Exactly. I'm not going to pretend there isn't a generous dose of nativism and racism animating conservative activists on this but we aren't living in anything like the same global economy as the 1870s or even the 1920s. What's the argument for importing a bunch of low skill immigrant labor? How does it benefit citizens of this country?
I get why we want the doctors and physicists and coders.
I got that but are we really supposed to believe whats driving city governments in NYC and Chicago and Baltimore is ICE's Dirty Harry act? The same Dirty Harry act agencies under their control mete out to their own voters? To me that stretches credulity.
I'm generally skeptical of law enforcement but I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do. The Arpaio insanity is downright evil and anyone caught in the country illegally should be treated in a humane manner. It's a disgrace that ICE can't be relied on to do that but I see that as a seperate issue. They don't decide who can and can't be deported.
It does and you can see above where I blame the GOP for this outcome. Obama got tougher on enforcement.
This needed to happen before figuring out how to handle the majority of people who have been here long term, many of which I concede it would be immoral or impracticable to deport. Of those the Dreamers represent the easiest cases, and the prior administrstion was right to protect them.
What I don't think we should do is turn this from reasonable policy vs. brutality to open borders vs. brutality. This is especially true because brutality might win elections but I don't think open borders ever will on a large scale. This is not only a problem the US is dealing with.
No one is saying it bluntly but based on laws like the one discussed in the OP and the debates around the country of how/whether state and local authorities should cooperate with ICE I would contend yes. And this is coming from someone who has no taste for security theater like the wall and opposes restrictions based on race/creed or proxies for them.
This is sort of what I alluded to above. It's a shame the thread went down the Godwin's Law rabbit hole. There's a lot at stake with open borders (I think it's bad, and most certainly untenable policy, but it's effectively what happens if illegal aliens writ large become a protected class). The argument here shouldn't be we accept anybody any time with minimal or no scrutiny vs. law enforcement has license to be as brutal as they want in the name of enforcing immigration law. Yet it seems like that's where we're heading.
This is going to be different. We're talking about an enumerated power of Congress. An immigration attorney would know better than me but absent something in federal law explicitly providing an opening for states to do things like this I don't see how it passes muster.
I think this is sort of true but only with a huge caveat. The issue festered in large part because the establishment GOP for decades was reluctant to come down on the use of cheap illegal immigrant labor by its business constituency. Now we've got harshness for the sake of harshness on the GOP side versus, as best I can tell, an endorsement of open borders by the Democrats (anything less seems to be interpreted as racist). This is a bad place to be and it's the most obvious issue where GOP refusal to compromise with the Obama administration has left the country much worse off.
Federalism is a constitutional consideration in that it underlies the pre-emption doctrine. IMO there's a very strong argument that at all of it would/will fail under a field pre-emption theory.
To the extent that there might be a distinction I think it's that after striking out over and over again with similar candidates (think Herman Cain, and to a lesser extent Sarah Palin) Bannon's guy actually won, and not just in the primaries. Whether it was Bannon or something about Trump or the moment is certainly up for debate.
My comment to Chip was indeed mostly a joke. To the extent it wasn't it was a reference more to conservative media, which I do think is focused on pissing off a certain strain of progressive (BSDI, etc.).
My read on conservatism, and you can tell me if I'm wrong since I'm not one, is that Christian piety about sex is in near total retreat. It's still out there but is mostly trying to negotiate terms of surrender that allow it to exist on the margins without being considered ipso facto bigotry. The dominant conservative view I see is what I'd call a non-liturgical belief that, generally speaking, people reap what they sow. As applied to sexual relations I'd see it as saying do what you want (which when behind closed doors at least is none of my business) but don't cry to me about the consequences. But that's just an outsider's perspective.
This is interesting to me because I encounter the sentiment you and @gabriel-conroy are expressing at times, and yet I'm the complete opposite. I'll still laugh at a Seinfeld re-run, especially if I haven't seen it in a long time, but Friends does nothing for me, at least on a comedic level (insert inappropriate joke about Jennifer Aniston and/or Courtney Cox here).
Where I live we used to have some really bizarre ones for a mattress place called Bedding Barn. I think discount and regional furniture stores are all a little bit shady and fly by night. Nothing should be presumed earnest. They all have basically the same merchandise and will do anything they can to get you through their door instead of Ikea's.
Gotcha, I don't think I have ever actually seen Singles but I am vaguely aware of its existence. I always thought Friends really floundered in its big network sitcomness. The jokes seemed so audience tested as to blunt any bite and the really sentimental way the ongoing romances were handled made it feel like you were suddenly in a soap opera. At a time where you also had Seinfeld and golden age Simpsons I could never figure out why people thought Friends was so good.
