this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024

366 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18828 readers

4624 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

366

Trump won't rule out family separations during his promised mass deportation of migrants (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The former president also told NBC News that spending billions to execute mass deportations of undocumented immigrants is justified because allowing them to remain would cost more.

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 56 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

So its gonna cost a fuckton and damage our nation irreparably in the process? Hate is a hell of a drug.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 23 points 2 weeks ago

Because the goal of Russia is the balkanization of the US. This would probably cause it.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Don't forget the billions of dollars they pay in taxes. Something the billionaires don't even do.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -32 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

damage our nation irreparably

How so? There'll be no shortage of new people who want to come to the USA if the government eventually decides deporting the current illegal immigrants was a mistake.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

How much do you know about the legal immigration process? Because it is barely functional and hanging on by a thread right now.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I know plenty about it and it would be very different if I were in charge, but that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that the damage to the USA from an overly restrictive immigration policy is not "irreparable" because any immigrants denied or deported now can easily be replaced by other immigrants later. I don't anticipate a scenario where the USA wants to allow in more immigrants but no one wants to come. (Even if that did happen, I'm not sure accepting immigrants in advance would help because they can just leave if it gets so bad here.)

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you support hefty prison sentences for anyone caught hiring undocumented immigrants?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What does that have to do with anything?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You clearly support deportation of immigrants. Please correct me if my assumption based on your repeated, explicit statements is incorrect.

So if you think immigrant workers are evil and should be prevented, that makes the white people who exploit and profiteer from their labor an entire order of magnitude more evil, right? Therefore we should cut the problem off at the source?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't express any opinion about whether or not the deportation of illegal immigrants is a good idea. Can you quote my statements that make you think I did?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

any immigrants denied or deported now can easily be replaced by other immigrants later.

This shows a total callous disregard for the real human beings involved with this statement. Throwing away the “other” and ripping apart their life, family, and community is what you are supporting, intentionally or not, with your statement.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

You are mixing up two separate questions.

Will deporting these people do irreparable damage to the USA?
Will deporting these people be morally wrong?

The answers to these two questions are independent of each other. The first question is about objective reality (if "irreparable damage" is clearly defined) and the second is about moral beliefs which are ultimately a matter of personal opinion. I'm only talking about the first question but you can still oppose deportation on moral grounds even if it turns out that mass deportations wouldn't decrease American prosperity.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

One type of irreparable damage that could occur to the USA as a result of mass deportations could be reputational or our morality therefore these two questions are not independent of each other.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In that case, you’ve still left room in the discussion to address my original question that you haven’t answered: aren’t the white people profiteering off of exploited immigrant labor the real perpetrators that deserve punishment? You can answer that without stating an opinion on the morality of deportation.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I can talk about my views on that issue if you'd like to hear them, although I still insist that they have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of my original claim in this thread.

With that said, I don't see the issue in terms of perpetrators and punishment. Many, many people in the world are much poorer than even a poor American is, and so their desire to come to the USA by whatever means is available to them is quite reasonable. Employers want to hire labor at the cheapest possible price, which is also reasonable. Finally, the general public wants cheap stuff but does not want either competition for jobs or taxes spent on supporting immigrants. That's all reasonable too.

I think a well-designed guest-worker program combined with increased measures against illegal immigration would maintain the rule of law, protect national security, and satisfy American employers and the American public while still providing economic opportunities for some foreigners who want them. This sort of approach works in other countries and it used to have some bipartisan support but I don't see it going anywhere in today's political climate.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm dealing with the legal immigration system right now. Your claim that we can "easily" replace anybody with more immigrant is laughable. It's like a 4 year waitlist right now.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When I say "we" I mean the US government or the nation as a whole. Right now you or I as individuals cannot easily have people immigrate legally because the government has deliberately made it difficult. If the government wanted to replace a bunch of deported people, it could change the rules about legal immigration. There are so many people who want to immigrate legally but aren't allowed to that by changing the rules, the government could get as many immigrants as it could want.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the government wanted that, they'd have been making steps towards that goal over the last several years. Instead, they're thwarting any attempts at a path to citizenship for the people already doing these jobs and actively contributing to our economy.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm not saying that the government wants that. I'm saying they could do it if they did want to. The original claim I responded to was that the damage would be "irreparable" and I'm arguing that the USA is such a desirable place to live that such damage could be repaired by allowing in some of the many, many people outside of the country who do want to immigrate.

(A side note: I acknowledge that amnesty for illegal immigrants may be the best policy in practice, but I think that it is a "crime does pay" policy that rewards people for breaking the law and therefore encourages more law-breaking. I would rather deport the people who were willing to break the law and replace them with people who respected it, but that's probably both expensive and politically unfeasible.)

