane and should never have been allowed. The creates unfair representation and actually benefits states that harbor illegals, which they should never do.

Wow.
---

SCOTUS's ruling was for Commerce to "try again" and provide a rationale that wasn't a lie - Roberts more or less signalled that provided they aren't egregiously incompetent and corrupt he'd let them add the question. Commerce had argued - both at the District Court and SCOTUS, that June 30 was a deadline. But a government witness also had testified that in reality that given the resources, they could actually push that deadline into October. The plaintiffs actually argued today when DOJ called into the district court today, "We just gonna ignore that they have repeatedly argued that June 30 was the deadline and now they're saying actually we have time to consider our path forward?" and the judge was like "You're right, but asking them that is unlikely to give us a useful answer so..."

The Constitution is pretty clear that the census is to count all "persons" in the US as opposed to all "citizens." Even a literal/textual interpretation of the Constitution would have a hard time trying to handwave this away. The Constitution uses both words so if it wanted citizen there it should have used it. Indeed, it very intentionally avoids it because, among other things, this is where the 3/5ths compromise is inserted. The clause that mandates the census includes the whole "plus 3/5 of all slaves" (lit. "three fifths of all other Persons") part.
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Though I am actually unsure of what the issue is regarding the question. I'd assume illegal immigrants don't turn one of those in. So, what would be the issue with filling it out if a minority anyways? If illegal immigrants can fill them out, then I would question why was that ever allowed in the first place? Because it would create uneven representation for states regarding the house and electoral votes based off of people who are illegally in the state and do not hold the power to even vote.

The census counts all residents, whether or not they can vote. Children count. There is a question whether an illegal immigrant should count the same as a legal permanent resident (1) or the same as a tourist (0).

That is absolutely insane and should never have been allowed. The creates unfair representation and actually benefits states that harbor illegals, which they should never do.

Wow.

Corrik, that is literally from the Constitution.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"Indians not taxed" are counted as 0 persons.
"Free persons" are counted as 1 person.
"All other persons" are counted as 3/5 of a person (this category no longer exists since the 13th Amendment eliminated the possibility of being a person who was not free).

The text doesn't explicitly say whether this is limited to residents or includes anyone passing through a state on the date of the census but precedent has always held it only includes residents (so not a foreign tourist). The intention to decouple apportionment from voting eligibility is clear. Because representatives are supposed to represent all the people, while the people may in their wisdom limit voting to certain people (like we continue to disallow children from voting).
---

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS's ruling was for Commerce to "try again" and provide a rationale that wasn't a lie - Roberts more or less signalled that provided they aren't egregiously incompetent and corrupt he'd let them add the question. Commerce had argued - both at the District Court and SCOTUS, that June 30 was a deadline. But a government witness also had testified that in reality that given the resources, they could actually push that deadline into October. The plaintiffs actually argued today when DOJ called into the district court today, "We just gonna ignore that they have repeatedly argued that June 30 was the deadline and now they're saying actually we have time to consider our path forward?" and the judge was like "You're right, but asking them that is unlikely to give us a useful answer so..."

The Constitution is pretty clear that the census is to count all "persons" in the US as opposed to all "citizens." Even a literal/textual interpretation of the Constitution would have a hard time trying to handwave this away. The Constitution uses both words so if it wanted citizen there it should have used it. Indeed, it very intentionally avoids it because, among other things, this is where the 3/5ths compromise is inserted. The clause that mandates the census includes the whole "plus 3/5 of all slaves (lit. "three fifths of all other Persons)" part.

I'd argue it was an oversight, and I would assume a Supreme Court would agree with that (though who knows). Because if non-citizens cannot vote then why are there numbers basically given a vote with extra representatives and electoral votes. If you think they should count towards representation, they should be allowed to vote if you follow along the path of what it means.

That is the big issue with that. In fact, I don't understand why they don't just state illegal immigrants can't fill out the census at all. (Which of course you can't do until you can ask them to provide citizenship).

Instead of courting around the issue of it maybe going towards giving information to deport illegals. Why allow them to even fill it out in the first place. It clearly doesn't make sense it was intended as literal (though I could see the argument for it).
---

Also please note the 3/5 compromise has never been abrogated and remains part of the constitution and binding law. It is just that the 13th through 15th amendments eliminated the possibility of any person falling into the category of "all other persons" in the census clause.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Also please note the 3/5 compromise has never been abrogated and remains part of the constitution and binding law. It is just that the 13th through 15th amendments eliminated the possibility of any person falling into the category of "all other persons" in the census clause.

If Republicans ever get enough governorships, they need to amend the constitution. Illegal immigration is something I highly doubt they considered there.
---

Corrik7 posted...

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS's ruling was for Commerce to "try again" and provide a rationale that wasn't a lie - Roberts more or less signalled that provided they aren't egregiously incompetent and corrupt he'd let them add the question. Commerce had argued - both at the District Court and SCOTUS, that June 30 was a deadline. But a government witness also had testified that in reality that given the resources, they could actually push that deadline into October. The plaintiffs actually argued today when DOJ called into the district court today, "We just gonna ignore that they have repeatedly argued that June 30 was the deadline and now they're saying actually we have time to consider our path forward?" and the judge was like "You're right, but asking them that is unlikely to give us a useful answer so..."

