The Political Thread

[Van Buren Supernova]

What is a government shut down?

I could google but I'm tired of reading news, so I'd rather hear the actual impacts from commoners.

 

It sounds horrifying but I suppose life goes on as per normal? Any damaging consequences if it goes longer?

Is it just a decorative term? 

 

I imagine government shut down (I know nothing about politic so it absolutely ridiculous) is like class with teacher, or when any dealing or international relation is stopped. Or any government process is halted, but those sound too crazy.

[Artemis]

"Commoners", lol.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Essential services continue, so the military is still prepared, air traffic control still operates, things like that. It looks as if my mother will still continue to get her Social Security check.

 

The "non-essential" services shut down in whole or part, and the employees don't get paid during the shutdown. Which could be serious if it goes on long enough (I don't think it will.) The departments that are considered "non-essential" are the social service ones: education, parks, housing, environmental protection, labor. Most people won't be directly affected if the shut down lasts only a few days, but there's a ripple effect. For instance, I have a few friends who work for companies who provide services to the federal government; if the government's not using their services during the shutdown, these companies either pay their employees to do nothing (bad for business) or start laying people off. That's what happened to a couple of friends the last time; temporary lay off.

 

So, in short, most people won't be affected, unless the shutdown lasts a long time. Or if they were planning a vacation at a national park this week.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Wow, it sounds messy if it happens again. Aiz.. I never understand America's system to be honest. It seems kind of unstable to me.

 

Yah..commoners XD I was pondering about using that word but what the heck I went with it. Civilians, people sound less interesting :p

[Arcadia]

Hey, I'm proud to be a commoner.

 

Any democracy is messy, don't you think? All those different ideas ... much simpler for one person to say "do it my way."

 

At any rate, the shut down is over for now. But we have to go through the whole process again in February. :rolleyes:

[Van Buren Supernova]

I don't know if any democracy is messy, I've lived under one I suppose but not remember shaking my head. Or maybe I didn't pay attention.

Correct if if I'm wrong, I'm quite sure I could be wrong. Argh, I think I'm wrong!!

 

I don't know if it has something to do with Democrat or Republican thingy you have, it's just very confusing to me that when the leader change, things change, a lot.

I know there should be changes, maybe, but things like health care system, immigration policy, when you turn it 180 degree or too steep, wouldn't it create instability and confusion for long term investment? I mean, one day you are illegal, another day you are not, and then back to illegal. It's the flip flop situation that make me confused, what kind of confidence level you want to invest in there?

 

[J.P.]

Honestly, don't want to hurt anyone, but for years now I have the feeling that the Civil War in The US has never ended…
There is no field of interest without someone some time throwing in their "idiot dems" vs. "idiot reps" remarks and it always ends in

I cannot understand how you can live in a country where the half of the population (speaking figuratively) thinks the other half want to ruin it for everyone and everything they do, is for evil causes. And yes, as VBS writes, changes in the leadership seem to cause the whole country tack like a crazy ship.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, well, we've never had a situation like this one before. At least, not since I've been alive. Trump is so spectacularly unsuited to the job that chaos is following in his wake.

 

I agree with you ... it seems to me that destabilizing social services, environmental protections and the like would be bad for the country overall. Yet the stock market's been booming. Business people have a different way of looking at the world than I do, evidently. It's apparently okay if thousands more people die from lung disease, as long as the shareholders are making more money. THAT, alas, is the American way.

 

If it's any consolation, when you're on the ship, the tacking doesn't seem quite so abrupt, because it takes a long time for new policies to actually affect real lives. The number of lawsuits lodged against Trump's policies is staggering, he's already been stopped from carrying out some actions while the courts decide whether they're legal or not. His stupid wall's not likely to ever be built (and what a colossal waste of money that would be .... ) States that voted for him are fighting back against his plans to start oil drilling again, consumer protection groups are challenging his plans to deregulate industry. He's only got three more years ... with any luck, the worst damage will be postponed long enough to avoid it altogether.

 

In some sense the system's working the way it's supposed to ... the one party is supposed to provide a check on the wildest course changes of the other, so that the ship of state doesn't swing about too suddenly. But it's not a particularly comfortable ride at the moment. We have one party in charge of everything right now, and they're catering to the desires of the extremists, so they're getting away with more than they should. And oh, the colossal waste of money......

 

There's no question some people are going to get royally screwed over in the process, though. People without power. Immigrants, especially. My heart breaks for the kids who might get deported back to a country they don't remember. If it really happens, it will be another horrible stain on our national conscience, and I don't know how we'll ever balance that particular book.

 

[Arcadia]

I cannot understand how you can live in a country where the half of the population (speaking figuratively) thinks the other half want to ruin it for everyone and everything they do, is for evil causes.

