Is anyone else feeling fearful with what’s happening?

[Bonfire]

We don't have a plan either. We've kicked the proverbial can down the road for decades leaving us with an antiquated immigration system in need of a serious overhaul. This is not new news. I cannot understand why we have been unable for generations to at least fix the mechanisms for immigration/integration. Instead the focus is on and arguments about who is coming here and how many. Wringing hands and complaining is easier than doing and the doing will never get done as long as our two parties would rather fight against each other than play nice together for the good of the people who elected them.

Exactly right Matata. A Senator (which rules don’t allow me to name) from one side of the aisle crafted a bipartisan bill on border reform that would have passed in Congress but for the call from our current POTUS that it was to be shot down. (How’s that for a run on sentence!)
That was to be HIS campaign issue. Self-service is not leadership to solve the issue.

 

[telephone89]

If you’ve watched some of these arrests they are brutal. No chance to call 911. Even school children zip tied.
We are allowing barbarism.

You're absolutely right. From what I've seen on twitter, it's usually citizens of certain... non targeted... race(s) that are doing this, and filming the "officers" refusing to answer, tackling seniors, citizens etc. I was heartened to see this effort to protect others.

 

[Matata]

The alleged leader of the free world posted video of B-2s bombing Iran with a parody song playing over the video. The parody is of the song Barbara Ann. Part of the lyrics: “Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks, tell the Ayatollah, ‘Gonna put you in a box!’ Bomb Iran.”
(I took this snipped from The Hill.)

The president said he doesn’t think a nuclear deal with Iran is necessary after the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, though he added there would be talks with Tehran next week. He said the U.S. would be asking the Iranians for the same thing before Israel attacked Iran. "We want no nuclear," the president said, adding: "We destroyed the nuclear."
(Snipped from the Wall Street Journal Live Updates)

If we don't yet know where Iran took the missing enriched plutonium why would he think we don't need a deal? Does he think that the Iranian regime is no longer a danger to us and Israel? How will he ensure the nuclear stays destroyed (gawd the anguish this man inflicts on the English language) if there's no deal that it should stay destroyed and no oversight to ensure it?

 

[Bonfire]

Because he thinks his big beautiful bombs “completely and fully obliterated” key nuclear sites even though intel and satellite images show otherwise. Why the need to negotiate? It’s all about the perception of winning even when he’s spectacularly failed.

 

[Kalynna]

The alleged leader of the free world posted video of B-2s bombing Iran with a parody song playing over the video. The parody is of the song Barbara Ann. Part of the lyrics: “Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks, tell the Ayatollah, ‘Gonna put you in a box!’ Bomb Iran.”
(I took this snipped from The Hill.)

The president said he doesn’t think a nuclear deal with Iran is necessary after the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, though he added there would be talks with Tehran next week. He said the U.S. would be asking the Iranians for the same thing before Israel attacked Iran. "We want no nuclear," the president said, adding: "We destroyed the nuclear."
(Snipped from the Wall Street Journal Live Updates)

If we don't yet know where Iran took the missing enriched plutonium why would he think we don't need a deal? Does he think that the Iranian regime is no longer a danger to us and Israel? How will he ensure the nuclear stays destroyed (gawd the anguish this man inflicts on the English language) if there's no deal that it should stay destroyed and no oversight to ensure it?

Remember when political candidates would be canceled after an awkward “Yeahhhh!!”? Sigh.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Thank you for sharing your perspective @viola09

Immigration is an amazing thing with those who want to live there for a better life. To make a better life for their family.
For those who want to come and make the country their own and love living there and embrace the culture and people here and are contributing members of society
I welcome them with open arms

The people who come with ulterior motives are those we need to be very concerned about.
I know we are not allowed to discuss specifics but most of us know what I mean

No matter who rules my country I still love my country and cannot imagine living anywhere else.
I imagine that is how many of us feel
You have to ask yourself those who come here (or anywhere) and start trying to change things to the way it was in the country they left...why come here? Rhetorical question... I think we know why

i get mad when people come here and are all anti monarchy
go somewhere else if you dont want a king

 

[Calliecake]

Remember when political candidates would be canceled after an awkward “Yeahhhh!!”? Sigh.

