Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-07-2018, 10:51 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,070
They're coming for us ... what will you do?

First they came for the travelers and would-be immigrants from suspect countries ....

Immediately after assuming the presidency, Trump issued an order that he often characterized as a "Muslim ban" to restrict travel to the United States by people from certain Muslim-majority countries. After a couple of hiccups, he crafted a version of the ban that got the nod from the Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/u...ravel-ban.html

Quote:
In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservatives said that the president’s power to secure the country’s borders, delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking, was not undermined by Mr. Trump’s history of incendiary statements about the dangers he said Muslims pose to the United States.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Mr. Trump had ample statutory authority to make national security judgments in the realm of immigration. And the chief justice rejected a constitutional challenge to Mr. Trump’s third executive order on the matter, issued in September as a proclamation.
Justice Anthony Kennedy basically threw up his hands at the idea that the Supreme Court could put a halt to blatant discrimination based on baseless claims of national security justifications. And then he retired, making room for a fifth hard-right justice.

Then they expressed preference for white European immigrants only ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.bedf5d557bf4

Trump expressed his disgust for immigrants from "shithole countries," meaning non-white countries.

Then they came for the refugees and asylum-seekers with children ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_...aration_policy

After a public uproar, the administration "rescinded" the policy without actually any practical plan to reunite families. And the new plan was to keep entire families seeking asylum in detention.

Then they came for people with valid visas seeking a change of status ...

https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immig...y-lose-status/

The administration is seeking any excuse to deport people in the country legally who are applying for a change of status to their visas.

Then they came for foreign citizens serving in the military who want U.S. citizenship ...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09e4a8b2b6c58

The U.S. has a long-standing policy to expedite citizenship for foreigners who serve in our military. The administration has decided just to discharge them rather than let them complete their service and get their citizenship.

Then they came for naturalized citizens ...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...p-citizenship/

The administration is combing immigration files to find any reason to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship and deport them.

Meanwhile, almost no one with any power to do anything about all this—namely the Republican majorities in Congress—have taken any significant steps to halt this steady march towards an American Apartheid, a country reversing its 70-year trend towards more freedom, more equality, more international cooperation.

Some Republicans fear a backlash from the far right. Some Republicans are content to get their right-wing Supreme Court justices, their tax cuts for the rich, their destruction of universal medical coverage, etc.

They're coming for more of us, step by step ...

At first they were criminals, next they were would-be immigrants who don't have any legal entitlement to come to the U.S. ... Is there any reason to believe they're going to find a rational or logical or reasonable stopping point?

Meanwhile, Republicans in states around the country are solidifying systems to preserve their lock on power in the face of declining majority votes, by stopping their opponents from voting, or ensuring that their votes won't make a difference. Of course, they argue, nothing in the Constitution says we can't do it ... a permanent majority held by a minority of the population ...

Will this march be halted? By whom? How? When? What will be the long-term consequences? How many lives will be ruined? What are you going to do about it?
  #2  
Old 07-08-2018, 01:07 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,500
Portland, OR shut down their local ICE office for ten days ...
  #3  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:02 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,449
I'm still waiting for them to come for the socialists. When's that?
  #4  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:11 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I'm still waiting for them to come for the socialists. When's that?


What socialists?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #5  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:43 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
What socialists?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
All of them? OP is riffing on Niemöller, because, you know, Trump's Hitler. I see no reason why he would skip the socialists, given that's what Hitler went after first, and Trump is a big time capitalist.
  #6  
Old 07-08-2018, 05:41 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Justice Anthony Kennedy basically threw up his hands at the idea that the Supreme Court could put a halt to blatant discrimination based on baseless claims of national security justifications.
Cite? And there are plenty of Islamic countries that are not on the banned list.

Quote:
Trump expressed his disgust for immigrants from "shithole countries," meaning non-white countries.
There are white shithole countries: Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Libya...

Quote:
Then they came for the refugees and asylum-seekers with children ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_...aration_policy
Wasn't that an Obama policy? You know, his 2015 Family Case Management Program?

Quote:
After a public uproar...
Heaven forfend that the President actually listen to the public.

