Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Yes. I am huge fan of Pelosi taking a short-term political hit while pragmatically moving the country forward. GOP speakers caved to their base. It will pay off in the long term IMO.
This post is a good illustration of why referring to detention facilities as concentration camps isn't helpful. I mean, of course we shouldn't pay for the government to operate concentration camps. But paying for the infrastructure to support orderly and humane asylum and immigration proceedings is an important task for the government.
What you do is say “no”. No, we won’t fund your racist concentration camps. Period. You don’t just give them $4.5 billion dollars because they said they’re gonna do good this time. How naive can you possibly be?
If you do that, then the message the public gets is that Republicans tried to help the migrants and Democrats blocked it. And you risk losing your majority again in 2020.
Wave as they go by and drop their information into a lock box. We can just call them later.IvanKaramazov said:
What’s the point of having a majority if you’re just going to cave to Trump’s prison camps and Bolton’s wars anyway? Aren’t you tired of the dog and pony show? Nancy Pelosi has the power to help these people here, and she’s giving it all away to the wardens.timschochet said:
Ideally, we wouldn't have destabilized countries like Honduras, which caused the immigration outflow in the first place. Given that, it seems the least we could do is give them asylum. The chickens are coming home to roost. You can apply the exact same argument to Syria and the Middle East, and the immigration crises that are happening out there, and the Trumps that are getting elected out there. Until people confront the reason why it happens in the first place (and the fact it was happening long before Trump came along)- endless militarism and overthrows of democratically elected governments- we're gonna get a lot more immigration and a lot more Trumps.IvanKaramazov said:
Only if the democrats allow that to happen....that's a whole other issue.timschochet said:
Hire A LOT more people and judges to do background checks and process them. Deny entry to criminals and let the rest pursue the American Dream.IvanKaramazov said:
I get what you’re saying in principle but I’m just not sure this is the best example of it.
Best? Don't know....don't care. It's certainly an example of laws being created mostly for political purposes then the funding withheld to actually implement the laws. If you're referring to the second half of my post, at some point, we the people, draw the line. The politicians aren't going to do it. They are like water. They'll take the path of least resistance every time if it means they get to keep their jobs. I don't know why people don't see that. If we flipped the script and bring the morally right decision more in line with the politically expedient decision, what do you think will happen?
I just don’t like the implication that somehow the progressive ones in Congress always making the morally right decisions. Just like everyone else they’re doing the safe thing their constituents want. And in this case I’m not clear on what the morally right decision even is.
Huh. So, you are saying we should go back to the Ellis Island days, when 99% of the people came through under just such rules? When we were ascending to being the superpower status that we are desperately trying to hold onto today? Your crazy ideas are filled with craziness. We should shun you, and your super obvious logic.
You're trying way to hard to justify the actions here IMO. I didn't come close to saying this.
Agreed. Compromising is how you get things done. Some love to kick and scream and cry when they don't totally get their way, but give and take is almost always the way to go.PhantomJB said:Yes. I am huge fan of Pelosi taking a short-term political hit while pragmatically moving the country forward. GOP speakers caved to their base. It will pay off in the long term IMO.
I personally took a #####-ton of heat in the Wall thread during the gov't shutdown for advocating this very approach. So big props to her.
The answer is no. Ellis Island for the most part was restricted to white folks from Europe. We had Asians come, Chinese and Japanese mostly, but we shut that down quickly enough.
Not really, as Tim pointed out. It was a port for mostly Europeans coming on ships. That was who was immigrating here at the time.
What a dumb cartoon.
What part of dead kids, no beds, no soap, no toothpaste, no tooth brushes, inadequate food, inadequate medical care, children left in their own filth without clean diapers is orderly or humane again? That is what this admin has done while paying over 700 a day per child for these "detention centers ". Sorry with no guidelines in place to make sure that doesn't continue this was a complete moral cave. And multiple experts define these as concentration camps. Dont like the term? Fix the problem.
ARE YOU KIDDING? You're trolling us now right. You are a father and you don't know what the morally correct decision was here? Seriously?
No part of that is humane. That's the point. We need better infrastructure to handle immigration, which takes money.
We have plenty of money. We pay over 700 a day now. They just don't care. And they aren't suddenly going to care more now.
Pretty sure those aren't the kids going without toothbrushes. The 700 a day kids I thought were the ones with A/C and on site medical.
I don’t believe voting against a bill that offered billions of dollars to help alleviate the situation on the border because it didn’t have enough controls over how the money would be spent is necessarily a morally correct decision. Not trolling at all.
We both know without controls that money will not be properly allocated by this admin. And really you got suspended for that? That's kind of stupid.
The tent cities cost more than permanent setups. In fact there aren't more kids involved in this they just spend longer in custody. And the cost is also upped by the seperation policy.
There are some controls in that bill. Not enough controls for the progressives. But “without controls” is a hyperbole (like “open borders”).
There are basically pinkie swears ut not real controls over standards. And further 100s of million of this has nothing to do with upgrading facilities. So basically Trump and McConnell got what they wanted with Blue dog help.
You might want to actually read about who demanded that Pelosi put through the Senate bill and you might want to check out the Hispanics caucuses extremely negative reaction to doing so before assuming very much. Dumping the Congressional version was spearheaded by the Blue Dogs.
What I especially enjoyed was Pence promising to limit child detention to 90 days. On average right now its 89 days. Big promise there.
Guess that depends on what you mean by oversight.
So I have no accountant that actually verifies the amount spent on pants, socks and shirts?