I sure do @Kalynna. It seems like a lifetime ago now.

 

[autumngems]

This reminds me of those who say yes we support Israel but…
Or who answer the statement “black lives matter “. With…Don’t all lives matter? :/

The history of the Jewish people includes periods of persecution, prejudice, and marginalization. This experience provides a unique perspective on the importance of protecting the rights of all minority groups and standing in solidarity with those who are targeted by discrimination. And that’s what our people have always done. Support the civil rights of all

Who I won’t support are those who come here illegally and then proceed to wreak havoc. Come here and don’t cause trouble and violence. Is assimilation a dirty word? I don’t think so. For those who want a better life this is a country where you can make that happen. I welcome all who love this country and want to have a better peaceful life. I don’t support those who have an evil agenda. Who,want control of this country Who have murderous intentions. I fully support deporting those individuals.

Our past administrations deported millions who came here illegally. Where was the outcry and outrage then?

Exactly:
Politifact: In 1996 Bill Clinton signed his Immigration Reform Act that stated illegals could be deported without judicial hearings, sooo if this is really about Due Process and the Constitution talk to him."

"Bill Clinton deported 12.1 million during his presidency," "Ninety-two to 93% of those people were sent back without a 'formal proceeding,' aka due process."

And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

 

[RMOO]

Exactly:
Politifact: In 1996 Bill Clinton signed his Immigration Reform Act that stated illegals could be deported without judicial hearings, sooo if this is really about Due Process and the Constitution talk to him."

"Bill Clinton deported 12.1 million during his presidency," "Ninety-two to 93% of those people were sent back without a 'formal proceeding,' aka due process."

And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

Please read the entire post from Politifact, here. What you have posted here as "fact" is instead the eroneous social media post being circulated to excuse what Trump is doing.


If you read the entire post you get a clearer picture of what happened, and why this post was deemed false.

 

[Matata]

Politifact: In 1996 Bill Clinton signed his Immigration Reform Act that stated illegals could be deported without judicial hearings, sooo if this is really about Due Process and the Constitution talk to him."

You forgot to mention that PolitiFact found that statement to be false. Anyone interested in reading the full story can find it here: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...igrants-due-process-rights-Bill-Clinton-1996/

One thing to note if people research this further is that of the nearly 12 million deported under the Immigration Reform Act of 1996, the majority were returns not removals, i.e. they were turned away at the border or left voluntarily.

 

[Matata]

@RMOO My apologies. I didn't see your post covering the same issue.

 

[autumngems]

@RMOO @Matata,
My mistake on that article being proved false. I missed that and it's on me.

I do however stand by my comment "And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

Obama and others did this as well

Fact Check: Were deportees under clinton obama and biden given due...

Based on the available analyses, deportees under Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations frequently did not receive adequate due process. The most striki...

factually.co

 

[Avondale]

but we can't talk about the past

The thing is, the past is gone and nothing can be done about it. While the present is happening right now and has direct effect on the future. It's natural that the present seems more pressing and urgent.

However, I still believe you can and, furthermore, that you should. The one huge benefit the past has is being able to see and analyse where and how things went wrong. Hindsight is 20/20, especially when used to do the things right today.

 

[Matata]

I do however stand by my comment "And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

This is called a whataboutism, a logical fallacy used to deflect rather than addressing the current point. You're saying that criticism of current immigration policy is because the president is hated and that's not 100% true. Yeah, he's hated by some but that has nothing to do with the criticism of his policy and the way it's being carried out.

The 1996 Immigration Reform Act was passed by Congress; the current deportations are by Executive Order based on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act that allows deportations of citizens from countries with whom we are at war. We aren't at war with anyone. Denying due process is against immigration law. Immigrants are being detained and deported as they are appearing before the immigration court. They are following the law and yet are being deported. The massive sweeps on the streets, in schools, churches, etc., are rounding up the innocent with the guilty. The message conveyed by that behavior is that the administration doesn't really care if immigrants are here illegally or legally but that they aren't wanted here at all. What kind of a country are we if we deport people who are following the law.

