| |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What "rather extreme partisan talking points" are those? Referring to the well-attested, widely-reported abuses of immigrants by this administration is not extremely partisan, it's just facts. I know Republicans. I talk to Republicans. They know about this stuff and they're fine with it. They know they're not supposed to be, so they deflect. They'll say what's happening to immigrants is no different from being arrested for a crime you didn't commit, then released. They'll insist that the victim was a terrible criminal regardless of the facts. What they don't do is express any reservations whatsoever about it. I suppose you might make an argument that this deflection indicates an overall approval of immigration since they need to find excuses to support the administration's anti-immigration actions. I would argue that if you claim to believe one thing, but you always find an excuse to defend actions against it, then you don't actually believe it. Polls are not magic opinion-finding systems. They report what people say. This demonstrably frequently diverges from what people actually do, think, and feel. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You swapped from 'heinous human rights abuses' to 'abuse' when challenged on a point being framed in a rather extreme and partisan fashion. And that's not to mock you or anything - it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Abuses are one thing, human rights abuses are another, and then human rights abuses so abnormally cruel that they deserve to be labeled as heinous? I mean are we talking about stuff like Unit 731 [1] here? I'm pretty sure we are not. Yet these echo chambers encourage people to use ever more hyperbolic and sensationalized language framing ever more actions as the most severe and consequential thing to ever happen, mostly just to rile people up (and get those votes in social media). This is why conversation, and free flow of information, from people of different worldviews is so critical for a functioning society and avoiding radicalism. And I have to say I'm still not certain what you're even talking about, whereas I assume you think literally every American knows exactly what you are trying to reference. But this is again an issue about bubbles, and what I was getting at with if you asked an average person about some trending talking point. On the overwhelming majority of issues, most people's response is going to be 'What are you even talking about?' [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s shorthand. You don’t have to repeat the full phrase every time. I’m talking about things like CECOT. No, it’s not Unit 731. I think being sent to a horrible prison in another country without a trial qualifies as “heinous.” Maybe you don’t. But that’s missing the point. The point is the support for these actions, not their precise description. You say people don’t know about this stuff. My experience is otherwise. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think so. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Expedited removal [1] is a part of immigration law dating back to Clinton. People who are in the country unlawfully do not have all of the same rights as citizens or legal non-citizens. And support (or opposition) for immigration in no way whatsoever implies a position on how to deal with people who are in the country illegally. For instance Hispanics are less supportive of immigration than average, but more supportive than average of allowing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And I myself am quite supportive of immigration, but not at all a fan of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I even have very specific reasons for that, but my anecdotes are probably irrelevant here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Expedited removal does not require sending people to a hellhole third-world prison. Many of the people sent there were in the US legally. But thank you for illustrating the deflection I was talking about. This is how these conversations always go for me. First the ignorance, "I don't even know what you're referring to." Then the minimization, "it's not so bad," "you're being hyperbolic." Finally the justification, "this is nothing new," "they were all illegals anyway." | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not deflecting anything. Rather you've brought us down a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the initial issue of whether or not one supports immigration. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, but I'm not entirely sure what we're even debating at this point. So I suppose I'll just consider it a discussion, it's interesting in any case! The US does not get to dictate what happens to a person in a country once they're deported. That is up to the host country. El Salvador has been going through an extreme crackdown on gangs over the past several years sending them from one of the most dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, to a country with a homicide rate a fraction of the US' and one of the 10 safest countries in the world! [1] The deal between the US and El Salvador for hosting prisoners was for a relatively small number of deportees who were vile enough that even their home countries refused to accept them back, leaving them in a state of limbo. And the deportees were overwhelmingly not in the country legally. The media made this claim based on people who were admitted to the country via the CBP One app. But those admittances were all rescinded in April. At that point users of the App were notified of the change, the app was updated to 'CBP Home' and updated to work as a tool to help people self deport in a way that would not imperil their chance of legally applying for a visa or citizenship to the US in the future. Those who chose to stay in the US beyond that point were doing so illegally, and were informed that they would be arrested, deported, and permanently prevented from ever legally entering the US. https://www.gallup.com/analytics/356996/gallup-global-safety... | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not a tangent. It's the worst example of the anti-immigrant actions being taken by this administration, and it's supported by its supporters. You think (or at least say) it's a tangent because you're deflecting. This is basically a No True Immigrant argument. I point out immigrants being abused, you come up with reasons why that doesn't count. I'm sure this would continue. I could talk about, say, a green card holder who gets arrested by ICE because of a decades-old marijuana offense and then after being held in bad conditions for several days is released into the middle of the night with no way to get in touch with anyone she knows, and you'll just say that they have a right to do this because of that marijuana offense, or this is standard treatment, or some other such faff. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah, but now you're finally revealing the core of your argument. You seem to be effectively insisting that somebody must equate illegal immigration and legal migration. Am I somehow straw manning you? Because if not this is of course rather silly, as the two have little in common besides moving. Legal immigration to the US is absurdly difficult and entails extensive vetting, qualification, and a lengthy process of 'proving' oneself. Illegal immigration requires breaking the law to enter a country, breaking the law to remain in that country, and then generally also continuing to break the law as you reside in the country. So with one you're getting the best of the best and with the other you're getting people who view the law as something to be followed when convenient. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're absolutely strawmanning me. Or do you equate deporting a green card holder with a decades-old marijuana conviction as being against illegal immigration? Do you think that suddenly revoking status from legal immigrants and then deporting them is only being against illegal immigrants because you revoked their status first? