I don't think that's entirely right. The most important part of how we got here remains Congressional Republicans refusal to take deals multiple times they've been on the table because they preferred the issue to a solution. It's a major factor in why the old guard lost their party to MAGA. Democrats don't own that and an inconsistent willingness to defend rule of law on principle is better than unwillingness to ever do it at all. However the politics of this issue are what they are and the best way to fight back against the madness is to accept that and start pivoting accordingly. The courts are not able to save us from every bad result of an election and it was foolishness to think they could.
Not when something within a stone's throw of those views make up a majority of voters in a democracy. Those who have been broadcasting out into the world that anyone who makes it in has a good chance of staying indefinitely under some previously obscure loophole do not have clean hands.
It all starts with grasping that a combination of executive action, the judiciary, and the immigration bar, have succeeded in turning a bunch of laws written with the horrors of the middle 20th century in mind into a pretext for a de facto immigration policy so toxic to the public even the politicians who implicitly support it don't dare say so. Trump probably isn't possible without it.
This has to be unprecedented in modern US history in terms of being totally self inflicted. It's going to be a kick right in the balls to the average household. All I can say is I hope his supporters learn their lesson, and if they haven't yet, well, I'm sure we can count on many more opportunities to come. We aren't even a tenth of the way through.
To be clear I'm really talking about taking the L and conceding the issue for the near future, with the only sticking point being humane treatment for those attempting to cross or who are caught internally as we send them back. There's no compromise on the table right now and every time I look at polls the Democrats are rated almost as badly as Republicans are on abortion, so not the neighborhood we want to be in. Better to focus on other things and get back to immigration when the opportunity re-opens, as it will one day.
I take the positions I do on this subject not because I'm secretly some super restrictionist but because I think it's the compromise that would serve to save everything else important.
As I understand it he was granted something other than asylum called 'withholding of removal.' This is not my area of law and someone with more expertise can correct me. However as I read the facts of his case there is probably not a single person in El Salvador, other than maybe Bukele himself, who would not potentially qualify for this kind of relief.
I don't disagree with you in principle Burt but I think the solution is a little different. You're also ignoring what will be the most important factors for those who support what Trump is doing. Those are (i) Garcia entered the country illegally and (ii) his permission to stay was based on a highly tenuous judicial interpretation of immigration law that has virtually no popular support and no basis in the higher law that is the constitution itself.
The way to correct this to avoid recurrence is for Congress to pass a law tightening things up so that people like Garcia are never allowed to stay in the US to begin with, and that the kinds of nebulous fears of criminal activity in their nation of origin are no longer sufficient grounds to be granted legal status.
Garcia is probably f-ed but the reason it happened is the abdication of duty by Congress. That void is what has put the executive and the judiciary on a collision course. Obviously it would be much better to have an executive with the sense and wisdom to understand the folly of that path but here we are.
I think the reality is that hes just as much of the scummy, un-American, nasty as*hole people, including those who know him best, have been saying he is for years. He doesn't care about anything and he's a huge danger to the country. People saw he was a monkey and handed him a hand grenade anyway.
I'm pretty pissed about it. I'm also pissed about the years long shredding of credibility that's made it impossible to stand up against this kind of thing without having a debate over why it is millions of people were encouraged to enter illegally (including this dude) under the faulty belief they'd be allowed to stay indefinitely, pending some political settlement that may or may not occur. These people, including Garcia have not been served well by any of this and while Trump owns his authoritarianism and the constitutional disaster this is shaping up to be, I still think anyone who has been arguing in favor unchecked illegal entry and/or sham asylum has their own ownership stake in this mess. I hope they're happy with it.
That's kind of missing my point. The Supreme Court told them to bring him back. I would think all reasonable people agree that's the right remedy. What they aren't going to do is try to lay some smack down that proscribes further political maneuvering and litigation. That's not something that happens normally and its not something anyone has any reason to expect.
It is a defeat for Trump. I think everyone needs to temper their expectations about what the courts are able to do. Even a less conservative SCOTUS isn't going to order Trump to send in the marines to bring this guy back. My count is that 7 of 9 care enough about the institution on some level as to understand that a holding the executive branch can't comply with might turn out to be as bad as one they expressly refuse to follow.
My question is why she was out in her yard with a gun. If it's that her reaction to a bunch of riff raff running through the neighborhood was to strap up and go out to face them I have to respect it. Don't get me wrong. It's totally crazy and the wrong way to respond to that situation... but if thats what happened? What a woman!