 

[telephone89]

To say there was no outrage at previous admins is also factually wrong.

Democrats furious over Obama administration deportations

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats confronted White House officials on Thursday over holiday-season raids seeking Central American immigrants for deportation, accusing the administration of spreading terror through immigrant communities.

www.pbs.org

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691

Here is an article (links to political figures) that explains the difference between current admin vs previous. This is obviously an opinion piece but it does go into the laws that were changed under the current admin (though changed in his first term).

"In 2014, [prez] issued an executive order that defined terrorists, criminal gang members, and convicted felons as the highest priority for deportation. In 2009, at the start of [his] presidency, 69 percent of deportees fell in this category. By 2016, it was 94 percent. "

"[current] jettisoned this effective approach, rescinding [the] executive order and replacing it with one prioritizing the removal of criminals regardless of severity. In theory, casting a wider net should increase the total number of deportations, but in his first term, [he] was behind [the previous] pace, failing on his own metric of success. [His] first-term policies, such as family separation, were sensationalistic, misdirected, cruel—and ineffective at racking up big numbers. Furthermore, they were ineffective at protecting Americans from actual criminals"

Why Obama’s Immigration Enforcement Policy Was Better Than Trump’s | Washington Monthly

Obama prioritized the deportation of felons and security threats. Trump is giving us legal chaos, fewer deportations, and less safety.

washingtonmonthly.com

 

[autumngems]

This is called a whataboutism, a logical fallacy used to deflect rather than addressing the current point. You're saying that criticism of current immigration policy is because the president is hated and that's not 100% true. Yeah, he's hated by some but that has nothing to do with the criticism of his policy and the way it's being carried out.

The 1996 Immigration Reform Act was passed by Congress; the current deportations are by Executive Order based on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act that allows deportations of citizens from countries with whom we are at war. We aren't at war with anyone. Denying due process is against immigration law. Immigrants are being detained and deported as they are appearing before the immigration court. They are following the law and yet are being deported. The massive sweeps on the streets, in schools, churches, etc., are rounding up the innocent with the guilty. The message conveyed by that behavior is that the administration doesn't really care if immigrants are here illegally or legally but that they aren't wanted here at all. What kind of a country are we if we deport people who are following the law.

Respectfully, no, not deflecting, it's called acknowledging our past and that it DID happen instead of acting like he is the only one that has done this.

I do not agree with deporting those that are innocent. If they are actively going to court and trying to gain legal status, that is fine. For those who are not, well that's their problem and many have been here years and aren't even trying yet we are paying for it all to the detriment of our own citizens.
I assume the sweeps are because people won't go to court and try to get legal status so then they (I.C.E.) have to find them where they are. I am not saying it's all good, but I understand why.
I respectfully disagree, I feel a lot of people, not all, hate the current administration and no matter what he does they will niggle through every little thing until they can find something to fault him with, and no I am not saying immigration is a little thing.

 

[RMOO]

@RMOO @Matata,
My mistake on that article being proved false. I missed that and it's on me.

I do however stand by my comment "And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

Obama and others did this as well

Fact Check: Were deportees under clinton obama and biden given due...

Based on the available analyses, deportees under Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations frequently did not receive adequate due process. The most striki...

factually.co

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that multiple presidents, both Ds and Rs have deported people. They have. It is the methods being used by this administration to deport that is being argued.

 

[telephone89]

Respectfully, no, not deflecting, it's called acknowledging our past and that it DID happen instead of acting like he is the only one that has done this.