Quote:
Then they came for people with valid visas seeking a change of status ...

https://qz.com/1323136/a-uscis-immig...y-lose-status/
And your problem is? Of the examples given in the article, one is cock-up and the others are being firm but fair.

Quote:
Then they came for foreign citizens serving in the military who want U.S. citizenship ...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09e4a8b2b6c58

The U.S. has a long-standing policy to expedite citizenship for foreigners who serve in our military. The administration has decided just to discharge them rather than let them complete their service and get their citizenship.
Now at last you have something worthy of complaint and I fully agree.

Quote:
Then they came for naturalized citizens ...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...p-citizenship/

The administration is combing immigration files to find any reason to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship and deport them.
Well yes: if you lied during the process you've committed fraud and deserve to have your citizenship revoked. Just like lying on your job resume or in your interview. I'm not seeing a problem here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linked article
But last month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services started a task force to review cases where people may have lied in order to get citizenship.
Quote:
What are you going to do about it?
I'm going to stop people like you making Trump look good. Out of seven complaints you have only one that seems justified. The best weapon against Trump is the truth. Once you stray from the truth you legitimise his lies.
  #7  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:44 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Cite? And there are plenty of Islamic countries that are not on the banned list.
When the President said he was planning a Muslim ban, and then one of his senior advisors (Giuliani) said publicly they were trying to find a way to institute a Muslim ban that would be legal, it's entirely reasonable to believe that the policy is intended as a "legal" Muslim ban.

Quote:
There are white shithole countries: Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Libya...
Trump didn't mention those. He specifically mentioned Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries as "shithole" countries, and expressed a preference for Nordic countries. Considering the many, many other times in which he's said racist things, there's no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt here.

Quote:
Wasn't that an Obama policy? You know, his 2015 Family Case Management Program?
No, deliberately and purposefully separating families for deterrent purposes was a brand new Trump policy.

Quote:
And your problem is? Of the examples given in the article, one is cock-up and the others are being firm but fair.
Considering the many, many other examples of racist and anti-immigrant policies and statements by Trump, it's entirely reasonable to see this as a trend of Trump continuing to try to expel immigrants.

Quote:
Well yes: if you lied during the process you've committed fraud and deserve to have your citizenship revoked. Just like lying on your job resume or in your interview. I'm not seeing a problem here.
When it's the first time such a task force has been put into place since the McCarthy era, and there's this long, long list of Trump statements and policies that can be reasonably interpreted as racist and anti-immigrant, then it's entirely reasonable to see this with alarm and as a continuation of this trend.

Quote:
I'm going to stop people like you making Trump look good. Out of seven complaints you have only one that seems justified. The best weapon against Trump is the truth. Once you stray from the truth you legitimise his lies.
Wrong. You're wrong on the facts and you're wrong on your interpretations. Nothing in the OP's list was factually incorrect.
  #8  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:46 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post

Meanwhile, almost no one with any power to do anything about all this—namely the Republican majorities in Congress—have taken any significant steps to halt this steady march towards an American Apartheid, a country reversing its 70-year trend towards more freedom, more equality, more international cooperation.

Some Republicans fear a backlash from the far right. Some Republicans are content to get their right-wing Supreme Court justices, their tax cuts for the rich, their destruction of universal medical coverage, etc.

They're coming for more of us, step by step ...

At first they were criminals, next they were would-be immigrants who don't have any legal entitlement to come to the U.S. ... Is there any reason to believe they're going to find a rational or logical or reasonable stopping point?

Meanwhile, Republicans in states around the country are solidifying systems to preserve their lock on power in the face of declining majority votes, by stopping their opponents from voting, or ensuring that their votes won't make a difference. Of course, they argue, nothing in the Constitution says we can't do it ... a permanent majority held by a minority of the population ...

Will this march be halted? By whom? How? When? What will be the long-term consequences? How many lives will be ruined? What are you going to do about it?
What I plan to do is vote in November. In my state, and my district, it won't matter much, as we're Red down here. But voting is what needs to happen, and we need a Democrat majority in at least one house of congress, so that checks and balances actually occur. This is what George Will recently wrote about, and which has its own thread. If we're going to stop this, it has to be at the ballot box. We know the Pub congress will let Trump do almost whatever he wants. They won't even buck against him on his ridiculous Trade War with China and the EU and Canada.