I always thought Friends was a really lame, milquetoast kind of show but I did and still do like Seinfeld. This conversation reminds me of the episode where Jerry and George are mistaken by a journalism student for a gay couple ('not that there's anything wrong with that'). I think that's a better marker for where a lot of the culture was. Slowly dawning on many (but not all or probably even most) that the status quo treatment of gay people was wrong but not quite sure what to do with that realization. Friends handled it clumsily compared to some of its contemporaries, but then a lot of people were handling it clumsily and still are. We should expect better now but I think the burn it/banish it for being a product of its times stuff is pretty silly.
This gets back to my conversation with Jaybird above. I get the original intent may not have been to make it public but it did get circulated online. Anyone, especially people in media, understands there's a chance something like that is going to get out. All I was saying in my original comment is that, once it's out, there's nothing unreasonable about scrutinizing it and its creator. The counter-argument people are making seems to imply that its ok for accusations (including some of a very grave nature) to be made public (intentionally or not), but not ok for people to scrutinize the allegations or defend themselves in public. The other implied argument I'm hearing is that even saying that it's ok for people to defend themselves from public accusations is itself a bad thing that implicates people in the bad things the accused people allegedly did.
This is what I'm pushing back on.
On raw numbers we may have to disagree on certain things. As best I can tell all evidence points to a generally safer, less violent world. To me narratives contra that need some scientific, unbiased proving.
I don't have a problem with whisper networks in principle (I think they're kind of inevitable around all kinds of issues, not just this one). My problem has always been the argument that broader society needs to accept everything floating around in them as unimpeachable truth and react accordingly.
All that said I'm more sympathetic than I probably come off in these discussions.
I've had my own experiences on the complainant side in the criminal justice system (including one very recent episode). It sucks. The police can be unresponsive and unprofessional, you have to fill out an ungodly amount of paperwork, you get questioned by unsympathetic bureaucrats, and there's no guarantee anything is going to actually happen. I try to keep that in mind, including when I get brought in to support HR investigations. You'd probably be surprised where I end up coming down on these when I actually have facts to work with.
Also for the record I think our conversations on this are always interesting/productive, and I do appreciate you having them given how personal it is for you. I'll keep in mind the question about responsibility for action (it's a fair one).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “When Democrats Go States’ Rights”
Exactly. I'm not going to pretend there isn't a generous dose of nativism and racism animating conservative activists on this but we aren't living in anything like the same global economy as the 1870s or even the 1920s. What's the argument for importing a bunch of low skill immigrant labor? How does it benefit citizens of this country?
I get why we want the doctors and physicists and coders.
"
I got that but are we really supposed to believe whats driving city governments in NYC and Chicago and Baltimore is ICE's Dirty Harry act? The same Dirty Harry act agencies under their control mete out to their own voters? To me that stretches credulity.
"
I came across a remarkably un-Vox piece on this issue. It's very much worth reading.
"
I might buy this if virtually every sanctuary city didn't have serious abuse problems with it's own municipal police forces.
"
Obama sort of practiced a defensible policy but never articulated a broader vision. Of course the GOP gave him no reason to even try.
"
I'm generally skeptical of law enforcement but I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do. The Arpaio insanity is downright evil and anyone caught in the country illegally should be treated in a humane manner. It's a disgrace that ICE can't be relied on to do that but I see that as a seperate issue. They don't decide who can and can't be deported.
"
It does and you can see above where I blame the GOP for this outcome. Obama got tougher on enforcement.
This needed to happen before figuring out how to handle the majority of people who have been here long term, many of which I concede it would be immoral or impracticable to deport. Of those the Dreamers represent the easiest cases, and the prior administrstion was right to protect them.
What I don't think we should do is turn this from reasonable policy vs. brutality to open borders vs. brutality. This is especially true because brutality might win elections but I don't think open borders ever will on a large scale. This is not only a problem the US is dealing with.
"
No one is saying it bluntly but based on laws like the one discussed in the OP and the debates around the country of how/whether state and local authorities should cooperate with ICE I would contend yes. And this is coming from someone who has no taste for security theater like the wall and opposes restrictions based on race/creed or proxies for them.
"
This is sort of what I alluded to above. It's a shame the thread went down the Godwin's Law rabbit hole. There's a lot at stake with open borders (I think it's bad, and most certainly untenable policy, but it's effectively what happens if illegal aliens writ large become a protected class). The argument here shouldn't be we accept anybody any time with minimal or no scrutiny vs. law enforcement has license to be as brutal as they want in the name of enforcing immigration law. Yet it seems like that's where we're heading.
"
This is going to be different. We're talking about an enumerated power of Congress. An immigration attorney would know better than me but absent something in federal law explicitly providing an opening for states to do things like this I don't see how it passes muster.
"
@saul-degraw
I think this is sort of true but only with a huge caveat. The issue festered in large part because the establishment GOP for decades was reluctant to come down on the use of cheap illegal immigrant labor by its business constituency. Now we've got harshness for the sake of harshness on the GOP side versus, as best I can tell, an endorsement of open borders by the Democrats (anything less seems to be interpreted as racist). This is a bad place to be and it's the most obvious issue where GOP refusal to compromise with the Obama administration has left the country much worse off.