I do not agree with deporting those that are innocent. If they are actively going to court and trying to gain legal status, that is fine. For those who are not, well that's their problem and many have been here years and aren't even trying yet we are paying for it all to the detriment of our own citizens.
I assume the sweeps are because people won't go to court and try to get legal status so then they (I.C.E.) have to find them where they are. I am not saying it's all good, but I understand why.
I respectfully disagree, I feel a lot of people, not all, hate the current administration and no matter what he does they will niggle through every little thing until they can find something to fault him with, and no I am not saying immigration is a little thing.

Your assumptions are wrong. They are rounding people up AT their immigration hearings. They are purposely avoiding gang areas. They are just trying to meet their incredibly high target numbers, and not caring WHO they are rounding up, in some cases citizens getting caught in the net.

Refusing to see all the awful things he is doing is just as bad as you claim the others are having TDS over anything "good" he does. Blindly believing whatever he tweets when you know 80% of what he says are lies is unwise.

 

[Matata]

I respectfully disagree, I feel a lot of people, not all, hate the current administration and no matter what he does they will niggle through every little thing until they can find something to fault him with, and no I am not saying immigration is a little thing.

I'm somewhat in agreement with you BUT and it's a big but, the current leader is a well-documented liar, pathological liar some could argue. We elected a felon, 34 counts, who also has a guilty verdict for sexual abuse...and he lies almost as often as he breathes. It's difficult to like let alone trust someone like that and trust is something important to the electorate when the leader has the power to decide the fate of the country. I think I can safely say that at no other time in history could someone with that record be elected president.

In the bigger picture, it's a nasty habit of the losing party and the electorate they represent to nit pick and niggle even to the point of criticizing a president for wearing a tan suit.

 

[Matata]

Because he thinks his big beautiful bombs “completely and fully obliterated” key nuclear sites even though intel and satellite images show otherwise. Why the need to negotiate? It’s all about the perception of winning even when he’s spectacularly failed.

The Ayatollah is having a bit of fun with that this morning.

 

[JPie]

@autumngems for what it’s worth, I see it too. Supporters of both political parties refuse to turn any of their criticism inward and will gladly pardon their party of all sins.

If I have to see one more “If x were president we’d all be at brunch” sign…

But hey, I turned socialist and I can unite both sides against my dangerous, leftist ideas.

 

[Lookinagain]

@RMOO @Matata,
My mistake on that article being proved false. I missed that and it's on me.

I do however stand by my comment "And that's just one president,.....but we can't talk about the past because everyone is on the "I hate the current president" wagon and everything before him is null and void apparently..

Obama and others did this as well

Fact Check: Were deportees under clinton obama and biden given due...

Based on the available analyses, deportees under Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations frequently did not receive adequate due process. The most striki...

factually.co

Both prior presidents uses expedited removal. It is limited due process, but still some due process via an immigration officer instead of an immigration judge. And allows people to seek asylum.

Expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can summarily remove certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Undocumented immigrants placed in expedited removal proceedings are entitled to access the asylum system if they express fear of persecution, torture, or of returning to their home country.

Yesterday this was reported by CNN

it was announced that the administration is planning to dismiss asylum claims for potentially hundreds of thousands of migrants in the United States and then make them immediately deportable

The people being targeted in this case are those who entered the US unlawfully and later applied for asylum, the sources said. Their cases are expected to be closed, therefore leaving them at risk of deportation. It could affect hundreds of thousands of asylum applicants.

I guess we wait to see if this is accurate, and what DHS is planning. Right now it only seems to be coming out of CNN.

 

[Lookinagain]

And just in case people aren't aware, immigration judges are employees of the DOJ, not of the court system, just as immigration officers are employees of DHS. So doubtful that false claims of asylum will be getting through either one of these. I'm not convinced that legitimate ones would get through either.

 

[autumngems]

Your assumptions are wrong. They are rounding people up AT their immigration hearings. They are purposely avoiding gang areas. They are just trying to meet their incredibly high target numbers, and not caring WHO they are rounding up, in some cases citizens getting caught in the net.

Refusing to see all the awful things he is doing is just as bad as you claim the others are having TDS over anything "good" he does. Blindly believing whatever he tweets when you know 80% of what he says are lies is unwise.

