Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 248: a Perfect impeachment hearing

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28110798/lakers-bring-dave-chappelle-peek-greatness

bigger deal than Kapernick

shocked they'd associate themselves with someone so unwoke!

I mean, they have LeBron on the team
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I didn't say Obama did it more often. But he certainly did it.

Also, Trump didn't "change policy". He started actually enforcing the policy as it was.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Also, Trump didn't "change policy". He started actually enforcing the policy as it was.

Absolutely false. There's nothing in the law requiring what they did.

https://time.com/5314769/family-separation-policy-donald-trump/

There are laws and court precedent governing how children are treated at the border, however, but none mandates the separation of parents and children.

---

I see LotM got to it first, but this has been repeatedly debunked as BS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/

No law or court ruling mandates they separate families. In fact, prior to implementing zero tolerance, they released over 100,000 immigrants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/despite-vow-to-end-catch-and-release-trump-has-freed-100000-who-illegally-crossed-the-border/2018/04/13/839c778e-3754-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html

Indeed, at that time the administration claimed that "The Trump administration has its hands tied" by the law (specifically a 2008 law and the 1997 Flores settlement) and had no choice but to release them.

spoiler alert: the law didn't change between that point and the implementation of zero tolerance.

And now they claim those very same laws and rulings are the ones that are forcing them to separate families when they previously claimed those were the laws and rulings that forced them to release them!

Under Obama, DHS was instructed to prioritize dangerous criminals, gang members, and national security threats. Trump rolled back that instruction and instead instructed DHS to refer all of them to DOJ. So now instead of focusing on serious felonies, DOJ was told to prosecute for misdemeanors (which Illegal entry is) and not prioritize felons.

As SCOTUS has stated, "In our criminal justice system, the government retains 'broad dscretion' as to whom to prosecute." The Trump administration made the conscious choice to change the Obama/Bush-era policy of sending non-serious-threats to the civil courts to be processed and instead criminally prosecute them which directly leads to family separation. That's a SCOTUS-recognized discretionary power they're exercising.

As for the BS "Obama did it too!" family separation under Obama and Bush 43 was done when there was suspicion of human trafficking or threat to the child. That's a hell of a lot different from doing it to everyone.

We can criticize Obama for how he handled immigration policy, god knows it was done on the left during his administration - not that conservatives seem to be aware of this - but this talking point angle for it is straight BS.
---

Thanks for enhancing my lowest-possible effort debunking!

---

xp1337 posted...

I see LotM got to it first, but this has been repeatedly debunked as BS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/

No law or court ruling mandates they separate families. In fact, prior to implementing zero tolerance, they released over 100,000 immigrants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/despite-vow-to-end-catch-and-release-trump-has-freed-100000-who-illegally-crossed-the-border/2018/04/13/839c778e-3754-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html

Indeed, at that time the administration claimed that "The Trump administration has its hands tied" by the law (specifically a 2008 law and the 1997 Flores settlement) and had no choice but to release them.

spoiler alert: the law didn't change between that point and the implementation of zero tolerance.

And now they claim those very same laws and rulings are the ones that are forcing them to separate families when they previously claimed those were the laws and rulings that forced them to release them!

Under Obama, DHS was instructed to prioritize dangerous criminals, gang members, and national security threats. Trump rolled back that instruction and instead instructed DHS to refer all of them to DOJ. So now instead of focusing on serious felonies, DOJ was told to prosecute for misdemeanors (which Illegal entry is) and not prioritize felons.

As SCOTUS has stated, "In our criminal justice system, the government retains 'broad dscretion' as to whom to prosecute." The Trump administration made the conscious choice to change the Obama/Bush-era policy of sending non-serious-threats to the civil courts to be processed and instead criminally prosecute them which directly leads to family separation. That's a SCOTUS-recognized discretionary power they're exercising.

As for the BS "Obama did it too!" family separation under Obama and Bush 43 was done when there was suspicion of human trafficking or threat to the child. That's a hell of a lot different from doing it to everyone.

We can criticize Obama for how he handled immigration policy, god knows it was done on the left during his administration - not that conservatives seem to be aware of this - but this talking point angle for it is straight BS.