Aww, don't believe everything you see on the internet. In real life, we're still quite civil to each other, even when we're on opposite sides. ;) When I rant against "them," I really have only one or two people in mind. Usually. Maybe. Ummmmm..... but no, seriously, in everyday life, the differences rarely come up. Some of my best pals are on the opposite side of the political fence. I don't think they're out to ruin anything for anyone, I just think they're stupid. :P

[Fantasy Lover]

It's been a while since anyone posted here so I figured I would do it, and I'm afraid I don't bring good news: for a while Trump separated children from their families https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/18/donald-trump-us-migrant-camp-border-separation, then he left the human rights council because he received criticism https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/usa-leaves-un-human-rights-council/ and now he "promises" he will stop it https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/20/donald-trump-pledges-to-end-family-separations-by-executive-order

[Arcadia]

On the bright side, even people who otherwise support him think he screwed this one up. Is it too much to hope that given enough rope he will eventually hang himself?

In other news, the American stock market is trembling in fear over the prospect of Trump's trade wars. Is it wrong of me to hope we have the worst stock market crash in history while that fool Trump is bumbling around in the White House?

[J.P.]

Oh, don't forget Melania's cherry-on-the-top fashion fail.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Apparently the separating children was a law signed about 22 years ago by President Clinton. President Trump signed an executive order a couple of days ago more or less ending that law.

I find I don’t trust liberal media as they tend to show conservatives in an undue bad light (occasionally the bad light is warranted but not as often or necessarily in the way they do it) by leaving out important information such as when the illegal immigrant child separation law was created. That particular law could have been protested for the 20 years before Trump took office and it wasn’t.

I also am weary of the supposedly conservative media because they do the same thing to liberals. Each side seems to think that their own can do almost no wrong. I tend to be quite conservative on some matters so will more likely trust a conservative source. However, my preference would be a source that presents all of the facts as neutrally as possible (eg both sides of the issue presented equally positively) and use critical thinking skills to determine what the correct course of action should be/should have been.

[J.P.]

Okay, can you give us a reliable source? Because apparently crossing the border was never considered a crime, so separating children from their imprisoned parents doesn't apply. And the pictures of "children in cages" under Obama show children who crossed the border alone. Which is another situation completely.

 

PS: I don't really like the term cages. I can imagine that this kind of (ugly, that's true) placement may be the only one way to have the crowd under control. And I hope it was temporarily. During the mass migration to Germany in the early 1990ies, people were placed in sports halls divided into smaller compartments made of cardboard. A friend of mine spent 2 years in such a place until he found an apartment. The place me and my family was placed after we crossed the border looked like a resurrected concentration camp. With a big chimney towering above it… Don't remember how free we were in our movement, because 1) I was sick and lied in bed with fever 2) running away would make no sense anyway. The last point might be different from USA border situation though.

[T.o.b.y]

2 hours ago, SherlockedCAMPer said:

Apparently the separating children was a law signed about 22 years ago by President Clinton. President Trump signed an executive order a couple of days ago more or less ending that law.

I find I don’t trust liberal media as they tend to show conservatives in an undue bad light (occasionally the bad light is warranted but not as often or necessarily in the way they do it) by leaving out important information such as when the illegal immigrant child separation law was created. That particular law could have been protested for the 20 years before Trump took office and it wasn’t.

If my information is correct and I understood it correctly, the legal foundation for this practice is older, yes, but it hadn't been enforced before, at least not on this scale. If that's true, then it would be understandable that the protest is happening now. 

 

[Fantasy Lover]

Actually, the ONLY time children were separated from their families was when the parents were deemed unfit. This is a list of all the myths that are told, I hope it's not too biased camper.

 

Have you heard that children were separated from their parents under Obama & Clinton? Then, you need a little Facts vs Myths lesson. Michelle Martin, PhD Cal State Fullerton summed up the most important FACTS:

 

There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research...As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I'll make it easier for you:

 

Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton - FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the brainchild of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit.https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

 

Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration - FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it legally more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it's the Democrats' fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they've already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy appear to be political asylum-seekers.https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low

 

Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs - FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. This is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

 

Myth: We're a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get - FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though the majority of people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/10/26/Donald-Trumps-wall-ignores-the-economic-logic-of-undocumented-immigrant-labor/2621477498203/

 

Myth: The children have to be separated from their parents because there parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents - FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is a typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE "family residential centers," again, for civil processing. The Trump administration's shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones. See p. 18: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-plaintiffs-opposition-defendants-motion-dismiss-doc-56

 

Myth: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum. FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn't allow any refugees into our country because "it's not our problem," neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions' claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border. Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/19/jeff-sessions/jeff-sessions-claim-about-asylum-system-fraudulent/