The Democrats were out-worked by Republicans from 2008 through 2016, and the result is a country where the majority of voters are Democrats who have minority representation in all areas of our government, national, state and local. I'm hoping that the election of Trump woke up enough people on the Dem side (and independents and even moderate ex-Pubs like myself), so that 2018 represents a turning-point in the Trump presidency.

Last edited by survinga; 07-08-2018 at 07:48 AM.
  #9  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:40 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
... Of course, they argue, nothing in the Constitution says we can't do it ... a permanent majority held by a minority of the population ...
Help me remember, which side got more votes in House races in 2016?
  #10  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:45 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
There are white shithole countries: Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Libya...
It appears to have escaped your notice that a large majority of people in those countries are brown. The majority of Latin Americans are mestizo (mixture of indigenous and European), with large numbers of people of mainly indigenous and African descent. And Libyans may be Caucasian, but that does not make them white. (And it's Colobia, by the way.)
  #11  
Old 07-08-2018, 09:47 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
... (And it's Colobia, by the way.)
Irony abounds
  #12  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:23 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Well yes: if you lied during the process you've committed fraud and deserve to have your citizenship revoked. Just like lying on your job resume or in your interview. I'm not seeing a problem here.
The problem is that most people expect Trump's task force to be a shitshow. Basically, when it comes to integrity, I personally place it in about the same realm as his "task force" on voter fraud. There's a purpose here, and it's not simply "make sure that immigration laws are being followed correctly". Why have this to begin with? The last time something like this existed was during the McCarthy era - again, not a good look, and with clear ulterior motives.
  #13  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:25 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtyj View Post
The Democrats were out-worked by Republicans from 2008 through 2016,
The word you're looking for is unemployed. They were unemployed from 2008 to 2016. When Trump arrived he spent half as much money as HRC in the election. He pulled Black and Hispanic votes from her and they were rewarded for their voting efforts. Unemployment in the Black and Hispanic community is at a record low.

It's the economy stupid.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #14  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:29 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Irony abounds
Gaudere strikes again. But I do know how to spell it.
  #15  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:36 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
It appears to have escaped your notice that a large majority of people in those countries are brown.
Yes, it escaped our notice. As in, nobody cares.

What we care about is flooding our country with cheap labor because it undercuts our own citizens. Instead of giving handouts that keep people poor we want to give them jobs.

What a concept. Imagine getting tax money from someone with a new job and using that money to rebuild infrastructure.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #16  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:43 AM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,611
Ok, this is getting silly. Yes, Trump is an awful president and if he really had carte blanche we'd be in trouble but he doesn't. Yes, he finally got a "Muslim ban" but it took him multiple tries to get it past SCOTUS and it's a relatively weak ban (note: I don't support the ban). He didn't have the political strength to outright kill Obamacare.

If Trump jails political opponents without charges I'll start worrying. If the GOP picks up additional Senators or Congressmen/women in the mid-terms I might start worrying. Until then this is the usual opposition caterwauling.
  #17  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:00 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The word you're looking for is unemployed. They were unemployed from 2008 to 2016. When Trump arrived he spent half as much money as HRC in the election. He pulled Black and Hispanic votes from her and they were rewarded for their voting efforts. Unemployment in the Black and Hispanic community is at a record low.

It's the economy stupid.
I've bolded two statements here. I think you think there's some connection between them. Care to elucidate that a little bit? How did electing Trump lead to a good economy?

(If you don't think that, my bad.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 07-08-2018 at 11:00 AM.
  #18  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:56 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Gaudere strikes again. But I do know how to spell it.
I know, it was just comical.
  #19  
Old 07-08-2018, 01:42 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The word you're looking for is unemployed. They were unemployed from 2008 to 2016. When Trump arrived he spent half as much money as HRC in the election. He pulled Black and Hispanic votes from her and they were rewarded for their voting efforts. Unemployment in the Black and Hispanic community is at a record low.

It's the economy stupid.
Really? The economy was in good shape by 2016. It was a long recovery, but we had recovered before the election. And since the election, gdp growth, job growth, and wage growth have been similar to prior to the election.

