Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

*Wakes up to a shitshow I kinda started*

I thought this was the dude getting the pizza being an asshole, not an incident at the gate.
 
TommiR

TommiR

It would seem to me that many people over here believe that ICE (ice baby) are not behaving up to the standards one might expect from an agency of the United States government. They seem to have an Office of Professional Responsibility where complaints may be lodged.

I understand that, at present, I don't have the full range of facts. I usually begin with the assumption that civil servants mostly are just normal people doing what is often a thankless job in an environment that may be politically charged. I've done some googling on the matter, but I would appreciate the education if someone could kindly lay out to me in simple terms what exactly is the problem many people seem to have with ICE. You can have individual cases of misconduct, but what exactly is it that makes the whole agency a cancer on humanity?
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

The perception by many is that people join ICE because they enjoy throwing people out of the country, as though it is their duty to protect our country from the filthy immigrants who would dare pollute its purity with their presence. In other words, the job is very attractive to xenophobes.

—Patrick
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

As far as I can tell, much like Homeland Security, ICE is a sort of paramlitary/parapolice organisation, in many ways lacking oversight and control essential to preventing abuse and power play. In many ways, ICE can function "on its own", controlling their own. Not allowing Senators to check facilities might be defensible in some cases (say, nuclear research in the 1940s) but only if there's some solid other form of checks and balances. Now they can pretty much act as they want. Which leads to horrible situations.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

DHS/ICE/USCIS are enforcing fairly outdated and cumbersome laws to begin with, and ICE's leadership and staff seem to relish in very callous enforcement, with no regard for the impact this has on the immigrant population (and, in turn, on the citizens that have to coexist with that population).
 
Frank

Frank

Just fuckin' Google ICE abuses and read about the thousands of sexual assault claims, children missing, children kept in conditions you wouldn't leave a dog in, families of asylum seekers separated by hundreds of miles for months on end, etc.

Jesus, it's not like ICE hides it's atrocities well.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Teacher claims school made him resign for not using transgender student's preferred name

GOOD! Teachers who insist on using their student's legal name are assholes. I don't care if the student goes by their middle name, a nickname, or has changed their name to better reflect their identity. It's no burden on a teacher to call a student by the same name that everyone else in that student's life does.

Bullying a student is not exercising free speech. This teacher is a piece of shit for claiming that they were being forced to take a side on a highly controversial subject. A student's name is not a controversial subject. John Kluge, you are not standing up for free speech, you were just abusing your position of authority, using it to harass someone in your charge.

This piece of excrement has the gall to claim that the administration is bullying him.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
figmentPez said:
Teacher claims school made him resign for not using transgender student's preferred name

GOOD! Teachers who insist on using their student's legal name are assholes. I don't care if the student goes by their middle name, a nickname, or has changed their name to better reflect their identity. It's no burden on a teacher to call a student by the same name that everyone else in that student's life does.

Bullying a student is not exercising free speech. This teacher is a piece of shit for claiming that they were being forced to take a side on a highly controversial subject. A student's name is not a controversial subject. John Kluge, you are not standing up for free speech, you were just abusing your position of authority, using it to harass someone in your charge.

This piece of excrement has the gall to claim that the administration is bullying him.
Click to expand...
This seems cut and dry to me. The school has a policy. If you want to work for that school, you follow that policy. If you want to "take a stand" on something, you find somewhere else to work. The school's policy is to address trandgender students by their preferred name. It is not a violation of your first amendment rights to fire you for not following that policy. Why am I not surprised this is an Orchestra teacher, as he definitely doesn't understand what the first amendment is or what constitutes a violation of the right to free speech (hint, it involves jail at the very least).
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
PatrThom said:
Charles who?
<Googles>
Oh.

—Patrick
Click to expand...
One of my favorite conservative pundits to read. I don't always agree with him but he always has interesting things to say about whatever the topic is. He's been a staple in National political discussion for years, decades even.
 
strawman

strawman

TommiR said:
I would appreciate the education if someone could kindly lay out to me in simple terms what exactly is the problem many people seem to have with ICE. You can have individual cases of misconduct, but what exactly is it that makes the whole agency a cancer on humanity?
Click to expand...
As with many things there are many reasons people have issues with ICE, but I think one of the biggest issues is simply confusion about what it is, what it does, unfair comparisons to the criminal justice system, and the fact that it’s a political cat toy to be batted around vigorously and wildly each time congress or the presidency changes.

Further, it’s a huge agency with a very,very wide mandate.

