The Caravan

[Gameface]

Wrong.

Not wrong. There was a change in policy to prosecute people when their only crime was crossing the border illegally. That was not happening before.

 

[Gameface]

That's why Corrections Corporation of America was bragging on conference calls that there family detention prison was operating at full capacity?

This is what we get for electing that faux liberal. He laid the foundation.

I have no idea what point you're making.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I’ll never understand some people’s obsession with illegal immigration. I understand perhaps the security concerns and during tough economic times, the economic concerns. But I’ll never understand why this subject seems to trigger some people’s passions far more than literally any other subject.

To me, concerns over health care, Russian disinformation, North Korean nukes, wealth inequality, college costs, wages, etc far exceed my concern over immigration. How many people on this board have been noticeably and personally negatively affected by illegal immigration as opposed to crappy wages while your corporation makes record profits or our messed up health system (whose ceo just jacked up prices for your insulin)?

It’s just amazing how triggered some people get over immigration rather than health care and education. Maybe they’re unconcerned since Medicaid pays for their health care and they never intended on getting a college diploma?

 

[Rubashov]

Rube
Not sure what you are saying here.

I do think an obvious threat creates a sense of unity. Or, if not unity at least agreement to prioritize the collective good in the face of that threat. So the USSR kept us from getting too fractured. Although 1968 may beg to differ.

The slow decline from Post WWII is only to be expected. Let's face it the U.S. had the only industrial economy that had not been bomb damaged and we had that huge influx of labor coming home from the war. Boom times are the natural result. I believe the U.S. produce over 50% of goods produced in the world. That was never sustainable. People who want to return to 1950s America would have to pay the price of the 1940s to get there. American exceptionalism is taken as a God ordained fact by some. But, there is a leveling function in capitalism that rewards merit. We can't thump our chests and demand preeminence, we have to earn it. The erosion of trust in science, accepting the world as we find it rather than as we want it to be, and hiding from competition rather than embracing it will only accelerate the decline.

The Rand corporation wrote a report titled: Truth Decay
Found here:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

Well allow me to begin with the post war cold war paradigm, the world was organised in a bi-polar system, politically, economically and in a strategic sense, around the West (1st world) on one side, the Soviet Union (2nd world) on the other but beyond that was the 3rd world during this period the east and west competed in this space for influence and an opportunity to alter the strategic balance between the two major players. This meant that things like international human rights, refugee conventions, foreign aid and international treaty obligations, were important strategic keys for state craft. A key actor within this system was the UN, it was a theatre for statesmen on the world stage, it would be where the Soviets would denounce the United States for their ghettos and treatment of African American people. The United States would raise the cause of Soviet dissidents there ect. What i'm saying is external political pressures constrained the actions of politicians within their own nations due to the international pressure that the cold war idiom created. Bush made the UN completely irrelevant with his invasion of Iraq, I would go so far as to say Russia does not invade Crimea without the American precedent in Iraq. Its fair to say that the UN was in decline but when the most powerful actor in what is now a uni-polar system ignores international law the law becomes meaningless and we revert to the law of the jungle.

The end of the Soviet Union is the key changer in the system, once the 3rd world is no longer relevant politically, refugees from the dictatorship created by east and west no longer have any value politically and soon become targets politically for the right. probably more importantly to western democracies during the Soviet period hard left parties in western countries (outside the US) were politically relevant beyond their electoral influence, they created an organising hub against the influence of capital within the capitalist world, they generally operated as think tanks for social democratic parties within most of the great democracies of the world, additionally they generally controlled the most militant Unions. Once the Soviet Union collapsed their influence retreated they no longer attracted the same quality of intellectual and the left became more disparate and ineffectual as an organising point against the interests of capitalism.

Needless to say the economic changes that have happened parallel to this have been important, globalised trade and production has changed politics in the west in ways i don't think anybody really imagined. Aside from creating massive increases in social inequality in the developed world, the other little side effect has been to weaken the labor movement, shifts away from a manufacturing based economies that are traditionally highly organised to a service economy which is not well organised has dramatically weakened the union movement. The organised labor movement is the tradition source of funds and political talent for social democratic parties in the west, with these standard avenues of funds and talent closed they have begun to increasingly seek funding off business, recruit talent from legal and professional backgrounds, they have begun to parrot conservative political parties. This has the effect of making left and right basically interchangeable both parties are more or less the same, labor parties are no longer the standard barers of Workers movement with the values that that embodies and have basically become media organisations trying to differentiate their product from their opponents. This has shifted politics in the west to the right, The former center right parties have moved further to the right in order to differentiate themselves and this is where things like refugees, Muslims, abortion (in the US), climate change, gay rights become so important politically, vastly beyond their importance to the proper functioning of their democracies. We have seen in this country a conservative government so captured by the importance message politics that they are completely incapable of actually governing.