I don't buy the economy as a reason.
  #20  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:18 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
There are white shithole countries: Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Libya....
Columbia isn't a country but a university; the three countries you name aren't considered white by US standards. If you're going to insist in being more Trumpista than the Trumpistas, at least get your vocabulary right.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #21  
Old 07-08-2018, 03:33 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 79,571
Columbia is also a district, and Trump is very busily working to turn it into a shithole, too.
  #22  
Old 07-08-2018, 06:04 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
He didn't have the political strength to outright kill Obamacare.
Isn't "outright" a significant word here? He has done a lot to damage it and the result might very well kill it.

Quote:
If Trump jails political opponents without charges I'll start worrying.
He's already expressed a clear desire to jail opponents, to punish businesses for simply making business decisions, and day-after-day affirming his support for a white supremacist system. His intent and desire is clear. Why wouldn't you take it seriously now?

Quote:
Until then this is the usual opposition caterwauling.
People are actually suffering every day because of this administration. And there's clearly more to come. And this is "caterwauling"? That's a pretty shameful attitude.
  #23  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:41 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,096
I guess this is the thread I was looking for.

Can he go after naturalized citizens? Because my understanding has always been that, once a citizen, you have all the same rights as any other citizen, and that there is no mechanism by which citizenship can be revoked.

This is currently really freaking out people on my Facebook page, and I said I would talk to some people I know who really know this stuff. I'd have started a thread myself, but this one looks like it's already discussing this, so I thought I'd try here first.
  #24  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:44 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Ok, this is getting silly. Yes, Trump is an awful president and if he really had carte blanche we'd be in trouble but he doesn't. Yes, he finally got a "Muslim ban" but it took him multiple tries to get it past SCOTUS and it's a relatively weak ban (note: I don't support the ban). He didn't have the political strength to outright kill Obamacare.

If Trump jails political opponents without charges I'll start worrying. If the GOP picks up additional Senators or Congressmen/women in the mid-terms I might start worrying. Until then this is the usual opposition caterwauling.
So then do you believe that Trump will not be able to deport naturalized citizens? Because, if he can, then I can't see why that wouldn't be the line.

Last edited by BigT; 07-08-2018 at 07:46 PM.
  #25  
Old 07-08-2018, 07:56 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I guess this is the thread I was looking for.

Can he go after naturalized citizens? Because my understanding has always been that, once a citizen, you have all the same rights as any other citizen, and that there is no mechanism by which citizenship can be revoked.

This is currently really freaking out people on my Facebook page, and I said I would talk to some people I know who really know this stuff. I'd have started a thread myself, but this one looks like it's already discussing this, so I thought I'd try here first.
I'm no expert in immigration law, so I can't say. But in general our legal system works through a combination of unspoken and spoken conventions. This administration, with the acquiescence of the Republican Congress, has chosen over and over again to reject those conventions. So, even if there were some precedent saying that naturalization cannot be revoked, all it takes is for the administration to start revoking them, a Congress unwilling to take action, and a federal court system that acquiesces or throws up its hands, like in the Hawaii case.

What the experience of the Trump regime has shown us is that everything is up for grabs, that there are limits to power only to the extent that there are individuals in positions of authority willing to take action to enforce those limits. All the protections of the Constitution and due process that we have relied on are institutions that work only when everyone agrees to abide by them.

And now we have a regime that has signaled over and over that it has no intention to abide by limitations that get in its way. There's no need to wait for the worst to happen, because what we see now is that the regime will do whatever it wants. That's the precedent it's setting. Our institutions are made of paper. All that is left now is direct action.
  #26  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:35 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I'm still waiting for them to come for the socialists. When's that?
I'm one of those "socialists" more or less, and I'm more American than that half-Scottish oaf in the White House. If he doesn't want me in the same country as he is, he can leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
All of them? OP is riffing on Niemöller, because, you know, Trump's Hitler. I see no reason why he would skip the socialists, given that's what Hitler went after first, and Trump is a big time capitalist.
Yeah, it doesn't have to be the same exact list in the same exact order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
There are white shithole countries: Venezuela, Columbia, Mexico, Libya...
It's pretty insulting to call those countries "white." They may have had light-skinned rulers, but they are countries with mixed colors and proudly so, not white colonies like the USA and Canada.