 

Myth: The Democrats caused this, "it's their law." FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump's assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats "gave us this law" is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-democrats-us-border-migrant-families-children-parents-mexico-separate-a8401521.html

 

Myth: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents' court cases are finalized. FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors ("unaccompanied alien children"), which typically means they are sent into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump's new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

 

Myth: This policy is legal. LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government's motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration policy is "brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency." The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/aclu-suit-over-child-separations-at-border-may-proceed-judge

 

 

[Boton]

On 1/25/2018 at 8:16 AM, Arcadia said:

 

Aww, don't believe everything you see on the internet. In real life, we're still quite civil to each other, even when we're on opposite sides. When I rant against "them," I really have only one or two people in mind. Usually. Maybe. Ummmmm..... but no, seriously, in everyday life, the differences rarely come up. Some of my best pals are on the opposite side of the political fence. I don't think they're out to ruin anything for anyone, I just think they're stupid.

Sort of resurrecting this post from Arcadia, but I thought I'd check into this thread, and Arcadia is spot on.  In fact, I have to say that I have actually had some very good and well-though-out debates on Facebook with a group of friends from high school.  Half of the group is very conservative, half is very liberal, but we've all been exchanging views and sources and occasionally raising our "voices,," but we always go back to commenting on one another's gardens and dogs and children and 5K times. 

[T.o.b.y]

13 hours ago, Boton said:

Sort of resurrecting this post from Arcadia, but I thought I'd check into this thread, and Arcadia is spot on.  In fact, I have to say that I have actually had some very good and well-though-out debates on Facebook with a group of friends from high school.  Half of the group is very conservative, half is very liberal, but we've all been exchanging views and sources and occasionally raising our "voices,," but we always go back to commenting on one another's gardens and dogs and children and 5K times. 

For me, it's not a question of being liberal vs conservative. I can get along with a variety of people and try to understand a variety of opinions. 

The problem right now, for me, is that in the US as well as here in Europe, groups are in power or rapidly gaining power that hold (and enforce) beliefs I don't just disagree with but that I find horrific. 

"I don't care" or "I ignore science" is not an acceptable approach to climate change. We can discuss the evidence. We can debate on the best course of action. But we can't simply continue to trash the planet and pollute the air because hey, by the time the consequences get really bad, we will be dead and future generations don't interest us. 

Likewise, we can and should address the problems that come with trying to accommodate people who seek refuge in our part of the world or move here for economic reasons. But we cannot deny anyone their humanity. 

And as for separating children from their parents at the border, to be honest, I don't give a flying f*** as to whose idea it was originally or what law paved the way, I just think it's immoral, cruel and wrong and I want it to stop. And I see that the people who are currently in power are not stopping it. And that's wrong, period. 

One of our teachers in school, when breaking up a fight, always said: "I don't care who started it, I want to know who will end it". That's how I feel about human rights violations. 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Here’s another take on the whole illegal immigration/asylum seeking child separation from parents fiasco

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31980/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiro

[T.o.b.y]

Well, it seems like one fact all seem to be able to agree on no matter what lies they're accusing each other of otherwise, is that children are indeed being separated from their parents, some of them very young. And that's just plain wrong and no amount of "you're lying" vs "no, you're lying" is going to fix this. 

What I would really like to know is whether it's true what the ACLU says, that people presented themselves at official points of entry and they still got their children taken away from them. Because in that case, I really don't understand what "illegal" is even supposed to mean. How can you illegally apply for asylum at a place that exists for this very purpose? 

And if people seeking refuge hear about this, I am not surprised that they try to avoid any contact with any person in a uniform and try to cross the border completely unnoticed.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Here’s an interesting article I just discovered regarding the 9/11 attacks nearly 17 years ago:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-admits-facilitating-9-11-terror-attacks/

This could lead to a whole other discussion on politics and foreign affairs.

[Arcadia]

There's also reports of people being turned away before they even have a chance to reach the legal ports of entry.

 

 

[Boton]

What I would really like to know is whether it's true what the ACLU says, that people presented themselves at official points of entry and they still got their children taken away from them. Because in that case, I really don't understand what "illegal" is even supposed to mean. How can you illegally apply for asylum at a place that exists for this very purpose? 
.

I would need to see evidence that this is occurring. But yes, “illegal” should mean “not using proper channels.”

I would also like to know more about the conditions that need to be met to be granted asylum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Arcadia]

10 hours ago, Boton said:

I would also like to know more about the conditions that need to be met to be granted asylum.

Would this help?

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states

 

[J.P.]

This page might be useful, at least for a start. They make a serious impression.
https://twitter.com/snopes