I might go on about more later if i can be stuffed

 

[JAZZGASM]

Not wrong. There was a change in policy to prosecute people when their only crime was crossing the border illegally. That was not happening before.

Wrong on all accounts. First, OB was asking about first time crossers with the sole misdemeanor being prosecuted being border crossing. All unauthorized border crossers are committing a misdemeanor. And yes, under Obama, Bush and Clinton these prosecutions occurred, but there was a focus on prosecuting people that committed other offenses too. That is the difference. Trump wants to prosecute all adults. Obama just deported entire families, and even tried to limits the rights of immigration children prior to the dreamer act. He did a 180. Operation streamline under Bush was famous for crossing only prosecutions too. It made him super popular in TX. While prior president's administrations did not have an emphasis on prosecution, it definitely happened a lot, solely for border crossing. I work with a lot of people that have made a living defending such individuals.

And Obama was well known for both deporting and prosecuting immigrants up until 2014, until his philosophy changed. He also imprisoned entire families for long periods in poor conditions and wqs criticized for it. And he considered separating kids from parents, but decided against it. He had more deportations in his tenure than any other President. I am for opportunity for all, and I recall criticizing Obama's immigration policies many times when I worked for one of his appointees.

Again, I don't like what Trump is doing, but as leader of the Executive Branch, he can instruct that the law on the books be followed. And I do blame both parties for not coming up with a reasonable plan of action for a problem that is not going away. Simply put, you are talking out of your ***.

 

[Gameface]

I'm well aware that Obama was very harsh on immigrants. Including deporting people who gained entry to the U.S. through military service because they had relatively minor offenses. Don't argue with me like I'm saying Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, because that's not what I've said here. I entered this thread because you made the false claim that nothing has changed under Trump, he's just doing the same thing that's been happening for decades. That's not true.

The policy to prosecute all people based on the sole offense of crossing the border illegally is a CHANGE in policy that Trump initiated. You can try to spin that all you'd like, it is a ****ing fact.

Can you even acknowledge that Trump and Sessions changed operating procedures? Who's talking out of their ***? You really are trying to sell the idea that what is happening now has been happening for decades?

Get ****ing real.

 

[Stars Fan]

Well allow me to begin with the post war cold war paradigm, the world was organised in a bi-polar system, politically, economically and in a strategic sense, around the West (1st world) on one side, the Soviet Union (2nd world) on the other but beyond that was the 3rd world during this period the east and west competed in this space for influence and an opportunity to alter the strategic balance between the two major players. This meant that things like international human rights, refugee conventions, foreign aid and international treaty obligations, were important strategic keys for state craft. A key actor within this system was the UN, it was a theatre for statesmen on the world stage, it would be where the Soviets would denounce the United States for their ghettos and treatment of African American people. The United States would raise the cause of Soviet dissidents there ect. What i'm saying is external political pressures constrained the actions of politicians within their own nations due to the international pressure that the cold war idiom created. Bush made the UN completely irrelevant with his invasion of Iraq, I would go so far as to say Russia does not invade Crimea without the American precedent in Iraq. Its fair to say that the UN was in decline but when the most powerful actor in what is now a uni-polar system ignores international law the law becomes meaningless and we revert to the law of the jungle.

The end of the Soviet Union is the key changer in the system, once the 3rd world is no longer relevant politically, refugees from the dictatorship created by east and west no longer have any value politically and soon become targets politically for the right. probably more importantly to western democracies during the Soviet period hard left parties in western countries (outside the US) were politically relevant beyond their electoral influence, they created an organising hub against the influence of capital within the capitalist world, they generally operated as think tanks for social democratic parties within most of the great democracies of the world, additionally they generally controlled the most militant Unions. Once the Soviet Union collapsed their influence retreated they no longer attracted the same quality of intellectual and the left became more disparate and ineffectual as an organising point against the interests of capitalism.

Needless to say the economic changes that have happened parallel to this have been important, globalised trade and production has changed politics in the west in ways i don't think anybody really imagined. Aside from creating massive increases in social inequality in the developed world, the other little side effect has been to weaken the labor movement, shifts away from a manufacturing based economies that are traditionally highly organised to a service economy which is not well organised has dramatically weakened the union movement. The organised labor movement is the tradition source of funds and political talent for social democratic parties in the west, with these standard avenues of funds and talent closed they have begun to increasingly seek funding off business, recruit talent from legal and professional backgrounds, they have begun to parrot conservative political parties. This has the effect of making left and right basically interchangeable both parties are more or less the same, labor parties are no longer the standard barers of Workers movement with the values that that embodies and have basically become media organisations trying to differentiate their product from their opponents. This has shifted politics in the west to the right, The former center right parties have moved further to the right in order to differentiate themselves and this is where things like refugees, Muslims, abortion (in the US), climate change, gay rights become so important politically, vastly beyond their importance to the proper functioning of their democracies. We have seen in this country a conservative government so captured by the importance message politics that they are completely incapable of actually governing.