And Libya presumably wouldn't be such a mess right now if the USA hadn't bombed it illegally. You on the right side of the aisle are allowed to criticize that policy, you know; Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did it. So go ahead; criticize it.
  #27  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:44 PM
SOJA SOJA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 81
They're Hispanic. I mean, you could argue Colombians are white, but that's just a portion of their society. Now, Columbia on the other hand, is fairly white, so Quartz got that right. Go Lions!
  #28  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:34 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,924
Because you asked: what we have now and a worst case scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I guess this is the thread I was looking for.

Can he go after naturalized citizens? Because my understanding has always been that, once a citizen, you have all the same rights as any other citizen, and that there is no mechanism by which citizenship can be revoked.
Trump is going after naturalized citizens, and I'm guessing that he can. 75 years ago, during the McCarthy era, a few citizenships were revoked and the former citizens deported. Not many though.

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/62598...lied-to-get-it
...last month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services started a task force to review cases where people may have lied in order to get citizenship. And now the administration says it could be denaturalizing potentially a few thousand people.
That's right now. Last month the economist and Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith posed a thought experiment on twitter:

1/You know what's more productive than calling Trump a Nazi?

Trying to imagine the worst that Trump might conceivably do to this country.

I thought about this a bit after the election, and here was my conclusion.
Noah Smith then notes that the GOP controls 32 state legislatures and with 2 more they could call a constitutional convention. What would they do?
5/Would Trump legalize slavery or strip women of the vote? I highly doubt it. But here is what I do think he - or a similarly minded successor - would do: End birthright citizenship.

6/Now, what does it mean to end birthright citizenship?

It might simply mean that no new birthright citizenships can be handed out.

OR, Trump might try to make it RETROACTIVE.
Does Noah think this is likely? No. Does he think that Stephen Miller has thought about it? Oh yes. Very much so.
  #29  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:50 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
... That's right now. Last month the economist and Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith posed a thought experiment on twitter:

1/You know what's more productive than calling Trump a Nazi?

Trying to imagine the worst that Trump might conceivably do to this country.

I thought about this a bit after the election, and here was my conclusion.
Noah Smith then notes that the GOP controls 32 state legislatures and with 2 more they could call a constitutional convention. What would they do?
5/Would Trump legalize slavery or strip women of the vote? I highly doubt it. But here is what I do think he - or a similarly minded successor - would do: End birthright citizenship.

6/Now, what does it mean to end birthright citizenship?

It might simply mean that no new birthright citizenships can be handed out.

OR, Trump might try to make it RETROACTIVE.
Does Noah think this is likely? No. Does he think that Stephen Miller has thought about it? Oh yes. Very much so.
The flaw in this theory is that, while Republicans may be able to call a Constitutional Convention with 34 states, they need 38 states to ratify any amendments that come out of said convention. Do you really believe 38 states would ratify an amendment ending birthright citizenship?

Quote:
... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...
  #30  
Old 07-09-2018, 09:15 AM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan PoppaSan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Up nort'
Posts: 2,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I guess this is the thread I was looking for.

Can he go after naturalized citizens? Because my understanding has always been that, once a citizen, you have all the same rights as any other citizen, and that there is no mechanism by which citizenship can be revoked.

This is currently really freaking out people on my Facebook page, and I said I would talk to some people I know who really know this stuff. I'd have started a thread myself, but this one looks like it's already discussing this, so I thought I'd try here first.
It's been done before.
List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States

ETA Many from the WW2 era due to a special investigation of war crimes and associates.