"
Federalism is a constitutional consideration in that it underlies the pre-emption doctrine. IMO there's a very strong argument that at all of it would/will fail under a field pre-emption theory.
On “Morning Ed: Vice {2018.01.17.W}”
So much for my cabinet of bourbon, cigars, and fireworks.
"
I always want to ask the proponents what the point of a long healthy life is if you aren't allowed any fun or self indulgence.
On “The MacGuffin White House”
To the extent that there might be a distinction I think it's that after striking out over and over again with similar candidates (think Herman Cain, and to a lesser extent Sarah Palin) Bannon's guy actually won, and not just in the primaries. Whether it was Bannon or something about Trump or the moment is certainly up for debate.
On “Morning Ed: Diversity {2018.01.15.M}”
They're representative of those who I think have already lost the cultural battle.
"
My comment to Chip was indeed mostly a joke. To the extent it wasn't it was a reference more to conservative media, which I do think is focused on pissing off a certain strain of progressive (BSDI, etc.).
My read on conservatism, and you can tell me if I'm wrong since I'm not one, is that Christian piety about sex is in near total retreat. It's still out there but is mostly trying to negotiate terms of surrender that allow it to exist on the margins without being considered ipso facto bigotry. The dominant conservative view I see is what I'd call a non-liturgical belief that, generally speaking, people reap what they sow. As applied to sexual relations I'd see it as saying do what you want (which when behind closed doors at least is none of my business) but don't cry to me about the consequences. But that's just an outsider's perspective.
"
This is interesting to me because I encounter the sentiment you and @gabriel-conroy are expressing at times, and yet I'm the complete opposite. I'll still laugh at a Seinfeld re-run, especially if I haven't seen it in a long time, but Friends does nothing for me, at least on a comedic level (insert inappropriate joke about Jennifer Aniston and/or Courtney Cox here).
Just a matter of taste I guess!
"
Oooooh man.
"
Where I live we used to have some really bizarre ones for a mattress place called Bedding Barn. I think discount and regional furniture stores are all a little bit shady and fly by night. Nothing should be presumed earnest. They all have basically the same merchandise and will do anything they can to get you through their door instead of Ikea's.
"
Gotcha, I don't think I have ever actually seen Singles but I am vaguely aware of its existence. I always thought Friends really floundered in its big network sitcomness. The jokes seemed so audience tested as to blunt any bite and the really sentimental way the ongoing romances were handled made it feel like you were suddenly in a soap opera. At a time where you also had Seinfeld and golden age Simpsons I could never figure out why people thought Friends was so good.
"
I always thought Friends was a really lame, milquetoast kind of show but I did and still do like Seinfeld. This conversation reminds me of the episode where Jerry and George are mistaken by a journalism student for a gay couple ('not that there's anything wrong with that'). I think that's a better marker for where a lot of the culture was. Slowly dawning on many (but not all or probably even most) that the status quo treatment of gay people was wrong but not quite sure what to do with that realization. Friends handled it clumsily compared to some of its contemporaries, but then a lot of people were handling it clumsily and still are. We should expect better now but I think the burn it/banish it for being a product of its times stuff is pretty silly.
"
Whichever one pisses off people in blue zip codes the most.
On “Briefly, On The Making Of Lists”
@oscar-gordon
This gets back to my conversation with Jaybird above. I get the original intent may not have been to make it public but it did get circulated online. Anyone, especially people in media, understands there's a chance something like that is going to get out. All I was saying in my original comment is that, once it's out, there's nothing unreasonable about scrutinizing it and its creator. The counter-argument people are making seems to imply that its ok for accusations (including some of a very grave nature) to be made public (intentionally or not), but not ok for people to scrutinize the allegations or defend themselves in public. The other implied argument I'm hearing is that even saying that it's ok for people to defend themselves from public accusations is itself a bad thing that implicates people in the bad things the accused people allegedly did.
This is what I'm pushing back on.
Also slander= oral speech, libel=writing.
"
On raw numbers we may have to disagree on certain things. As best I can tell all evidence points to a generally safer, less violent world. To me narratives contra that need some scientific, unbiased proving.
I don't have a problem with whisper networks in principle (I think they're kind of inevitable around all kinds of issues, not just this one). My problem has always been the argument that broader society needs to accept everything floating around in them as unimpeachable truth and react accordingly.
All that said I'm more sympathetic than I probably come off in these discussions.
I've had my own experiences on the complainant side in the criminal justice system (including one very recent episode). It sucks. The police can be unresponsive and unprofessional, you have to fill out an ungodly amount of paperwork, you get questioned by unsympathetic bureaucrats, and there's no guarantee anything is going to actually happen. I try to keep that in mind, including when I get brought in to support HR investigations. You'd probably be surprised where I end up coming down on these when I actually have facts to work with.
Also for the record I think our conversations on this are always interesting/productive, and I do appreciate you having them given how personal it is for you. I'll keep in mind the question about responsibility for action (it's a fair one).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.