I think it's all a question of what the goals are. There's a strong national security case to be made around IP, or certain types of manufacturing. You don't want the critical pieces of your best weapons technology being built or copied in the country you might end up needing to use those weapons against, or in close range of that country's missiles. I think there's also maybe a less straightforward but nevertheless compelling case that you do not want a country that you may be on a collision course with to enrich itself on easy access to your big rich consumer market. Tariffs may play some part in the strategy to deal with those things. The issue we face now is that the ship has already sailed on the latter, and maybe also on the former. The strongest criticism of what Trump is doing IMO is that tariffs on countries that sell us natural resources or make our shoes in horrid conditions aren't relevant, and starting stuff with traditionally friendly advanced economies is counter productive.
It seems to me that the most important part of the debate is about 'the now' and the future rather than the past. I had lunch earlier with a friend whose politics are a few ticks to my left and we talked a lot about the differences between doing something like this today versus, say, the 1990s. Thirty years ago there were still a lot more jobs on shore to protect. Now, to the extent you're protecting anyone with them, it's going to be a relatively small number of people juiced in on legacy arrangements. Which isn't to say that decisively resolves the issue but it does IMO change what the question is. We aren't really talking about a benefit to now existing people, not on any large scale. The question is whether the tariffs would operate to spur new investment in good jobs with strong labor protections. I've already stated my skepticism of that elsewhere but I'd certainly be curious if anyone has laid out why my view is wrong.
Jaybird, DeSantis didn't even make it to New Hampshire by the will of Republican primary voters. Are you really saying that this kind of rhetoric (which I also find mostly stupid) weighed into their decision? They voted for Trump because they preferred him, not because online blue tribe hysteria forced their hand.
I think it goes without saying that the Democrats' fortunes will greatly improve if they come up with an answer to that question. They're in the wilderness for a reason.
However I don't think the swing-ish voters have read von Mises. I think there was a very understandable thermostatic reaction due to inflation with immigration and some cultural issues as auxillaries but there was no resounding mandate for this. People are about to get double forked here, and the promise that it's all going to be worth it because a bunch of factories are going to go up (where? when? for what? who knows) is a complete lie, if that's even what people are relying on, which I'm not entirely sure it is.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
I don't think that's entirely right. The most important part of how we got here remains Congressional Republicans refusal to take deals multiple times they've been on the table because they preferred the issue to a solution. It's a major factor in why the old guard lost their party to MAGA. Democrats don't own that and an inconsistent willingness to defend rule of law on principle is better than unwillingness to ever do it at all. However the politics of this issue are what they are and the best way to fight back against the madness is to accept that and start pivoting accordingly. The courts are not able to save us from every bad result of an election and it was foolishness to think they could.
"
Not when something within a stone's throw of those views make up a majority of voters in a democracy. Those who have been broadcasting out into the world that anyone who makes it in has a good chance of staying indefinitely under some previously obscure loophole do not have clean hands.
It all starts with grasping that a combination of executive action, the judiciary, and the immigration bar, have succeeded in turning a bunch of laws written with the horrors of the middle 20th century in mind into a pretext for a de facto immigration policy so toxic to the public even the politicians who implicitly support it don't dare say so. Trump probably isn't possible without it.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
This has to be unprecedented in modern US history in terms of being totally self inflicted. It's going to be a kick right in the balls to the average household. All I can say is I hope his supporters learn their lesson, and if they haven't yet, well, I'm sure we can count on many more opportunities to come. We aren't even a tenth of the way through.
"
Dollar down 10% since inauguration day as investors abandoning it due to tariff chaos. Yikes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/04/15/dollar-investors-treasuries-safety/
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
To be clear I'm really talking about taking the L and conceding the issue for the near future, with the only sticking point being humane treatment for those attempting to cross or who are caught internally as we send them back. There's no compromise on the table right now and every time I look at polls the Democrats are rated almost as badly as Republicans are on abortion, so not the neighborhood we want to be in. Better to focus on other things and get back to immigration when the opportunity re-opens, as it will one day.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
Good.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
I take the positions I do on this subject not because I'm secretly some super restrictionist but because I think it's the compromise that would serve to save everything else important.
"
As I understand it he was granted something other than asylum called 'withholding of removal.' This is not my area of law and someone with more expertise can correct me. However as I read the facts of his case there is probably not a single person in El Salvador, other than maybe Bukele himself, who would not potentially qualify for this kind of relief.
"
I don't disagree with you in principle Burt but I think the solution is a little different. You're also ignoring what will be the most important factors for those who support what Trump is doing. Those are (i) Garcia entered the country illegally and (ii) his permission to stay was based on a highly tenuous judicial interpretation of immigration law that has virtually no popular support and no basis in the higher law that is the constitution itself.
The way to correct this to avoid recurrence is for Congress to pass a law tightening things up so that people like Garcia are never allowed to stay in the US to begin with, and that the kinds of nebulous fears of criminal activity in their nation of origin are no longer sufficient grounds to be granted legal status.
