I thought that that the reason people were put into concentration camps and locked in standing-room-only cages is because illegal entry into the US is a crime and law enforcement agencies have absolutely no choice but to detain them.
Did the law change?
Added by edit:
That was sarcasm is case someone missed it.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
he also says, "No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly." It's true that Drum's summary of Warren's plan doesn't mention deportation, but why do I have a feeling that Warren does have something to say about deportation?
Then why do multiple left-leaning outlets report the same thing?
quote:Migrants who enter the US without papers would still be committing a crime, and they could still be deported.
But Warren's plan, like that of all the other Democratic candidates, is much more humane than Trump's. It's major actions are:
Make illegal entry a civil offense, thereby ending family separation.
Provide legal representation for immigrants in court.
Restore and expand DACA.
Greatly increase the cap limit on refugees.
Ease restrictions on those seeking asylum.
No Democratic candidate wants open borders. No one debating here wants open borders. We need secure but welcoming borders with laws that make immigration straightforward and unfettered. Maybe someday North America will even achieve something like the EU's country borders, though that day doesn't seem imminent.
Trump's crisis on the border is a fiction. We are not being overrun by robbers and rapists and drug dealers. Trump is exaggerating such threats to justify the inhumane treatment of people who are just like you and me, and who have committed no crime, but are merely fleeing danger and/or economic hardship in their own country. They are merely seeking a better life, like millions of immigrants to America before them.
quote:We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people
quote:The idea that a country of 330 million people cannot absorb people who are in desperate need and who are justifiably fleeing oppression, it is absolutely bizarre. Absolutely bizarre. I would also move to increase the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States
(Expect the EvC choir, led by Theodoric, to start to claim I said Biden was for OPEN BORDERS, like happened last time I mentioned Biden)
New Republic attacks Democratic opposition to open borders. Aug 9 article
quote:Open Borders Made America Great For most of U.S. history, all immigrants were undocumented. It's a fact Democrats should embrace. By AARON FREEDMAN August 9, 2019
For nearly three decades, American immigration policies have reenforced the false notion that undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals. From Bill Clinton’s militarization of the southern border in 1993 to the creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the September 11, 2001 attacks—and now to Donald Trump’s detention of asylum seekers in concentration camps—Washington has normalized the view that undocumented immigrants are a threat to America. A threat to be policed, detained, and deported. Though time and again proven untrue, this rhetoric—echoed in society as a whole—has only become more pervasive in recent years. Most horrifically, it was on display in the “manifesto” allegedly posted by the gunman who murdered 22 people at an El Paso Walmart last weekend.
In recent years, Democrats have tried to respond to the tightening noose around undocumented immigrants’ necks with tepid measures, but even those—such as a 2013 bill to offer a pathway to citizenship while increasing border militarization—have failed to shift perceptions. The latest proposal in vogue among Democrats, to try undocumented immigrants in the civil legal system, does nothing to stem the mass deportations that have surged over three administrations in the last two decades.
The only way to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of undocumented immigrants is to fundamentally change the narrative that views them as criminals and so, views them as a threat.
To this end, Democrats and immigration advocates should remind skeptical white voters that undocumented immigrants have long made America great. In fact, many of their own ancestors were undocumented immigrants, beneficiaries of an era of open borders.
This article shows us that despite the founders debate over immigration, there was never an effort to expel immigrants for roughly the first 100 years.
The long article shows us that "open borders" came to an end for non-whites only in 1875, but continued for whites for decades longer.
quote:OPINION IF DEMOCRATS WANT THE IMMIGRANT VOTE, IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN PHOTO OPS AT THE BORDER | OPINION SAYU BHOJWANI ON 8/6/19 AT 12:56 PM EDT
Can a Democrat defeat President Donald Trump in 2020?
We often hear about constituencies that could swing the race in any direction, such as conflicted Trump supporters, black voters in South Carolina and white Rust Belt voters, just to name a few. However, no Democratic candidate is focusing enough on the potential effect of first- and second-generation immigrant voters, or "new Americans," on the upcoming election.
Here's the reality: New Americans—primarily progressive Asian and Latinx voters—could be the difference between Democrats winning or losing in 2020.
According to the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, there are at least 21,283,864 naturalized citizens of voting age nationwide. About 2 million Americans have become naturalized citizens since the 2016 election. And the impact of these voters only increases when you add in their American-born families, a younger population that is growing every year. The only reason the immigrant family vote isn't a part of every analysis is that political pundits in America are a vastly maler and paler group, on average, than the public.
All I do is throw facts back at you. If you would read objectively you will see I never claimed you thought LaRouche should have been the Democratic nominee. I stated that it seemed you did. I think that was a reasonable inference from the arguments you were making. I guess my inference was wrong, but I think my reasoning was valid. It seems I am very good at getting under tour skin. Maybe it will make you improve your arguments.
Oh yeah, personal attacks don't strengthen your arguments, they weaken them..
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?