I might go on about more later if i can be stuffed

Bravo!
Please continue professor Rubashov

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Rubashov]

Bravo!
Please continue professor Rubashov

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

In a former life i studied this sort of stuff almost exclusively. Systems theory, international relations and law, political philosophy, history of ideas and modern Europe.

i was thinking about this the other day, the current global trade arrangements have been a product of long co-operation between states that grew during the cold war and accelerated with the fall of the USSR. In the early 90's everybody wanted to get a piece of the General Agreement on Trad and Tariffs (GATT) which morphed into the WTO. Left and Right wing parties went for it and we all went about destroying our welfare states and societies with the old nonsense that a rising tide lifts all boats. There was in general a consensus between left and right that this was the approach to take economically but the right in order to remain relevant to its constituency has raised race as an issue (they use refugees as the dog whistle but the real target is non white people), in this country and i think yours (immigrants) it has created a Golem on the right that the traditional conservative establishment can no longer control. As a product of this you get Trump and you see the US move toward a protectionist position, if the rest of the developed world follows (watch Brexit) it will back to almost the very same circumstances the world found itself in before the world wars and depression.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm well aware that Obama was very harsh on immigrants. Including deporting people who gained entry to the U.S. through military service because they had relatively minor offenses. Don't argue with me like I'm saying Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, because that's not what I've said here. I entered this thread because you made the false claim that nothing has changed under Trump, he's just doing the same thing that's been happening for decades. That's not true.

The policy to prosecute all people based on the sole offense of crossing the border illegally is a CHANGE in policy that Trump initiated. You can try to spin that all you'd like, it is a ****ing fact.

Can you even acknowledge that Trump and Sessions changed operating procedures? Who's talking out of their ***? You really are trying to sell the idea that what is happening now has been happening for decades?

Get ****ing real.

Haha, re-read my posts. You misinterpret my response to OB and ignore that I stated I clearly stated that Trump's policy differed from prior administrations. I just stated that it has always occurred to some degree, which you were clearly wrong about when you stated "Not wrong. There was a change in policy to prosecute people when their only crime was crossing the border illegally. That was not happening before."

Then you go on to infer that I thought you made it about Rep/Dems. I was refuting your statement that people were not prosecuted only for border crossing, when that has occurred for decades and likely longer under multiple administrations.

I never stated there was not a policy change, in fact, I stated that there was in my original post to OB in the last page which he was responding to where I stated that while there was not a blanket policy under prior administrations as there is in this one, the prosecutions were occurring for a long time.

 

[Stars Fan]

In a former life i studied this sort of stuff almost exclusively. Systems theory, international relations and law, political philosophy, history of ideas and modern Europe.

i was thinking about this the other day, the current global trade arrangements have been a product of long co-operation between states that grew during the cold war and accelerated with the fall of the USSR. In the early 90's everybody wanted to get a piece of the General Agreement on Trad and Tariffs (GATT) which morphed into the WTO. Left and Right wing parties went for it and we all went about destroying our welfare states and societies with the old nonsense that a rising tide lifts all boats. There was in general a consensus between left and right that this was the approach to take economically but the right in order to remain relevant to its constituency has raised race as an issue (they use refugees as the dog whistle but the real target is non white people), in this country and i think yours (immigrants) it has created a Golem on the right that the traditional conservative establishment can no longer control. As a product of this you get Trump and you see the US move toward a protectionist position, if the rest of the developed world follows (watch Brexit) it will back to almost the very same circumstances the world found itself in before the world wars and depression.

Brilliant!
Rube rocks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Rube
Not sure what you are saying here.

I do think an obvious threat creates a sense of unity. Or, if not unity at least agreement to prioritize the collective good in the face of that threat. So the USSR kept us from getting too fractured. Although 1968 may beg to differ.

The slow decline from Post WWII is only to be expected. Let's face it the U.S. had the only industrial economy that had not been bomb damaged and we had that huge influx of labor coming home from the war. Boom times are the natural result. I believe the U.S. produce over 50% of goods produced in the world. That was never sustainable. People who want to return to 1950s America would have to pay the price of the 1940s to get there. American exceptionalism is taken as a God ordained fact by some. But, there is a leveling function in capitalism that rewards merit. We can't thump our chests and demand preeminence, we have to earn it. The erosion of trust in science, accepting the world as we find it rather than as we want it to be, and hiding from competition rather than embracing it will only accelerate the decline.

The Rand corporation wrote a report titled: Truth Decay
Found here:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

Very good post

 

[Rubashov]

Brilliant!
Rube rocks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

My username comes from one of my favourite novels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_at_Noon

I just finished another one of Koestler's biographies, The Invisible Writing, Scum of the Earth and Dialogue with Death which are both biographies are also excellent. Most of the history I did was the history of left wing movements, for a time i was involved with far left politics but no so much anymore.