The Constitution is pretty clear that the census is to count all "persons" in the US as opposed to all "citizens." Even a literal/textual interpretation of the Constitution would have a hard time trying to handwave this away. The Constitution uses both words so if it wanted citizen there it should have used it. Indeed, it very intentionally avoids it because, among other things, this is where the 3/5ths compromise is inserted. The clause that mandates the census includes the whole "plus 3/5 of all slaves (lit. "three fifths of all other Persons)" part.

I'd argue it was an oversight, and I would assume a Supreme Court would agree with that (though who knows). Because if non-citizens cannot vote then why are there numbers basically given a vote with extra representatives and electoral votes. If you think they should count towards representation, they should be allowed to vote if you follow along the path of what it means.

That is the big issue with that. In fact, I don't understand why they don't just state illegal immigrants can't fill out the census at all. (Which of course you can't do until you can ask them to provide citizenship).

Instead of courting around the issue of it maybe going towards giving information to deport illegals. Why allow them to even fill it out in the first place. It clearly doesn't make sense it was intended as literal (though I could see the argument for it).

Because it was the explicit intent of the founding fathers to count non-voting persons. They explicitly said how to count slaves - as 3/5 of a free person. They also explicitly counted women and non-property owning men as 1 whole free person, even though neither of those were guaranteed voting privileges at the time.
---

And really, to drive it further home, when the 14th Amendment... amended... that section it straight-up switches from person to citizen in the same section (Section 2), leaving the "persons" part of the census intact and separate from its penalty part where it says there will be consequences if any state denies "citizens" the right to vote.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS's ruling was for Commerce to "try again" and provide a rationale that wasn't a lie - Roberts more or less signalled that provided they aren't egregiously incompetent and corrupt he'd let them add the question. Commerce had argued - both at the District Court and SCOTUS, that June 30 was a deadline. But a government witness also had testified that in reality that given the resources, they could actually push that deadline into October. The plaintiffs actually argued today when DOJ called into the district court today, "We just gonna ignore that they have repeatedly argued that June 30 was the deadline and now they're saying actually we have time to consider our path forward?" and the judge was like "You're right, but asking them that is unlikely to give us a useful answer so..."

The Constitution is pretty clear that the census is to count all "persons" in the US as opposed to all "citizens." Even a literal/textual interpretation of the Constitution would have a hard time trying to handwave this away. The Constitution uses both words so if it wanted citizen there it should have used it. Indeed, it very intentionally avoids it because, among other things, this is where the 3/5ths compromise is inserted. The clause that mandates the census includes the whole "plus 3/5 of all slaves (lit. "three fifths of all other Persons)" part.

I'd argue it was an oversight, and I would assume a Supreme Court would agree with that (though who knows). Because if non-citizens cannot vote then why are there numbers basically given a vote with extra representatives and electoral votes. If you think they should count towards representation, they should be allowed to vote if you follow along the path of what it means.

That is the big issue with that. In fact, I don't understand why they don't just state illegal immigrants can't fill out the census at all. (Which of course you can't do until you can ask them to provide citizenship).

Instead of courting around the issue of it maybe going towards giving information to deport illegals. Why allow them to even fill it out in the first place. It clearly doesn't make sense it was intended as literal (though I could see the argument for it).

Because it was the explicit intent of the founding fathers to count non-voting persons. They explicitly said how to count slaves - as 3/5 of a free person. They also explicitly counted women and non-property owning men as 1 whole free person, even though neither of those were guaranteed voting privileges at the time.

Yes, but I am saying I doubt they explicitly considered people who illegally enter the country and committed a crime. Like, 30 million people could illegally cross the border between now and the census and run up Electoral numbers insanely for a state or two and be deported. It's basically false numbers and were gained by illegal means. I just disagree with it.
---

It's not an oversight, as the United States as it was originally created was intended to be a place for literally anybody (white) to come to with no restrictions and have representation.

It was this way for nearly 100 years.
---

Yes, but I am saying I doubt they explicitly considered people who illegally enter the country and committed a crime. Like, 30 million people could illegally cross the border between now and the census and run up Electoral numbers insanely for a state or two and be deported. It's basically false numbers and were gained by illegal means. I just disagree with it.

Like I said, it's never been held to include non-residents as far as I know. If you're a tourist visiting from Canada you don't fill out a census form listing your hotel room. Similarly, if you live in Texas and want to support Democrats you can't just go stay at a hotel in California and fill out the census there.
---

The census also determines how, e.g., federal funds are allocated, not just representation.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's not an oversight, as the United States as it was originally created was intended to be a place for literally anybody (white) to come to with no restrictions and have representation.

It was this way for nearly 100 years.

That's your opinion. I have mine. I can't see pumping up representation for illegal acts as being something they considered there. It seems... nonsensical.

But, that is why a supreme court ruling to come down regarding it would be nice, if one doesn't exist. I will still not like it if it comes down against me, but at least it was looked at.

Still hopefully it gets amended at some point.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's not an oversight, as the United States as it was originally created was intended to be a place for literally anybody (white and male) to come to with no restrictions and have representation.

It was this way for over 100 years.

fixed for you
---