WAR ROOM LOUNGE V10: It's all in the hips

[Jack V Savage]

Catch-and-release can be reasonably seen as a form of "open borders". Ezra Klein, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris appear to support catch-and-release. Do with that what you may.

"Catch and release" refers to letting immigrants out while they await hearings rather than being detained, right? How does that equate in any way to open borders?

It seems to me that your general view is that humane treatment of suspected unauthorized immigrants is equivalent to support for open borders, which is clearly false.

Again, that makes nothing clear unless you take Clinton and Mook at their word. It was campaign season and they were performing damage control.

Hmm. So if you just assume that people are lying, nothing they say can make anything clear. But why on Earth would you assume that?

 

[Gregolian]

"Catch and release" refers to letting immigrants out while they await hearings rather than being detained, right? How does that equate in any way to open borders?

Not open borders but it creates an issue that when the hearing comes up, like, FOUR YEARS LATER that many times DHS can't find the people again FOR said hearing.


That said all I can think of when I see "catch and release" is fish and how bad it is for fish.

 

[waiguoren]

"Catch and release" refers to letting immigrants out while they await hearings rather than being detained, right?

It refers to releasing an illegal immigrant into the interior of the nation they have crossed illegally into while the illegal immigrant awaits a hearing.

How does that equate in any way to open borders?

The border is "open" in the sense that anyone can come in freely, without documentation, except for a brief detention.

It seems to me that your general view is that humane treatment of suspected unauthorized immigrants is equivalent to support for open borders, which is clearly false.

No. Detention of suspected criminals is not inhumane. My view is that our border is not secure, that a serious wall and legislative amendment of the Flores Settlement Agreement are among the best measures we can take to secure the border. Of course, I also hold the view that the federal government has no authority to regulate immigration, but that's a separate topic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The border is "open" in the sense that anyone can come in freely, without documentation, except for a brief detention.

It's "open" in some abstract sense that is unrelated to actually being open. OK. When most people think of "open borders," they mean that anyone can simply cross in without restriction or even records.

This is like if some demagogue wanted to use speeders and started advocating that we have speed cams or live cops with radars all over the place and locking people up in prison for exceeding the limit by any amount. The left would criticize that, and people like you would call them advocates of no-speed-limit roads.

No. Detention of suspected criminals is not inhumane.

Your boy Dershowitz has argued differently (as least as it relates to Manafort). Maybe that's just part of his recent attempt to debase himself as an audition for a job in the administration, but I think it's a good point. Non-violent offenders shouldn't be detained while awaiting hearings.

My view is that our border is not secure, that a serious wall and legislative amendment of the Flores Settlement Agreement are among the best measures we can take to secure the border. Of course, I also hold the view that the federal government has no authority to regulate immigration, but that's a separate topic.

Yes, there's a real difference of opinion underlying the dishonesty framing. I'd say that border security was a legitimate problem that was fixed about a decade ago:

And now the issue is just being used by demagogues to gin up support for an otherwise unpopular agenda.

I'd also say that special crime-specific law enforcement bodies should be focused on more serious crimes than drug-related ones or illegal border crossings, both of which would be relatively low-priority items for a more-rational law enforcement system (which is probably *why* we have them in the first place--which is perverse).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not open borders but it creates an issue that when the hearing comes up, like, FOUR YEARS LATER that many times DHS can't find the people again FOR said hearing.

What percentage of people don't show up for their hearings? Can you think of no way to bring that number down other than long-term detention of people who haven't been convicted of crimes?

 

[waiguoren]

The border is "open" in the sense that anyone can come in freely, without documentation, except for a brief detention.

It's "open" in some abstract sense that is unrelated to actually being open. OK. When most people think of "open borders," they mean that anyone can simply cross in without restriction or even records.

And that's why I don't use the term "open borders", except when other people (like Hillary Clinton) do. I was merely explaining why it's not a big stretch to relate catch-and-release to "open borders". "Open borders" is too vague a term and means different things to different people. Kind of like "racism".

Non-violent offenders shouldn't be detained while awaiting hearings.

If they have no legal status in the United States, then they should not be released into the interior of the United States. If you disagree, I strongly suspect you are in a tiny minority.

I'm a little bit surprised to see you supporting catch-and-release.

Your boy Dershowitz has argued differently (as least as it relates to Manafort). Maybe that's just part of his recent attempt to debase himself as an audition for a job in the administration

"Your boy"....this deserves to be ignored.

However, I am the GOAT bettor around here, so I will offer you a bet:

Alan Dershowitz will never be employed as a member of the Trump administration (10-year AV bet)

Yes, there's a real difference of opinion underlying the dishonesty framing. I'd say that border security was a legitimate problem that was fixed about a decade ago:

1) Your chart only references Mexicans. Central Americans now constitute a large percentage of those apprehended.
2) 180,000 apprehensions of Mexicans in one year is far too many.
3) These data only capture those who are apprehended. We know there are many others who evade detection.

 

[waiguoren]

What percentage of people don't show up for their hearings?

The data I've seen show about 35%.

 

[Gregolian]

What percentage of people don't show up for their hearings? Can you think of no way to bring that number down other than long-term detention of people who haven't been convicted of crimes?

I don't know the numbers for it but the only real option is to speed up the time between "pick up" and the hearings

 

[senri]

I have an apartment in Burlington, close to Fairview Mall, but I'm in the Mississauga area. You from around?

I used to live out in Hamilton. I have friends in Burlington. We should meet up over drinks, not everyday we get to meet smart intelligent sherdoggers on these forums.

 

[senri]

What beautiful fusion between Mr @waiguoren and Mr. @Jack V Savage . Two soft and delectable entities flourishing before my eyes. Witnessing the oscillation of the moist cortex throb in unison as the abstract adapts in a wonderful rigid manner.

Both of you are going to absorb The Nexus in many more ways then one.....

 

[waiguoren]

What percentage of people don't show up for their hearings?

EOIR keeps the best available data on this. Here is their report from 2016: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb15/download

According to the report, the in absentia rate was somewhere between 27% and 44% in 2015.

 

[Lead]

Even the lounge isn't free of politics.

Has anyone been following the World Cup. Thought I was going to be into that this summer but I've only watched two games at this point.

 

[Fawlty]

Jesus Christ, guy. I'll spare you the tag, it seems we're running out. You have to pull yourself together.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I always like Jack vs Wai

Good show, jolly good show!

 

[senri]

Even the lounge isn't free of politics.

Has anyone been following the World Cup. Thought I was going to be into that this summer but I've only watched two games at this point.

Who do you want to taste?

 

[senri]

I always like Jack vs Wai

Good show, jolly good show!

They are delicious aren't they? Their secretions produce quite the cuisines worth masticating. This is the poetey that we need to take deep inside of one another to ascend our flesh. The flavors is not where it should be, but it's getting there.

 

[Limbo Pete]

They are delicious aren't they? Their secretions produce quite the cuisines worth masticating. This is the poetey that we need to take deep inside of one another to ascend our flesh. The flavors is not where it should be, but it's getting there.

Our flesh marinates while the nexus beckons

 

[salamander]

They are delicious aren't they? Their secretions produce quite the cuisines worth masticating. This is the poetey that we need to take deep inside of one another to ascend our flesh. The flavors is not where it should be, but it's getting there.

Pardon me, but do you eat booty?

 

[Gregolian]

Goddamnit, first day back from being sick at work and I get saddled with a First Appearance calendar that has a sex offense case with child victims and a like 50 year old perp.

Fuck this gay earth.

 

[senri]

Pardon me, but do you eat booty?

I consume what you consume Mr Salamander...