The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does it explain why the Democrat Party That Hates America ignored the due process of immigration, which resulted in an invasion, and created a security crisis in the country that is being corrected via due process?

No, nor does it explain that “the opposition” is latching on to the deportation issue for both good reason and bad (i.e. politicized) ones.

Unfortunately, Trump and his administration, by acting brusquely and without shrewd, careful planning, set up these bungled situations which alienate people who would otherwise support the policies.

(It is also clear that very few of the millions of deportations promised are actually occurring. Just a few hundred of these notorious cases.)

[FlashDangerpants]

A Reason segment on why due process is important. Follow the index to the moment due process is discussed.

Unfortunately Trump has just twooted about deliberately denying trials "We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years." So it looks like he has determined to set aside any oath he swore before any God to uphold and support any form of constitution. Luckily Saint Immanuel Can will offer him absolution for that.

No, fortunately. It's called transparency.

That is the due process required as determined by the Executive Branch of the Federal government, due to the conditions created by The Democrat Party That Hates America. In this situation, the plenary powers of the executive branch, including emergency powers, take effect. Simple and clean. Judgment of the situation is what makes an executive.

We get it. You are committed to the overthrow of law and order. Soon you will also be justifying more such things as other parts of the constitution become inconvenient.

[Immanuel Can]

Undocumented immigrants have the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to present evidence in their defense.

We're not disagreeing that they have a right to try to explain their actions. We're only debating whether when they don't have any such "evidence" to "present in their defense" because they're criminals, whether the government has the right to send them home.

And the government has that right, with no "denial of due process" being implicated.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem not to understand it very well.

Exactly what I'm thinking about you. But in any case, you've got nothing to offer the discussion of what's "due" to illegal immigrants, because, as I say, having broken immigration law and become criminals at the border, most of them have no grounds for any appeal at all, and they are rightfully citizens of their own country, not yours.

Immanuel, do you really want to make criminals

I don't make them. They make themselves. They become criminals by refusing to enter by legal means, and jumping the border: and why do you suppose they choose that route instead of the legal one?

...out of people who are fleeing from persecution in their native lands?

They're not. Which country are you accusing of "persecuting their natives"? These are economic migrants and intentional terrorists and drug traffickers, not refugees.

At the very least ought not we to be civil to strangers?

"Be civil"? Of course. But civility is surely different from saying, "Come on in here, bring the fentanyl to kill our people, rape and murder our women, take over our housing complexes, and traffick in child sex slaves...and we'll pay for you to do it."

Can you find any genuine refugees that are being deported right now? All I see are gangbangers, sex traffickers and drug lords going back where they came from.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The issue of immigration to the advanced economies is complex.

The focus on criminal gangs is, seen from the larger perspective, both diversion and theatre.

I think the “real truth” about immigration, and the recent flood of (is it as much as 10 million?) illegal immigrants, is that not only will they not be deported, they cannot be deported. Their labor is needed and, too, the policy plan is that they are (more?) likely to have children and social planners who study demographics know this.

Unfortunately, the problem that a given nation is not creating enough children to sustain itself is a problem with roots in social and economic changes. Now, it catches up.

The resentment against illegal migrants by natives is certainly real and justified. But their anger is, when compared to social policy and economic planners, simultaneously irrational. Their resentment is something felt, but they likely cannot see the larger problem of demographic collapse (more serious in Japan and Italy for example).

These are, I think, some of the “facts” about the immigration issue. And since my rôle is to guide you-plural to successful truthful outcomes, I hope you assholes will appreciate for once my amazing, incomparable contributions.

Migration Policy Institute MPI:

Smart Migration Governance Must Transcend Political Volatility and Focus on Longer Term

WASHINGTON, DC — As recent election results in the United States, Germany and other countries have demonstrated, populist claims that migration is chaotic, unlawful and unfair are increasingly resonating — even with publics that believe some level of immigration is needed to maintain economic competitiveness. This backlash suggests that immigration, already blamed for everything from pressures on housing to the soaring cost of living, could be further instrumentalized in a volatile political landscape.