Last edited by PoppaSan; 07-09-2018 at 09:18 AM.
  #31  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:00 AM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Isn't "outright" a significant word here? He has done a lot to damage it and the result might very well kill it.
He sure has but think of it this way: despite having both houses and a conservative-leaning SCOTUS he doesn't have enough political clout to fulfill the number one item on the GOP agenda. All he can do is nibble on the edges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
He's already expressed a clear desire to jail opponents, to punish businesses for simply making business decisions, and day-after-day affirming his support for a white supremacist system. His intent and desire is clear. Why wouldn't you take it seriously now?
As I said in my OP, if Trump could do all the things that momentarily flit through his pea-brain we'd be in trouble. But he can't. If he actually jails a political opponent then we can talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
People are actually suffering every day because of this administration. And there's clearly more to come. And this is "caterwauling"? That's a pretty shameful attitude.
To me the shameful attitude is drumming up baseless fears, making people anxious and despondent. I disagree strongly with almost everything Trump is doing but let's focus on the real problems and not waste our energy trying to convince ourselves that Trump is as evil as Hitler.
  #32  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:31 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Help me remember, which side got more votes in House races in 2016?
According to Wikipedia, Republicans did, by a margin of 63.2 million to 61.8 million, which is proportional to a 220-215 GOP House majority.

Meanwhile, in the three elections that elected the current U.S. Senate, the Dems racked up a huge majority of the votes, 122.4M to 104.4M, which would be proportional to a 54-46 Dem majority.

Just sayin'.
  #33  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:35 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The flaw in this theory is that, while Republicans may be able to call a Constitutional Convention with 34 states, they need 38 states to ratify any amendments that come out of said convention. Do you really believe 38 states would ratify an amendment ending birthright citizenship?
This. For all the alarmism about a Constitutional convention, it's just a workaround to Congress' role in the amendment process. However challenging it might be to get a proposed Constitutional amendment through Congress, the really hard part is getting one through 38 state legislatures.
  #34  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:55 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This. For all the alarmism about a Constitutional convention, it's just a workaround to Congress' role in the amendment process. However challenging it might be to get a proposed Constitutional amendment through Congress, the really hard part is getting one through 38 state legislatures.
I don't think anyone in Congress really wants a Constitutional Convention. That would put everything on the table, not just your least favorite parts. And if there ever was one, it would go on for years and years and years before something would come out that could get ratified.
  #35  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:13 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
According to Wikipedia, Republicans did, by a margin of 63.2 million to 61.8 million, which is proportional to a 220-215 GOP House majority.

Meanwhile, in the three elections that elected the current U.S. Senate, the Dems racked up a huge majority of the votes, 122.4M to 104.4M, which would be proportional to a 54-46 Dem majority.

Just sayin'.
Just sayin'...what? Our system doesn't really work that way, so it's kind of a meaningless comparison.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #36  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:18 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,044
What they are coming for is people who are in the US illegally. Trump made very clear in his campaign that he would try to stop illegal immigration and he won the election on that platform. In a democracy presidents are allowed to try to implement policies they campaign on.
Who they are is more than Trump:
Bill Clinton "“All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes..."
Barack Obama "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made -- putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years."
Hillary Clinton " “‘I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,’ Clinton said at November 2015 town hall in New Hampshire, ‘and I do think that you have to control your borders.’”"
Bernie Sanders "it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers,"
  #37  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:18 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Just sayin'...what? Our system doesn't really work that way, so it's kind of a meaningless comparison.
This. In 2008 Dems got 53% of the vote and 59% of the House seats. We don't do proportional representation. Small shifts in the vote totals can shift a large number of seats, precisely because we have quite a few competitive seats.
  #38  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:19 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I don't think anyone in Congress really wants a Constitutional Convention.
The usual response to that would be, "well of course not - a convention bypasses them."
Quote:
That would put everything on the table, not just your least favorite parts.
Tru dat.
But again, for it to matter, they'd still have to come up with an amendment that could pass the legislatures of 38 states.
Quote:
And if there ever was one, it would go on for years and years and years before something would come out that could get ratified.
Not sure anything would ever come out that could get ratified, but presumably it could go on for years.
  #39  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:22 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
He sure has but think of it this way: despite having both houses and a conservative-leaning SCOTUS he doesn't have enough political clout to fulfill the number one item on the GOP agenda. All he can do is nibble on the edges.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The number one item on the GOP agenda is fundamentally unworkable. You cannot get further to the right than Obamacare and still have anything remotely resembling universal healthcare. People were rightly appalled by the GOP's proposed solutions - it's hard to package "take healthcare away from tens of millions of people" in a popular way - but there's no real way to go further right on Obamacare. This is the free market solution. The alternatives are further to the left, or will throw millions off their healthcare.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a policy that was kept intentionally vague and which the republicans never put much thought into couldn't be enacted. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a fundamentally unworkable policy never was enacted.
  #40  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:37 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,052
As to the OP, I think it's a bit over the top to be honest. It goes from relatively solid ground (Trump is certainly trying to halt immigration from some countries, and crack down on illegal immigrants in the country) to the fanciful (the final article on going after naturalized citizens was pretty much horseshit...and even they admitted it might be a 'couple thousand' who had 'lied' to get their citizenship. Even if true, the US has over a million legal immigrants a year. It makes the claim that Trump et al would seriously be going after naturalized immigrants to send them back ludicrous).

