The ICE Bomber and the Deafening Silence in Media

[LittleRaven]

ICE isn't designed to handle asylum seekers because traditionally asylum seekers were let in without long term detention as they have the right, via international treaty, to enter the country.

Yes, but traditionally, we weren't seeing these numbers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/11/18290677/border-immigration-illegal-asylum-central-america-mexico-trump

The government’s capacity to handle an influx of large groups of children and families was already under serious strain at the end of 2018. By March, politicians of both parties were recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis. And the numbers of people coming just keep rising — with 132,887 migrants apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing the US-Mexico border (committing the misdemeanor of illegal entry) in May 2019.

This isn’t a manufactured crisis, or a politically engineered one, as some Democrats and progressives have argued. If it were, it would be easier to solve.

What’s happening at the border is the result of a regional crisis in which — if current rates continue — close to 1 percent of the entire population of Guatemala and Honduras will attempt to immigrate to the US this year. The Mexican government, meanwhile, is vacillating between humanitarian rhetoric and militarized crackdowns, US border officials are openly begging for help, and Trump himself is throwing the mother of all temper tantrums.

Obama's approach to asylum seekers was not a bandaid, it was standard operating procedure.

But the situation has changed, so standard operating procedure has to change too. What worked when we got 1000 asylum seekers a mother is not going to work when we get 100,000 seekers a month. Not everything scales equally.

[Draco Dracul]

But the situation has changed, so standard operating procedure has to change too. What worked when we got 1000 asylum seekers a mother is not going to work when we get 100,000 seekers a month. Not everything scales equally.

The average is 75,000, not 10,000. And as a policy, catch and release scales very well as they are people with documentation from their home country (you own article points out that undocumented immigrants haven't spiked). You let them in, you give them a date, most of them come to court, then you round up the ones that don't. The only thing you would need infrastructure wise would be more immigration judges.

[LittleRaven]

And as a policy, catch and release scales very well as they are people with documentation from their home country (you own article points out that undocumented immigrants haven't spiked).

Maybe you missed 2016, where a reality television star best known for firing people successfully leveraged this issue to hijack one of America's major political parties, slowly knocking off Senators and Governors, and then used it to bully his way into the White House itself. Trump's claim to fame has always been immigration - it's the one issue that he has used a cudgel to relentlessly beat down any political opposition he encounters. And he was able to use it because catch and release creates a perception that nobody is enforcing the rules, and that gets voters very ansy.

So no, catch and release does not scale well. Even if you're a fan of how it works practically, you have a way to manage it politically. That's an argument that proved toxic for the Democrats in 2016. Maybe things will be different in 2020 - the candidates are certainly acting as if that's true....but I'm not at all certain. And I'm not the only one.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-19/column-democrats-are-in-danger-of-an-immigration-trap

A CNN poll last month found that most Americans disapprove of Trump’s crackdown on migrants. Most said immigrants in the country should be offered a path to legal residency, and most said the United States should allow refugees from Central America to seek asylum — a resounding repudiation of Trump’s policies.

But there’s a catch: Most voters also say they want limits on who can enter the country. Substantial majorities support making the border more secure and hiring more Border Patrol agents — but not building the wall the president yearns for.

[Draco Dracul]

And as a policy, catch and release scales very well as they are people with documentation from their home country (you own article points out that undocumented immigrants haven't spiked).

Maybe you missed 2016, where a reality television star best known for firing people successfully leveraged this issue to hijack one of America's major political parties, slowly knocking off Senators and Governors, and then used it to bully his way into the White House itself. Trump's claim to fame has always been immigration - it's the one issue that he has used a cudgel to relentlessly beat down any political opposition he encounters. And he was able to use it because catch and release creates a perception that nobody is enforcing the rules, and that gets voters very ansy.

So no, catch and release does not scale well. Even if you're a fan of how it works practically, you have a way to manage it politically. That's an argument that proved toxic for the Democrats in 2016. Maybe things will be different in 2020 - the candidates are certainly acting as if that's true....but I'm not at all certain. And I'm not the only one.

If it's so toxic, why couldn't he carry the popular vote? Especially since the single most talked about thing during the entire election was the Clinton Email scandal, the media gave him 2 billion dollars of free advertising during the primary, and there was a major October Surprise in his favor just before the election. Not only that, but why were the house republicans trounced when the battle lines on immigration drawn well before that? -

[LittleRaven]

If it's so toxic, why couldn't he carry the popular vote?

Because he's the most blatantly unqualified candidate for the office that we've seen in the last 60 years? I mean, the man has been a joke since the 80s. He should have had no chance whatever....but he was able to utilize this issue to unseat Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz....all of whom are flawed men, sure, but any of whom is miles more qualified than Trump. And he didn't stop there.

Not only that, but why were the house republicans trounced when the battle lines on immigration drawn well before that? -

Republicans were trashed in 2016? I don't remember that. Or are you talking about 2018?

[Draco Dracul]

If it's so toxic, why couldn't he carry the popular vote?

Because he's the most blatantly unqualified candidate for the office that we've seen in the last 60 years? I mean, the man has been a joke since the 80s. He should have had no chance whatever....but he was able to utilize this issue to unseat Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz....all of whom are flawed men, sure, but any of whom is miles more qualified than Trump. And he didn't stop there.

Trump was literally given 2 billion dollars of free advertising during the primary and was treated by the media as a celebrity rather than a presidential candidate often allowed to have interviews on his own terms and even getting to counter program one of the Republican debates.

And to be frank I don't want the Democrats to give a single bone to the Republicans on immigration because anyone left that would even think about voting for Trump is evil.

[Yukaphile]

Quite a bit of hyperbole there, eh, buddy?

[Draco Dracul]

Quite a bit of hyperbole there, eh, buddy?

Not really, the only policy to come out of the Trump administration is shifting the tax burden on to the middle class, ballooning the deficit, and setting up concentration camps.

[Yukaphile]

I can see why, from an objective standpoint, Bush can be seen as worse, and that while Trump says "embarrassing" stuff the base would stick to him, not out of racism, but simply because they're party loyalists who are in denial.

[LittleRaven]

And to be frank I don't want the Democrats to give a single bone to the Republicans on immigration because anyone left that would even think about voting for Trump is evil.

That's not a very practical approach in a country as divided as ours. Any real solution is going to involve compromise - and yes, I realize that's a hard sell for many right now.

But there is good news. Most polls suggest that there isn't THAT much daylight between the bulk of the parties on immigration. Yes, some Republicans want a virtual ethnostate and some Democrats want essentially open borders, but most people are quite content to settle for neither - they want firmly controlled borders, but with a humane detainment policy and a clear path to residency and citizenship.