Read your own source.

"Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This zero-tolerance policy applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children.
The Justice Department cant prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security."

Now read your own words.

"Under Obama, DHS was instructed to prioritize dangerous criminals, gang members, and national security threats. Trump rolled back that instruction and instead instructed DHS to refer all of them to DOJ. So now instead of focusing on serious felonies, DOJ was told to prosecute for misdemeanors (which Illegal entry is) and not prioritize felons."

Obama was selectively enforcing the law. Trump is enforcing it completely.

---

uh
---

Corrik will literally never admit he is wrong about anything when you put the words directly in his face.

Let this discussion go no further, I beg you.

---

Not wrong. Been pointed out since day 1 regarding it. Obama didn't want to look bad so he didn't want to enforce separations but that is how it is supposed to be enforced.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Not wrong.

Yes wrong.

Please stop.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Yes wrong.

Please stop.

Saying it over and over doesn't make you correct.

---

Corrik7 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Yes wrong.

Please stop.

Saying it over and over doesn't make you correct.

And yet your strategy seems to be just that every time this subject comes up.
---

kevwaffles posted...

And yet your strategy seems to be just that every time this subject comes up.

Nope. Already showed you that this was always how it was. Not my fault durrrr Republicans are the worst blinds you. It is right there in the article. He is enforcing the law as it is supposed to be, not selectively enforcing it. Black and White. Not even debatable.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik will literally never admit he is wrong about anything when you put the words directly in his face.

Let this discussion go no further, I beg you.

Man who has a very long track record of disregarding facts and evidence continues to disregard facts and evidence. News at 9.

Do agree with not bothering with him, though.

I apologize to everyone else in advance for this.
---

Corrik7 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

And yet your strategy seems to be just that every time this subject comes up.

Nope. Already showed you that this was always how it was. Not my fault durrrr Republicans are the worst blinds you. It is right there in the article. He is enforcing the law as it is supposed to be, not selectively enforcing it. Black and White. Not even debatable.

The article literally doesn't support your position, including the part you quoted. You have no basic understanding that the core function of the executive branch means that how to enforce laws is (generally speaking) left to their discretion. Somehow that means you default to "harshest possible enforcement must be correct" despite, from a pure legal standpoint, neither way was "more correct" than the other.

(That's of course ignoring human rights or other violations to other laws that may occur as a result of the Trump admin's enforcement, but I'm trying to keep it simple for you.)
---

It is against the law to murder.

Obama says it is against the law but we will only prosecute those who murdered children.

Trump says no it is against the law to murder we will prosecute everyone who commits murder like the law says.

Enforcing the laws that exist and not selectively enforcing them.

This really isn't even complicated. Holy political bias lmfao.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It is against the law to murder.

Obama says it is against the law but we will only prosecute those who murdered children.

Trump says no it is against the law to murder we will prosecute everyone who commits murder like the law says.

Enforcing the laws that exist and not selectively enforcing them.

This really isn't even complicated. Holy political bias lmfao.

Well setting aside that you chose something that is usually prosecuted on the state level because it was the most extreme example you could conjure up in two seconds, you're talking about far more explicit laws in this case. Most laws do not have enforcement guidelines as clearly spelled out as literal murder.

Also you should really stop claiming political bias when you're taking Jeff Sessions words from 2 years ago as your personal gospel.
---

It's against the law to drink and drive, but obviously that gets enforced differently around the country huh
---

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1196593236392808448?s=19
---

kevwaffles posted...

Well setting aside that you chose something that is usually prosecuted on the state level because it was the most extreme example you could conjure up in two seconds, you're talking about far more explicit laws in this case. Most laws do not have enforcement guidelines as clearly spelled out as literal murder.

Also you should really stop claiming political bias when you're taking Jeff Sessions words from 2 years ago as your personal gospel.

Everyone in the world knows Trump has changed no laws in regards to immigration in this question. He is just actually enforcing it.

Peace___Frog posted...

It's against the law to drink and drive, but obviously that gets enforced differently around the country huh

Gets enforced how it's laws state. Just like Trump is enforcing our immigration the way it states.