The thing is, this sort of over the top hyperbolic screed really doesn't help. It's so easy to dismiss that it hides the real issues that Trump can be brought up on. Just like the thing with the separation of children from their families hides the underlying issue...and issue that's been ongoing for decades, and that our government hasn't dealt with in any meaningful way. The fact that Trump et al fucked up by the numbers shouldn't be surprising, nor that it's a total cluster fuck to rectify. It's what he does best...fucking up by the numbers. The real issue of how the US is to deal with illegal immigration is what we should be focused on. I'd start with...is this really a major issue, and is the issue growing or declining? WRT the Muslim ban thingy, I'd ask...how many of those legally coming into the US from the list of banned countries have been an actual issue?

Instead of OPs riffing on Martin Niemöller and trying to make tenuous connections to the Nazis I think we should look at the actual issues and discuss them instead of trying to score points.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #41  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:40 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
According to Wikipedia, Republicans did, by a margin of 63.2 million to 61.8 million, which is proportional to a 220-215 GOP House majority.

Meanwhile, in the three elections that elected the current U.S. Senate, the Dems racked up a huge majority of the votes, 122.4M to 104.4M, which would be proportional to a 54-46 Dem majority.

Just sayin'.
And if the winner of the most votes actually won the presidency in 2016, 2/3 of our elected federal government would be controlled by Democrats. How does this democracy thing work again?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #42  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:03 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,449
The "Muslim ban" - covers maybe 12.5% of Muslims. Pretty innefectual, and interestingly came from a list of countries the Obama Administration listed as high terrorism risks. If we're going for a "muslim ban", surely we can do better than that?

It targets "brown people"? Most of the world is "brown" or at least non-white (at least 5 billion people), and the ban covers a pretty tiny amount of "brown" people out there. Again, pretty ineffectual, if the aim is to go after "brown" people.

You think Kennedy's reason to retire during the Trump administration, is because he was disgusted by Trump policy? Are you high? You do realize he was in the majority opinion on the travel ban ruling, right? So, he "threw up his hands" and retired because he didn't want to continue making decisions he thought were correct? This is most nonsensical thing I've seen in a while.

Trump "rescinded" zero tolerance after hearing outcry? And something is wrong with that? Yeah, totally Hitleresque. Was zero tolerance policy a good decision? No. Did he listen to the dissent? Yes. Dictators don't do that.

On the enlisted front. They came up with a grand total of fourty people that were discharged. Out of thousands of immigrant enlistees. Yeah, endemic problem there. I'm sure Trump himself hand combed through the enlistees and ordered them out for no reason whatsoever. I'm sure zero immigrants were ever discharged under Obama. Jesus, what a non-story.

Oh, and just you we're clear on the naturalization front: You want people here who committed fraud to get here? Just checking.

Look, I don't like Trump. And I will concede that in his heart he probably isn't a fan of "brown people." But there's a difference between that and wanting to put them in death camps. Seriously, these comparisons to Nazi Germany are just friggin ridiculous and makes the leftist that espouse that look like drama queens. It's like people that compare the US with A Handmaid's Tale. Get real. Look, when they round up US citizens en masse and put them in internment camps, I'll compare Trump to FDR, and I'll do more than protest. But I still won't compare him to Hitler. But that isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it too. And if you really don't, seriously, you need to check yourself.
  #43  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:15 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,751
First they came for the illegal immigrants, and I said nothing, because I was not an illegal immigrant.

Then they came for those who obtained their citizenship under false pretenses, and I said nothing, because I had not obtained my citizenship under false pretenses.

