No Trump defenders left ...?

[_Chap]

[edited quote deleted]

Yeah, I remember how much praise and credit Republicans gave Obama for.... (drum roll).... "winning" the election.

Twice.

What does it say when that's you're most impressive accomplishment and it comes after losing the popular vote and receiving a gift from Comey?

Can we just have an update on permitted practice on the question of 'modified quotes'? What is permitted, and what is not? So far as I can recall, KG had inserted <duuuuuuuuuuuh> in that quote. I suspect he thought that he had put himself in the clear by the use of < > to signal that the material inserted was editing by him.

I do appreciate that ultimately this must be a matter of judgement for the moderator (evidently Shades in all cases nowadays). But I'd like a bit of guidance here, especially on the legitimacy of editorial stratagems I quite often use, such as:

Obama's policies on healthcare which have [had various consequences that "opponent" dislikes]

where I use [ ] to indicate editorial summarising, not always of a neutral kind.

and

I really didn't like having a black guy in the White House

where my modified attribution signals clearly that the post is not actually by "opponent".

[_moksha]

Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Palin?

Probably Palin for mocking Colin Kaepernick because he donated $50,000 to Meals on Wheels.

[_EAllusion]

The ship as sailed, but I'd also point out that quoting someone with a sarcastic description of what they said rather than what they actually said is common in message board conversations and a good way to open up entertaining dialogue. It's usually used by the clever, intelligent posters to good effect. On this board, it was not a coincidence that it was a tactic preferred by Darth J. Removing it on the concern that people would feel misquoted always struck me as silly.

[_EAllusion]

Kevin -

Two things.

First, The flatlining of unauthorized immigration (leading to a net negative flow to/from Mexico) during the Obama years is in part due to his continuation of aggressive deportation that started at the very end of the Bush admin, but it's more moreso due to the severe recession. People enter the US illegally mostly for economic opportunity, and the recession put a huge dent in that motive. I think you are correct to point out that Obama's presidency was not at all a time when undocumented immigrants flooded the country due to soft policy. You are also right to point out hypocrisy in those who would criticize a Democrat, but not Republicans on the issue. Ajax, being a legitimate issues voter where his racism is concerned is probably likely to be consistent on this, though.

Second, Ajax is actually correct in that the initial data on unauthorized border crossings right now indicates a massive collapse, more so than what we saw during Obama, in the past month or so. The highly publicized examples of ICE being unbelievably cruel in its enforcement choices may be producing a deterrent effect that is reducing unauthorized immigration. Indeed, the only way you can rationally explain the enforcement choices of ICE lately is by thinking they are trying to get press for very cruel enforcement to encourage self-deportation / deter people from entering. That doesn't make it a good thing or Trump great.

The Trump admin is trying to significantly expand the ICE force, so he's wrong about this practice obviating the plan to expand their expenses.

[_EAllusion]

To be blunt, the fact that ICE is showing up to courts to arrest undocumented women who are simply trying to report domestic violence, thus letting the accused go free, is almost certainly because ICE wants to send a message to that population that America is deeply unsafe place for them and they should get out. It does not make sense in terms of an effective use of time and resources otherwise.

With a nod to several factors at work here, Ajax is correct that the early data indicates it is working.

[_EAllusion]

Because I don't believe in arresting unauthorized immigrants in such a way that it makes them significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence and exploitation, Ajax is quite likely to argue that this means I don't believe in enforcing the law.

I want to point out preemptively that this is nonsense. If the law allowed for the police to shoot jaywalkers dead in the streets, that would reduce the incidence of jaywalking. That I oppose this doesn't mean I oppose stopping people from breaking the law. I think enforcement aggressiveness and penalties should be proportionate to the risks of the illegal activity.

[_Kevin Graham]

First, The flatlining of unauthorized immigration (leading to a net negative flow to/from Mexico) during the Obama years is in part due to his continuation of aggressive deportation that started at the very end of the Bush admin, but it's more moreso due to the severe recession.

Yes, the only consistency in the flow of illegal immigration is that it is up when the economy is booming and it is down during recessions. This goes a long way to argue the reasons for it have more to do with their desire to work and live the American dream, as opposed to committing rape and murder. I wasn't suggesting Obama did anything to make fewer people want to cross over, I was just pointing out that illegal immigration has been on the decline long before Trump got elected. I would only add to this point that Obama's deportation numbers were inflated because of a change in the way deportations were defined.

Second, Ajax is actually correct in that the initial data on unauthorized border crossings right now indicates a massive collapse

I think it is way too early to make any definitive judgment on that, especially since there is no hard data on the number of crossings, only for the number of apprehensions. So is a drop in recent border apprehensions due to less illegal immigration or is it because ICE is undermanned on the border as they continue to expand their authority elsewhere? You know, hunting down Dreamers and old Maids who are living in society? Also, the horrors of ICE and the dangers immigrants face crossing over may be news to us because the matter has become so politicized this past year, but I can assure you it isn't news to those who risk their lives making the journey. If the dangers of encountering their brutality didn't faze them in the past, I don't see why it would now. I just think there is only so much we can infer from a recent drop in border apprehensions.

[_Maxine Waters]

I think enforcement aggressiveness and penalties should be proportionate to the risks of the illegal activity.

You think illegal immigration is a victimless crime and therefore we shouldn't enforce the law, at least not stringently enough to have any use to the taxpayer. It's because of people like you getting back into power that we need the wall to be built.

Once illegal immigrants make their way onto US soil, you or Kevin will find one way or another to let them or their children stay and provide them with means tested taxpayer funded welfare benefits. Keep it up and we will defeat you once again in 2020.

[_Maxine Waters]

I didn't know much about Trump when he toyed with running for President before. Now I only wish he had run and won sooner. We'll never have a better president again.

[Guest]

I think enforcement aggressiveness and penalties should be proportionate to the risks of the illegal activity.

You think illegal immigration is a victimless crime and therefore we shouldn't enforce the law, at least not stringently enough to have any use to the taxpayer. ...

No he doesn't, nor would any rational person. As in all policing decisions, it is a question of how much by way of resources one ought to devote to any given area of crime (and there are too many to cover all of them with maximum effectiveness.)

Such decisions ought not to be made simply by reacting to the degree of public outcry at any given moment, but by dispassionately and carefully weighing the degree of harm caused, and the costs of reducing that harm, relative to other possible routes for harm reduction. That's unexciting and sometimes less than satisfying, but it gets the most done in the long run.