Lastly, it exists to essentially imprison people who haven’t committed a crime against specific individuals. It’s hard for people to grasp the idea that detention could possibly be a reasonable response when no “crime” has been committed. The individuals taken in are free to leave at any point, if they agree to leave the US. They are detained because they want to plead their case to remain in this country when it’s not clear that they have permission or rights to do so.

On top of that, they have to process a huge number of people, and there are mistakes, slowdowns, and lots of incompetent or even malicious people who think they can get away with criminal acts against detainees. This should be easy to fix, but not enough is done on this end, and some intentionally hamper the process through defunding procedures, and similar tactics for a variety of reasons.

It’s an easy target.
 
Krisken

Krisken

The wide mandate and imprisoning people who haven't committed a crime against people is pretty huge. That so many of these people are fleeing dangerous homelands and are looking for a better life, not to mention have lower crime rates than native born citizens by an insane amount and often pay into tax programs despite gaining no benefits from it, makes it seem like they are being targeted on for political reasons, not logical ones.

ICE isn't the easy target. Immigrants are.
 
Krisken

Krisken

PatrThom said:
For evidence of this sort of behavior, you need look no further than the very real dread you experience when you drive you and your license plate across the border into another state.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
It's truly a kick-me sign. They know damn well you aren't going to show up to court to contest it.
 
Frank

Frank

Bubble181 said:
Unavailable in the EU.
Click to expand...
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions has ordered immigration judges to stop granting asylum to most victims of domestic abuse and gang violence, a move that would block tens of thousands of people, especially women, from seeking refuge in America.

The decision, which immigration advocates are sure to aggressively fight, came as Sessions seeks to use the authority of his office to sharply change U.S. immigration law to make it less friendly to asylum seekers.

The attorney general has the power to issue decisions that serve as binding precedents for immigration judges. In this instance, he used a case involving a victim of domestic violence from El Salvador to rule that survivors of such “private” crimes are not eligible for asylum under U.S. law.

“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote in his ruling. “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”



In a speech earlier in the day to a training session for immigration officials, Sessions telegraphed his position, saying that “asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems — even all serious problems — that people face every day all over the world.”

His anticipated “ruling restores sound principles of asylum and longstanding principles of immigration law,” he said.

Sessions emphasized at the conference that immigration judges will be required to follow his interpretation of the law. Under immigration law, the attorney general’s rulings are binding on immigration judges unless overturned by a federal appellate court.

The policy Sessions took aim at lies at the heart of an area of immigration law that has been hotly contested over the past two decades. During that time, advocates for victims of domestic violence have succeeded in winning cases that liberalized the law to protect victims of abuse or extortion whose home governments couldn’t or wouldn’t protect them. Many of the immigrants granted asylum as a result were fleeing Central American nations that offer little protection to victims of domestic abuse and gangs.

The government does not appear to keep statistics on exactly how many asylum claims fall into the categories Sessions is now excluding, but advocates estimate that domestic violence victims seeking asylum number in the tens of thousands each year. A large share of those requests have been successful, as a result of several administrative rulings and court cases during the Obama administration.

“There are many, many Central American women and women from other parts of the world who have been able to obtain protection,” said Denise Gilman, director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas Law School in Austin. “Many women sitting right now in detention under these claims might lose their right to obtain protection and be deported to dangerous situations.”

Sessions’ action on Monday overturned earlier court decisions and a 2014 ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which held that people trapped in domestic violence in Central American could qualify for asylum in the U.S.

The attorney general’s decision forms a key part of a broader Trump administration effort to restrict immigration and discourage asylum seekers from coming to the U.S. The administration has also stripped various legal rights from detainees, and has been separating families detained by immigration agents.

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees had urged Sessions against changing the asylum rules. It warned that such action would violate international agreements the U.S. has entered into concerned refugees and would subject victims to being returned to situations where their lives are in danger. The American Bar Assn. warned that ending the asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence “would further victimize those most in need of protection.”
Click to expand...
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Frank said:
let's make it so they can't call themselves asylum seekers anymore.
Click to expand...
Way TOO MUCH of the last couple years feels like, “Let’s see how much shit we can get away with by calling it something else,” just like “convenience fees” instead of “money grab,” or “consolidation of services” instead of “redlining.”

—Patrick
 
strawman

strawman

They weren’t accepted under the clinton administration, but recent court cases have expanded what asylum might include since it wasn’t well defined, and now they are defining it more strictly so the courts will have to rule against them.

I guess advocates would like to have the US accept the whole world, but we elected an anti-immigration administration, so the people have spoken.

I’m sure the next Democratic Party President will swing violently to the other side, ensuring the wild swinging of US policy will continue to amplify and oscillate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top