Then everything was fine.

Regards,
Shodan
  #44  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:31 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
First they came for the illegal immigrants, and I said nothing, because I was not an illegal immigrant.
I think you misspelled, "first they came for persons legally seeking asylum, took their children away from them, and inflicted lifelong trauma on the children, and I said nothing."
  #45  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:34 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think you misspelled, "first they came for persons legally seeking asylum, took their children away from them, and inflicted lifelong trauma on the children, and I said nothing."
I'm a little fuzzy on the details. How many of those separated from their children came through a designated border crossing vs the Rio Grande or the desert?
  #46  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:36 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,751
The spelling is OK - I just forgot to add "then there was a huge load of exaggeration, hysteria, and weeping and the gnashing of teeth, and I didn't say nothing - I just snickered".

Regards,
Shodan
  #47  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:37 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think you misspelled, "first they came for persons legally seeking asylum, took their children away from them, and inflicted lifelong trauma on the children, and I said nothing."
The majority of those who were arrested were seeking asylum? A large minority were? Do you have a cite for this? How many, exactly, were arrested while legally seeking asylum? My own recollection was it was a handful, and they weren't the target, but rather undocumented illegals were.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #48  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:45 PM
SingleMalt SingleMalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
The majority of those who were arrested were seeking asylum? A large minority were? Do you have a cite for this? How many, exactly, were arrested while legally seeking asylum? My own recollection was it was a handful, and they weren't the target, but rather undocumented illegals were.
Is the ratio that important? Why is it acceptable to treat any legal asylum seekers the same as illegal entrants? What due process was followed that allowed legal asylum seekers to have their children removed?

First they came for the illegal immigrants, and I said nothing, because I was not an illegal immigrant.

Then they came for the asylum seekers, and I said nothing because I was not an asylum seeker.

Then they came for the Innocents, but I said nothing, for I was not a child and speaking out would be uncivil and I didn't want to appear divisive.

Yeah, fuck that.
  #49  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:03 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Is the ratio that important? Why is it acceptable to treat any legal asylum seekers the same as illegal entrants? What due process was followed that allowed legal asylum seekers to have their children removed?

First they came for the illegal immigrants, and I said nothing, because I was not an illegal immigrant.

Then they came for the asylum seekers, and I said nothing because I was not an asylum seeker.

Then they came for the Innocents, but I said nothing, for I was not a child and speaking out would be uncivil and I didn't want to appear divisive.

Yeah, fuck that.
Is the ratio important? Certainly. If you tell me that people and their families are being detained at the border and force ably separated despite legally seeking asylum, then that is a major issue and cuts to the very heart of the US and I might start to buy into the Niemöller-esque slippery slope the OP and you are trying to paint. If you tell me that people who have illegally crossed over to the US are being detained, and that a policy has been put in that makes this a criminal act, and due to that the families are being separated and that some folks have been caught up in that despite being here legally, then it's just a series of fuckups, but clearly legal asylum seekers weren't being targeted. There is still an issue with this, but it's a deeper issue than the recent Trump administration series of fuckups.

So, do you have evidence that they are directly going after asylum seekers who are legally crossing and seeking asylum? It's a simple question and should have a simple answer. I don't know the answer, just my impression, thus the question.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #50  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:03 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This. In 2008 Dems got 53% of the vote and 59% of the House seats. We don't do proportional representation. Small shifts in the vote totals can shift a large number of seats, precisely because we have quite a few competitive seats.
That was before the 2010 census which was the first time there was the ability to use computer models to tailor districts with laser like precision.

Given that we don't have a proportional slate election, one would expect that the vote margin wouldn't match the representational margin. For example, supposing that all districts were equally competitive with that 53% spread perfectly evenly across the country, the Dems would have won 100% of congress. However if we allow some clumpiness of the vote symetrically affecting both sides, with relatively few highly competitive districts we can get this down to 59%

What is harder to explain is a situation like we had, in 2012 (the first election after the 2010 precision gerimander) , in which the Dems won more than 1 million more congressional votes than the Republcnas but had 33 fewer seats. There is no way to achieve that result without an asymmetric distribution of likely voters.


In that election
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017