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." You can't claim to only be against dishonest men when you do this sort of thing. I do think that this administration's actions against illegal immigrants have been so bad that everyone responsible should be imprisoned. But they are not only against illegal immigrants. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't follow your bubbles, so I am looking things up on the fly, but the only case I could find of somebody deported "for a decades-old marijuana" conviction was this [1] individual who "has a lengthy criminal record with convictions for distributing cocaine and marijuana, assault and disorderly conduct." And it turns out his deportation was not even ordered by this administration. It was ordered a decade ago after he was imprisoned for some crime while already on probation for yet another crime. Obviously you don't think people like this are desirable immigrants, so this likely gets back to the bubble issue. While it's possible I'm referencing the wrong case, I suspect the issue is more like that whatever bubble you consume did genuinely just frame this as 'Trump deports man for decades old marijuana conviction' when I think you can see that that is plainly false. But if anybody mentioned this in your bubble, they would certainly be rapidly silenced because rage is far more relevant than facts in these bubbles. And consider that the media you're consuming is driving you to think that not only are these actions "heinous" but even that the current administration should be imprisoned for what they're doing, and I expect you probably wish even worse - though may not be willing to say it. This is the exact radicalizing phenomena I was talking about at the very top of this thread. [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/vorasack-phommasith-green-card-revo... | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm referring to this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ice-released-mass-mom-no... She wasn't deported, hooray! She was still held in bad conditions for over a week, denied necessary medical care, and then released far from home with no resources. Do you think this is acceptable treatment of a legal immigrant? Or do you believe that an old marijuana conviction is enough to consider her "illegal" and thus doesn't count as an action against legal immigrants? Or maybe it's just cherry-picked and not representative? Please explain how "the media [I'm] consuming is driving [me] to think that" sending people to CECOT without trial is heinous. (Note that the "without trial" part is an intensifier, but it would still be heinous even with one.) I'm pretty sure it's the conditions in CECOT and a belief in basic human rights that drives me to think that. Are you asserting that CECOT is actually fine and I'm getting a distorted picture of what it's like there? Are you asserting that my belief that it's heinous to imprison people in awful conditions would disappear if I had a more objective view? Do note that every time you justify one of these things, you're proving my point. You need to go for the ignorance angle if you want to argue that a vast majority of Republicans support immigration. Arguing that they are aware of what's happening but it just doesn't qualify as being against immigration is not going to work. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, so your anecdote didn't actually happen. That could explain why I was having trouble finding it. Think about the fact that the rather relevant update of 'ok, she actually wasn't even deported' didn't make it into your bubble, and why that might be. And more generally, again look at what you're doing here. You're not really making any argument against the claim that e.g. Republicans support immigration. You're instead looking for some random anecdote that turned out poorly on the enforcement against illegal immigration. People in the hundreds of thousands have now been deported. If 99.9% of these cases are handled in the most amazingly professional and reasonable manner, that still means hundreds would not be. You're fishing for that 0.1% to try to frame that as being representative of the 99.9%. I think it's equally obvious that there probably are some issues at the fringe, there always are, as that that things are going perfectly smoothly and reasonably in the overwhelming majority of cases. As for CECOT, I've already answered this. The US does not deport El Salvadorans to CECOT. They deport them to their home country. What happens at that point is up to their home country. And El Salvador has cracked down hard on any sort of viable gang affiliation which has sent their country from one of the most dangerous in the world to one of the top 10 safest places in the world with a genuine government approval rating that is at 90%+. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Think about the fact that the rather relevant update of 'ok, she actually wasn't even deported' didn't make it into your bubble, and why that might be. Your incredible condescension is not helping your argument any. I got the entire story at once. The only thing that saved her from being deported was the timely action of her husband and her lawyer to get the conviction vacated before that could actually happen. If the lawyer hadn't been quite as good, or the local court hadn't been quite as fast, she would have been deported like ICE wanted to. Do you find that acceptable? Do you think that doesn't qualify as being anti-immigration? A million fucking apologies for being imprecise with my description, jesus. > The US does not deport El Salvadorans to CECOT. Absolutely complete 100% horseshit. The administration deported them in full knowledge of where they were going to end up. They knew it, and you know they knew it. Saying they didn't deport people to CECOT is like saying that I didn't kill the guy, I just pushed him out the window, gravity and the pavement are what killed him. Civilized countries do not deport people when they're facing horrible human rights abuses on the other end. And what about all the Venezuelans who got deported to CECOT? Did their home country suddenly switch? Is Venezuela too dangerous and CECOT was better? Did the administration think El Salvador was a nice safe place for them to go, and were totally blindsided when they ended up in CECOT? Come on, man. You're either being ridiculously disingenuous in a bizarre attempt to make a point, or you're proving my point by doing exactly what I said these supposedly "pro-immigration" people do, making the absolute worst excuses to defend the clearly anti-immigration actions of this administration. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Genuine apologies if my post came off condescending. I do work to stay above the usual emotive trash on internet debates and you've certainly been a perfectly good and respectful 'debate partner.' That said, you have to also see things from my perspective here. You repeatedly referenced this person as somebody who was deported for a marijuana conviction. And you are likely looking for the worst of the worst stories. And so for the worst of the worst to include things like somebody being briefly detained, let alone after lying to immigration officers, it is an anti-climax, to say the least. The reason the Venezuelans were deported to CECOT is because Venezuela refused to accept them. They needed to be deported but no country wanted them. So they ended up in CECOT with the US paying a tidy sum of money for that. They were eventually transferred from CECOT back to Venezuela in exchange for Venezuela releasing a number of political prisoners. Obviously there's some classified behind the scenes stuff going on beyond that, but it's a pretty good ending to the story there. And once again the treatment of illegal immigrants and being for or against legal immigration are two very different things. In those 0.1% of cases where something goes awry obviously I absolutely hope they improve their systems to do a better job. But, by and large, they seem to be doing a phenomenal job of dealing with a problem that never should have been allowed to reach its current magnitude. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