Yet the fundamental paradoxes at the heart of immigration policy will endure: Fast-aging advanced economies are increasingly reliant on immigrants to sustain their workforces and potentially help mitigate rural depopulation. Businesses that need migrants’ skills are struggling to recruit these workers as restrictions on legal pathways grow. And migration to higher-income countries still holds an allure for much of the world’s population, even if the only routes available are costly and life-threatening.

Despite these competing realities and short-term pressures, policymakers must engage in whole-of government thinking to articulate a vision for orderly, planned migration that serves national interests, occurs at a pace the public will accept and connects to other strategies around economic growth and productivity, workforce development and public services, a new policy brief from the Migration Policy Institute’s Transatlantic Council on Migration argues.

[FlashDangerpants]

Undocumented immigrants have the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to present evidence in their defense.

We're not disagreeing that they have a right to try to explain their actions. We're only debating whether when they don't have any such "evidence" to "present in their defense" because they're criminals, whether the government has the right to send them home.

You can't draw that conclusion in advance, to do so is to deny the person an impartial hearing in which to review the evidence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

They become criminals by refusing to enter by legal means, and jumping the border: and why do you suppose they choose that route instead of the legal one?

From the perspective of Latinos at least (I paid some attention to what was published here about the “open border” in the US), the “government” of the US essentially opened the border to a flood — millions — of immigrants. And many of them went through amazing trials to get to the US.

Now, millions are here. Five to 10 million but no one seems to know the exact number.

Technically, yes, they are illegals and therefore “criminal” but when you look at the issue squarely they had every indication of unofficial permission.

Huge fuck-up really. And a human problem that cannot now be solved. They (those many millions) cannot be deported. To do so would involve a police operation of a magnitude that is impossible.

The criminal gangs — a diversion. But it is best that their operations are disrupted, at least.

But it is the Mexico-based cartel gangs that will need to be dealt with. Likely by para-military force which is technically “extra-Constitutional”.

[FlashDangerpants]

They become criminals by refusing to enter by legal means, and jumping the border: and why do you suppose they choose that route instead of the legal one?

From the perspective of Latinos at least (I paid some attention to what was published here about the “open border” in the US), the “government” of the US essentially opened the border to a flood — millions — of immigrants. And many of them went through amazing trials to get to the US.

What were the actual actions they took to perform this "opening of the border"? Given that they allocated funds for border security activities that were provided by Congress, not the administration. They didn't actually make any new rules to make border smuggling easier. They didn't tear down any walls or fences. All this talk of open borders that promoted an increase in people thinking they could get over the border was started by fox News and then picked up locally and then lots of extra people joined in because that helped stoke demand.

Although in truth demand had fallen dramatically during the big recession and only rose once the US economy was on the up again during Obama's second term. But certainly all the Fox News reporting that it was increasingly easy to get over the border (in spite of there being no actual change) played a role too.

People aim to get across that border because they are hopeful of finding work. If you take away their hope of finding work, they won't cross it. So the coming recession caused by Trump's horrible trade policies is really good news for MAGA. Hooray.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What were the actual actions they took to perform this "opening of the border"?

The actions were varied. But what I refer to is sending a signal that people were being allowed to cross with a minimum of interference. Certainly the images broadcast in the media and which were seen all over the world were a big part. I think there was a good deal of cooperation, perhaps semi-official, between government and NGOs as well. There was a good deal of coordination in the transport system from Panama to the Mexico border (I read about this but have not verified it).

My understanding was that the last administration favored uncontrolled migration by illegals. I read that many were given money, vouchers for food, housing vouchers, transportation vouchers, and even cellphones, but I have not myself researched the validity of these reports. Consider it hearsay.

You could refer to Heritage Foundation article that, according to the author, expresses her own views on the issue.

Here is one published by The Hill.

[Immanuel Can]

Undocumented immigrants have the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to present evidence in their defense.

We're not disagreeing that they have a right to try to explain their actions. We're only debating whether when they don't have any such "evidence" to "present in their defense" because they're criminals, whether the government has the right to send them home.