---

You guys. Eric swalwell farted on live TV. Nothing else matters.
---

Sometimes it's really refreshing to check in and see these mental gymnastics.

Yep, every person stopped for drunk driving in PA gets exactly the same treatment that you did, in a fair and equitable manner, pursuant to the laws that prohibit driving drunk. No one has gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. The police handle everything to the letter of the law, always.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Sometimes it's really refreshing to check in and see these mental gymnastics.

Yep, every person stopped for drunk driving in PA gets exactly the same treatment that you did, in a fair and equitable manner, pursuant to the laws that prohibit driving drunk. No one has gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. The police handle everything to the letter of the law, always.

You are stating that there is discretion in sentencing. But, there are mandatory minimums which must be abided by. They cannot be superseded when found guilty of said DUI charge in PA.

A cop not doing his job and ticketing someone for speeding has nothing to do with laws.

Tell me where a law says if a male cop pulls over an attractive female he can be more apt to let her go with a warning?

Like, lmfao.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

He hasnt gotten better in this long; hes not going to get better.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Everyone in the world knows Trump has changed no laws in regards to immigration in this question. He is just actually enforcing it.

Corrik7 posted...

Saying it over and over doesn't make you correct.

Edit: As droll as just quoting you against yourself is, I should clarify that I'm not claiming that Trump changed any laws. I can just feel that response coming now because you are you and don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.
---

idk is the supreme court of the united states a good enough source?

Arizona v United States says...

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See 1227. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. See Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as Amici Curiae 813 (hereinafter Brief for Former INS Commissioners). Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal. See 1229a(c)(4); see also, e.g., 1158 (asylum), 1229b (cancellation of removal), 1229c (voluntary departure).

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

emphases mine

The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that the Executive has the ability to apply prosecutorial discretion with regard to immigration. Obama elected to use that discretion to focus on immigrants that the administration deemed higher priority (felons, etc.) Trump decided to rescind that discretion and went further in ordering DoJ to prosecute all cases. He did not have to do that. That's why it was a policy change. No one is saying he passed a law. It was a policy.
---

xp1337 posted...

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns

See here is the point of conflict. Corrik values absolute adherence to the law more than any human concern
---

xp1337 posted...

That's why it was a policy change. No one is saying he passed a law. It was a policy.

Also its pretty clear he doesnt understand the difference
---

Jakyl25 posted...

xp1337 posted...

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns

See here is the point of conflict. Corrik values absolute adherence to the law more than any human concern

but that's from scotus and they are the ones who interpret the laws

like their decisions are the law
---

xp1337 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

xp1337 posted...

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns

See here is the point of conflict. Corrik values absolute adherence to the law more than any human concern

but that's from scotus and they are the ones who interpret the laws

like their decisions are the law

Right so now in Trump/Corrik discretion, no human concern is valid enough to override enforcement of the law. SCOTUS ruling followed.
---

I'm not actually arguing Trump doesn't have the legal authority to enact zero tolerance. He probably* does!

*As abhorrent as I think it is, I can't offhand think of a legal reason he can't. Well, asylum laws notwithstanding, of course - which is definitely a thing here but that's a different discussion. Similarly, it's why I think SCOTUS will find that Trump was allowed to rescind DACA. I'm guessing they'll actually find such on much the same reasoning I'm employing here - the government has prosecutorial discretion (and the courts have generally found it is not their place to interfere with that judgment.) But again, that's a separate discussion!
---

But we've also seen that these immigration policies can't be squared with what's legal. Off the top of my head, children get detained illegally if you follow this rule and Trump wanted an asylum policy that violated asylum laws. Does following the law justify breaking more laws, specifically ones designed to protect people's rights?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

But we've also seen that these immigration policies can't be squared with what's legal. Off the top of my head, children get detained illegally if you follow this rule and Trump wanted an asylum policy that violated asylum laws. Does following the law justify breaking more laws, specifically ones designed to protect people's rights?

What people's rights? Our government's only purpose is to protect American Citizens and their rights.

The rights of those who wish to break our laws and illegally enter our country ultimately matter little beyond our government maintaining legitimacy in its purpose and its image. All we owe those who wish to break our laws that are not citizens is humane as possible deportation.