If you read my comment I said I don't agree with sweep at immigration hearings. Now you are assuming they are avoiding gang areas and just trying to meet quotas, do we work for I.C.E. ? No, then we don't know their itinerary.
Also I didn't say I agree with all that he does, I do not. I see things I do not agree with. Nor do I believe everything posted. Don't put words in my mouth/comments please and thank you.

 

[autumngems]

I'm somewhat in agreement with you BUT and it's a big but, the current leader is a well-documented liar, pathological liar some could argue. We elected a felon, 34 counts, who also has a guilty verdict for sexual abuse...and he lies almost as often as he breathes. It's difficult to like let alone trust someone like that and trust is something important to the electorate when the leader has the power to decide the fate of the country. I think I can safely say that at no other time in history could someone with that record be elected president.

In the bigger picture, it's a nasty habit of the losing party and the electorate they represent to nit pick and niggle even to the point of criticizing a president for wearing a tan suit.

I do have to say the previous administration was no better. After all, they are all politicians.

 

[autumngems]

@autumngems for what it’s worth, I see it too. Supporters of both political parties refuse to turn any of their criticism inward and will gladly pardon their party of all sins.

If I have to see one more “If x were president we’d all be at brunch” sign…

But hey, I turned socialist and I can unite both sides against my dangerous, leftist ideas.

I am glad someone sees it.
I can criticize him at times and I do, nobody is right all the time, and I acknowledge that.

 

[Calliecake]

@autumngems , This administration has a 3,000 a day arrest quota and they are taking the focus off criminals. This is being reported on news sites everywhere. ICE is reporting a $45 billion expansion on immigrant detention facilities to meet the 3,000 per day arrest quota.

Please state where you are getting your information from?

 

[telephone89]

If you read my comment I said I don't agree with sweep at immigration hearings. Now you are assuming they are avoiding gang areas and just trying to meet quotas, do we work for I.C.E. ? No, then we don't know their itinerary.
Also I didn't say I agree with all that he does, I do not. I see things I do not agree with. Nor do I believe everything posted. Don't put words in my mouth/comments please and thank you.

Oh no, I'm not assuming anything. It's true. They are taking the easy pickings, the low hanging fruit. They have incredibly high targets and are actually harassing and arresting legal citizens because they aren't doing any sort of verification until after.

I dont believe I put words in your mouth, if so I apologize. You are the one who used the words "I assume" that they are not going to hearings and avoiding becoming legal. Do you still think that is true?

Here are some headlines, feel free to do some research.

ICE arrested a 6-year-old boy with leukemia at immigration court. His family is suing.​

Masked ICE Agents Arrest Afghan Ally Following Immigration Court Hearing​

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest a woman from Vietnam at the San Diego Immigration Court on May 22.

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 11 people after their court hearings at the San Diego Immigration Court on Thursday as part of a nationwide operation launched this week to try to fast track deportations.

...ICE — requested that immigration judges close cases of some people who had been in the U.S. for less than two years and who had shown up without attorneys. Normally a closed immigration court case would mean that the government is no longer trying to deport someone. But instead, ICE officers waited outside courtrooms to arrest those people and put them into expedited proceedings that do not require a judge."

 

[autumngems]

@autumngems , This administration has a 3,000 a day arrest quota and they are taking the focus off criminals. This is being reported on news sites everywhere. ICE is reporting a $45 billion expansion on immigrant detention facilities to meet the 3,000 per day arrest quota.

Please state where you are getting your information from?

I did NOT say there wasn't a quota. Telephone89 said I.C.E. were avoiding gangs and just arresting to meet a quota. That makes absolutely no sense, as going where the gangs are, would get you more arrests, not less.

 

[telephone89]

I did NOT say there wasn't a quota. Telephone89 said I.C.E. were avoiding gangs and just arresting to meet a quota. That makes absolutely no sense, as going where the gangs are, would get you more arrests, not less.

Yes it would. But it's dangerous. Those people almost guaranteed have guns. The guy sitting outside home depot less so.