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's about children! Hello.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I won’t rule out calling Trump a heartless piece of shit.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

He is indeed a stupid, heartless, selfish piece of shit.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How is the Republican party still able to get votes?

Seriously how is our country fucked up enough that we only have death to all non whites and we can compromise with them parties

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Their are a loooot of poor white people who are too indoctrinated to realize who is stealing the profits of their labor and have been successfully redirected to blaming other powerless poor people.

[–] Huschke@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

You have to hand it to the superrich. They did an excellent job cutting funding for education around the world for the past decades. And now they can reap the benefit.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because Fox News broke their brains. I'm not even kidding.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

That and the lead. So much lead

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I feel like a 'Trump won't rule out 'x'' headline is kinda moot as he doesn't do policy ideas in the first place, so he doesn't rule, and consequently doesn't rule out either.

Besides he has shown not to have any moral framework, so he'll do anything his current in crowd may infect his short term memory with.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, it doesn't matter what he says. He'll decide later based on the direction the wind is blowing.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

He put almost half a million children in cages last time, family seperations are tame compared to that.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The cages are still on the border, being used by various state governments (Abbott's been zealous about entrapping, imprisoning, and torturing migrants until they "voluntarily" agree to federal deportation).

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Democratic immigration platform has been their blasé attitude towards state fascism and brutality. Hatred for migrants runs far too deep in the US, and liberals are terrified of running counter to it especially during an election season. So Trump can run around on the border cheering, while state troopers harass, illegally detain, and torture spouses of US citizens. ICE staff do less than nothing, often facilitating state officials in their efforts to inflict abuse and cover it up afterwards.

Meanwhile, the DNC platforms a congo line of anti-migrant Republican politicians in an effort to appease this block of single-issue voters.

[–] ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 2 weeks ago

the cruelty is the point.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, fuck em right? Citizen children don't need parents. Just put em to work in the mines. Precious if they're unborn, though.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I guess this is why we didn’t ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child…

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Why would he, they love that shit.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nobody gives a shit what this goon felon is lying about today, NBC?

Just publish this each time, "trump lied again today in public, more on the actual plan from the actual adults making the decisions (or closest equivalent) [link to project 2025]"

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for NBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-will-make-provisions-mixed-status-families-doesnt-rule-sepa-rcna167852

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] Wanderer@lemm.ee -20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol how did removing people who are in the country illegally an even remotely controversial view.

No wonder the right are gaining votes all over the world. The left are their own worse enemy.

[–] stoned_ape@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because arbitrary lines in a desert ought not invalidate peoples freedom?

Because there is no valid metric other than skin color to initially round all these people up and put them in camps where we can concentrate on if they are actually supposed to be here or not?

Because some of those people put in camps where we can concentrate on whether they are supposed to be here or not will be American citizens deprived of their rights based on their skin color?

Because trains will run 24-7 for 5+ years to deport 15+ million people?

Because a subset of the population is convinced central America = Mexico and we can just dump them in Mexico?

Because just that transportation alone will cost over half our GDP even before we get in to detention and feeding, investigation and appeals processes?

Because if we don't do the above then we are denying people the right of due process, and what does that say about us as a society?

Because most people are here illegally because of expired visas, so they can just reapply anyway?

Because in 2022 undocumented immigrants paid 96.7 billion dollars in taxes, and the right wants to just do away with that and God forbid someone making millions has to pay a little extra?

Because it's a buzz word used by the right so people can be openly racist when there is zero plan in place because then they lose their wedge issue?

Because this zero-plan maneuver will decimate our economy, just so a certain subset of the population can feel that their skin color wins because Jesus said so or something?

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Excellent answers. I’d also take “empathy and human decency.”

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -3 points 2 weeks ago

What a load of horseshit.

I pretty sure the people that fought and died for those lines, the people that spent a lifetime building up something they love on one side of that line wouldn't call them arbitrary. In fantasy land they might be arbitrary but in the real world they mean a lot. People who break the law shouldn't be rewarded.

People aren't suppose to be there. They should go somehow. If there are 15 million people and they largely seem to be one skin colour as you make out. That's seems like a good starting point to me. How else would you do it?

Because trains will run 24-7 for 5+ years to deport 15+ million people?

That's genuinely mindblowing. 1 that the trains are that bad. (Some lines hit 1.5 million per day). 2 That the situation is that dire it will take so long to fix it under ideal situations.

You don't seem to be making any point but rambling from then on. Paying taxes says nothing without taking everything else into account. It's literally meaningless. If they just need to reapply then it seems like they need some convincing. 15 million! Of course something needs to be done to convince them to stop breaking the law either ship them out if they aren't meant to be there or convince them to do their civic duty