---

if only you felt as strongly about corruption, which is a more severe way of breaking the law.

Did you not read the part where the law explicitly allows people who otherwise have no legal basis of entry to seek asylum?

how do you pick which topics you care so badly about?
---

banananor posted...

if only you felt as strongly about corruption, which is a more severe way of breaking the law.

how do you pick which topics you care so badly about?

Last person who cared about corruption, yinz are trying to impeach.

Lololol

---

ok, thanks for allowing me to feel good about leaving this conversation so quickly
---

Remember to vote Bernie so people like Corrik can be helped.

---

Even put a goofy face and people couldn't get the joke. Liberals. I swear.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Remember to vote Bernie so people like Corrik can be helped.

What are you implying, Chris? I assure you like a responsible American I paid all debts I owed and am able to keep a job to have health insurance and afford the things I need in life.

Bernie isn't a terrible choice for Democrats. I would have voted for him over Trump last election, but you seem to be implying something.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Off the top of my head, children get detained illegally if you follow this rule

Unless I'm mistaken what's happening is:

-Flores requires that children can't be held in detention facilities over 20 days.

As a result, these children must be released and placed in shelters and/or find sponsors for them - much as if they had crossed unaccompanied. Before zero tolerance, including the Trump administration itself, the parents would be released as well and their cases referred to the civil court system. This process is what Trump has derided as "catch and release" even as his own administration followed it.

But with zero tolerance, DOJ is being instructed to prosecute for any potential crime, including illegal entry (which virtually no administration prior did, by a 1952 law it is a misdemeanor) and have sent it into the criminal courts. Since they're tied up in the criminal courts now once those 20 days are up, the children are released and are separated from their families because they can no longer stay with them since the administration continues to hold them.

They don't have to do that but by choosing to prosecute everything and move matters into the criminal courts they get the end result of family separation.

As the WaPo article I posted way back states: essentially what Flores and the other laws that the administration claims are "forcing" them to separate families do are provide accommodations for the children in these cases. But there is no law or court ruling that is keeping them from extending those same accommodations to the parents, that's been their decision. And as further reporting has come out we know "the cruelty was the point" and it was meant to be a deterrent to other immigrants.
---

Corrik7 posted...

The rights of those who wish to break our laws and illegally enter our country ultimately matter little

Exactly our point about your mindset
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Exactly our point about your mindset

Well, sorry that is what our government exists for! Maybe pledge your allegiance to the UN or something!

---

No one should pledge allegiance to any governing body. Thats the whole problem.
---

Corrik7 posted...

What people's rights? Our government's only purpose is to protect American Citizens and their rights.

The rights of those who wish to break our laws and illegally enter our country ultimately matter little beyond our government maintaining legitimacy in its purpose and its image. All we owe those who wish to break our laws that are not citizens is humane as possible deportation.

If this is the purpose of government, why do they owe humane deportations at all? They could just execute illegal immigrants to assert maximum legitimacy, after all.

---

American sovereignty > immigrants needs
---

Corrik7 posted...

Bernie isn't a terrible choice for Democrats

Also Im having a hard time reconciling this with your opinion of Elizabeth Warren as some crazy person
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No one should pledge allegiance to any governing body. Thats the whole problem.

Anarchy would be swell. Not. Your lack of patriotism and respect for your country is relatively disheartening.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

What people's rights? Our government's only purpose is to protect American Citizens and their rights.

The rights of those who wish to break our laws and illegally enter our country ultimately matter little beyond our government maintaining legitimacy in its purpose and its image. All we owe those who wish to break our laws that are not citizens is humane as possible deportation.

If this is the purpose of government, why do they owe humane deportations at all? They could just execute illegal immigrants to assert maximum legitimacy, after all.

You're thinking too small. Their can't be any illegal immigrants if we just nuke the rest of the world to stop people from other countries ever coming here.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

No one should pledge allegiance to any governing body. Thats the whole problem.

Anarchy would be swell. Not. Your lack of patriotism and respect for your country is relatively disheartening.

Ok Borat
---