Garcia is probably f-ed but the reason it happened is the abdication of duty by Congress. That void is what has put the executive and the judiciary on a collision course. Obviously it would be much better to have an executive with the sense and wisdom to understand the folly of that path but here we are.
"
I think the reality is that hes just as much of the scummy, un-American, nasty as*hole people, including those who know him best, have been saying he is for years. He doesn't care about anything and he's a huge danger to the country. People saw he was a monkey and handed him a hand grenade anyway.
"
I'm pretty pissed about it. I'm also pissed about the years long shredding of credibility that's made it impossible to stand up against this kind of thing without having a debate over why it is millions of people were encouraged to enter illegally (including this dude) under the faulty belief they'd be allowed to stay indefinitely, pending some political settlement that may or may not occur. These people, including Garcia have not been served well by any of this and while Trump owns his authoritarianism and the constitutional disaster this is shaping up to be, I still think anyone who has been arguing in favor unchecked illegal entry and/or sham asylum has their own ownership stake in this mess. I hope they're happy with it.
On “The Emergency Ordinary Times Facelift”
Echoing the appreciation thanks for keeping OT up and running.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/7/2025”
That's kind of missing my point. The Supreme Court told them to bring him back. I would think all reasonable people agree that's the right remedy. What they aren't going to do is try to lay some smack down that proscribes further political maneuvering and litigation. That's not something that happens normally and its not something anyone has any reason to expect.
"
It is a defeat for Trump. I think everyone needs to temper their expectations about what the courts are able to do. Even a less conservative SCOTUS isn't going to order Trump to send in the marines to bring this guy back. My count is that 7 of 9 care enough about the institution on some level as to understand that a holding the executive branch can't comply with might turn out to be as bad as one they expressly refuse to follow.
"
My question is why she was out in her yard with a gun. If it's that her reaction to a bunch of riff raff running through the neighborhood was to strap up and go out to face them I have to respect it. Don't get me wrong. It's totally crazy and the wrong way to respond to that situation... but if thats what happened? What a woman!
"
https://apnews.com/article/jillian-lauren-shriner-weezer-scott-1e3a0a27298d29bd37635349ae4e5b9e
"
In a break from all the serious topics this thing with the wife of Weezer's bassist is wild.
On “What To Expect When You’re Expecting a Trade War”
I was very positively disposed to those efforts.
"
I think it's all a question of what the goals are. There's a strong national security case to be made around IP, or certain types of manufacturing. You don't want the critical pieces of your best weapons technology being built or copied in the country you might end up needing to use those weapons against, or in close range of that country's missiles. I think there's also maybe a less straightforward but nevertheless compelling case that you do not want a country that you may be on a collision course with to enrich itself on easy access to your big rich consumer market. Tariffs may play some part in the strategy to deal with those things. The issue we face now is that the ship has already sailed on the latter, and maybe also on the former. The strongest criticism of what Trump is doing IMO is that tariffs on countries that sell us natural resources or make our shoes in horrid conditions aren't relevant, and starting stuff with traditionally friendly advanced economies is counter productive.
"
It seems to me that the most important part of the debate is about 'the now' and the future rather than the past. I had lunch earlier with a friend whose politics are a few ticks to my left and we talked a lot about the differences between doing something like this today versus, say, the 1990s. Thirty years ago there were still a lot more jobs on shore to protect. Now, to the extent you're protecting anyone with them, it's going to be a relatively small number of people juiced in on legacy arrangements. Which isn't to say that decisively resolves the issue but it does IMO change what the question is. We aren't really talking about a benefit to now existing people, not on any large scale. The question is whether the tariffs would operate to spur new investment in good jobs with strong labor protections. I've already stated my skepticism of that elsewhere but I'd certainly be curious if anyone has laid out why my view is wrong.
"
Truly farcical.
"
Prepping for the primary. With the kind of crap going on it's never too early to start.
"
Thats actually good news.
"
Jaybird, DeSantis didn't even make it to New Hampshire by the will of Republican primary voters. Are you really saying that this kind of rhetoric (which I also find mostly stupid) weighed into their decision? They voted for Trump because they preferred him, not because online blue tribe hysteria forced their hand.
"
I think it goes without saying that the Democrats' fortunes will greatly improve if they come up with an answer to that question. They're in the wilderness for a reason.
However I don't think the swing-ish voters have read von Mises. I think there was a very understandable thermostatic reaction due to inflation with immigration and some cultural issues as auxillaries but there was no resounding mandate for this. People are about to get double forked here, and the promise that it's all going to be worth it because a bunch of factories are going to go up (where? when? for what? who knows) is a complete lie, if that's even what people are relying on, which I'm not entirely sure it is.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.