You can't draw that conclusion in advance, to do so is to deny the person an impartial hearing in which to review the evidence.

You can draw it when the opportunity is offered, and they can't summon any basis for being in the country. So you can draw it very, very fast, and very easily.

You're trying to make the simple complex. But only those who have just cause to be in the country can even avail themselves of the "due process." So that rules out almost everybody, almost right away.

[Alexis Jacobi]

People aim to get across that border because they are hopeful of finding work. If you take away their hope of finding work, they won't cross it. So the coming recession caused by Trump's horrible trade policies is really good news for MAGA. Hooray.

That is a way of looking at it. Finding work. But their hopes are larger and fuller, if I can put it like that. There are large advantages in moving to and living in a nation known for its strong laws. And there is a far greater probability of being able to *build a life* in the US as compared to most places in Latin America (and other places in the world). And later bringing family.

It is speculation on your part that a recession is coming. Alexis Jacobi teaches clear-headedness, Flash. We must not let our emoted notions enter into our expressed opinions. You will be docked 3 points. Control yourself!

Even during a recession, if the option to take a risk in the US were open to most migrants, they would still take it. And there is always something to do in the US.

All this talk of open borders that promoted an increase in people thinking they could get over the border was started by fox News and then picked up locally and then lots of extra people joined in because that helped stoke demand.

More opinion, likely unsubstantiated. Maybe if you run your head under a cold water faucet?

[Immanuel Can]

Technically, yes, they are illegals and therefore “criminal” but when you look at the issue squarely they had every indication of unofficial permission.

That's an indictment on the Biden admin, which from the start was completely insensitive and indifferent to what they were causing. But it doesn't mean that the US has to own the consequences of Biden's corruption.

Huge fuck-up really. And a human problem that cannot now be solved. They (those many millions) cannot be deported. To do so would involve a police operation of a magnitude that is impossible.

Well, right now, all they're deporting are the criminals. I have sympathy for the women and children: I have none for the gang members, the child-traffickers, the terrorists, and such. Nor should we.

Think of it this way: you come home, and there's somebody in your house, helping himself to your stuff, and assaulting your wife and kids. What is "due process" for such a situation?

[Alexis Jacobi]

An interesting article on the Catholic social policy vis-à-vis migration.

[FlashDangerpants]

We're not disagreeing that they have a right to try to explain their actions. We're only debating whether when they don't have any such "evidence" to "present in their defense" because they're criminals, whether the government has the right to send them home.

You can't draw that conclusion in advance, to do so is to deny the person an impartial hearing in which to review the evidence.

You can draw it when the opportunity is offered, and they can't summon any basis for being in the country. So you can draw it very, very fast, and very easily.

You're trying to make the simple complex. But only those who have just cause to be in the country can even avail themselves of the "due process." So that rules out almost everybody, almost right away.

How am I the one trying to make the simple complex? I told you ten pages ago that due process is the only thing I am arguing for. You have gone round and round to try and make me argue for something else entirely, and invent a whole new doctrine of due process that only applies to the people you like, and have generally complicated stuff to no purpose.

You are welcome to draw your conclusions at the appropriate tribunal so long as you follow the rules established to maintain impartiality and allow the accused to have his say, even if he doesn't have very much to say. Simples!

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's an indictment on the Biden admin, which from the start was completely insensitive and indifferent to what they were causing. But it doesn't mean that the US has to own the consequences of Biden's corruption.

It is really more complex. I mean the entire issue. The WSJ (for example) has favored "open borders" for a long time because it is good for business. Cheapens labor. The Republicans of a few years back were pro-immigration. And the traditional Left in America was anti-immigration because it harmed working communities and (gasp!) families.

My my, how things change! Literal transvaluations.

Here is Cesar Chavez -- a man who organized farm laborers (this was decades ago) -- talking about the harm illegal immigration does.

I have spoken of my desire to help Flash and Mickthinks get their minds sorted out. I am in no sense excluding you, Immanuel. When you are ready I will be here.