Operation Safe Return. We need more of this.

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,674
136
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sinema-program-remove-migrants-asylum

Freshman Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., was one of a number of Democrats to join Republican colleagues this week who called for the implementation of a pilot program that would work to quickly identify and deport migrants at the border who are judged not to have a valid asylum claim.

Sinema, along with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Doug Jones, D-Ala., joined Republicans in writing to President Trump urging the implementation of Operation Safe Return -- a Department of Homeland Security pilot program that that would focus on quickly identifying, processing and returning family units who do not have valid asylum claims in the U.S.


We need more cooperation like this instead of all the back stabbing going on in Congress. This is a step in the right direction.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,971
13,488
136
Its my understanding that there is not MORE of this because 99.99% of them has a line that says

# FUNDING FOR MAGA WALL

But that is just what I am picking up.
 

akenbennu

Senior member
Jul 24, 2005
705
274
136
Not normally one to defend the admin and their rules, but the third country asylum rule is apparently a test being used at a couple of border crossings and not widespread, at least at this time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Not normally one to defend the admin and their rules, but the third country asylum rule is apparently a test being used at a couple of border crossings and not widespread, at least at this time.

Okay but it’s a clear letter violation of federal law. I guess it’s good that they are breaking the law less as opposed to breaking it more but only marginally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

akenbennu

Senior member
Jul 24, 2005
705
274
136
I've never found any of his stories "scary".

But he can tell a story. If you've never read any of his novels, give one a try. The sheer storytelling is amazing.

For something off the beaten path, try "The Talisman", which King works with another author. One of my favorites.
This is bullshit when you combine it with the administration's rule making to make it impossible to claim asylum if they passed through a 3rd country on the way here.
Okay but it’s a clear letter violation of federal law. I guess it’s good that they are breaking the law less as opposed to breaking it more but only marginally.

Well, hopefully the myriad of lawsuits will quash this before it gathers any steam.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
I am not sure whether the proposal itself is flawed, but I think what @pcgeek11 is saying, and I agree completely, is that we need more bipartisan cooperation, particularly in the direction of expedience even if underlying laws and policies don't change.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
Not normally one to defend the admin and their rules, but the third country asylum rule is apparently a test being used at a couple of border crossings and not widespread, at least at this time.

DHS has significantly expanded "Remain in Mexico" to El Paso and now the Rio Grande sector where the security situation in Mexico is actually worse than to the west.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
I am not sure whether the proposal itself is flawed, but I think what @pcgeek11 is saying, and I agree completely, is that we need more bipartisan cooperation, particularly in the direction of expedience even if underlying laws and policies don't change.

Conservative Republicans have scuttled every attempt at bipartisan immigration reform for at least the last decade plus.

For some of them there is too much political value in not fixing the problem, others want to shape the demography of the country for electoral and racial reasons. This latter group has only grown with Trump now that nativism and white nationalism have been mainstreamed by a far right party. I think the prospects for bipartisan immigration reform are worse now than probably any point in my lifetime.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Conservative Republicans have scuttled every attempt at bipartisan immigration reform for at least the last decade plus.

For some of them there is too much political value in not fixing the problem, others want to shape the demography of the country for electoral and racial reasons. This latter group has only grown with Trump now that nativism and white nationalism have been mainstreamed by a far right party. I think the prospects for bipartisan immigration reform are worse now than probably any point in my lifetime.

The election issue is already in the process of being settled. That being said the process to decide on asylum should be speedy and final. It does no one any good to have people in limbo for 20 years while their case is being decided and endlessly appealed and all the while they're hiding out in churches or their homes so ICE can't reach them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.30a7825a6a7f
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
The election issue is already in the process of being settled. That being said the process to decide on asylum should be speedy and final. It does no one any good to have people in limbo for 20 years while their case is being decided and endlessly appealed and all the while they're hiding out in churches or their homes so ICE can't reach them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.30a7825a6a7f

Fundamentally the GOP is going to run out of old white conservative people through the sheer passage of time. Even in lower population states non-white voters will start making up an ever increasing proportion of the vote so I am skeptical that long term the GOP's attempt to lock up the Senate is really as good as they think.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,812
136
The election issue is already in the process of being settled. That being said the process to decide on asylum should be speedy and final. It does no one any good to have people in limbo for 20 years while their case is being decided and endlessly appealed and all the while they're hiding out in churches or their homes so ICE can't reach them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.30a7825a6a7f
If cases have not been decided then ICE thugs should have no reason to "reach" the asylum seekers. ICE raids are simply entertainment for the fascists fucks.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Fundamentally the GOP is going to run out of old white conservative people through the sheer passage of time. Even in lower population states non-white voters will start making up an ever increasing proportion of the vote so I am skeptical that long term the GOP's attempt to lock up the Senate is really as good as they think.

I also think it's kind of an odd idea that society would just accept a super-minority having such outsized political power. If it ever got that bad a change would be demanded as not only would the states with 1/3rd of the Senate seats be home to 70% of the population, they would also probably be home to about 80-85% of the country's GDP.

Interestingly enough, Max Kennerly pointed out that the Founders did have what they thought was a solution for this problem but I doubt anyone, in particular anyone in that 30% population, would want to see. Their answer was for the larger states to wage economic warfare against the smaller ones until they capitulated.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

So basically from the perspective of the founders the correct answer would be for the dense, liberal states to destroy the economies of the South and rural west in retaliation. This seems like a bad plan to me so it would probably just be better if we admitted a few more states.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
If cases have not been decided then ICE thugs should have no reason to "reach" the asylum seekers. ICE raids are simply entertainment for the fascists fucks.

My favorite is when ICE picks up American citizens and tries to deport them not actually caring if they are citizens or not, often leaving them to languish in jail for long periods of time. Just a terrible organization and has been basically since inception.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
If cases have not been decided then ICE thugs should have no reason to "reach" the asylum seekers. ICE raids are simply entertainment for the fascists fucks.

Also if conservatives were really interested in such speedy adjudications I bet it would be awfully easy to convince Democrats that less money should be spent on detaining immigrants and more should be spent on immigration judges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
I also think it's kind of an odd idea that society would just accept a super-minority having such outsized political power. If it ever got that bad a change would be demanded as not only would the states with 1/3rd of the Senate seats be home to 70% of the population, they would also probably be home to about 80-85% of the country's GDP.

Interestingly enough, Max Kennerly pointed out that the Founders did have what they thought was a solution for this problem but I doubt anyone, in particular anyone in that 30% population, would want to see. Their answer was for the larger states to wage economic warfare against the smaller ones until they capitulated.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp



So basically from the perspective of the founders the correct answer would be for the dense, liberal states to destroy the economies of the South and rural west in retaliation. This seems like a bad plan to me so it would probably just be better if we admitted a few more states.

This is already happening in some limited ways as large liberal states reel away from coal fired power. Also the refusal of western states to allow expanded export of it though their ports. The big economies are going to increasingly set the stakes at a game small states can't afford to play in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Interestingly enough, Max Kennerly pointed out that the Founders did have what they thought was a solution for this problem but I doubt anyone, in particular anyone in that 30% population, would want to see. Their answer was for the larger states to wage economic warfare against the smaller ones until they capitulated.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

So basically from the perspective of the founders the correct answer would be for the dense, liberal states to destroy the economies of the South and rural west in retaliation. This seems like a bad plan to me so it would probably just be better if we admitted a few more states.

Isn't that sorta kinda what is happening anyways? Tech industries gravitate towards certain states - or rather - high population urban cities. Regardless of the industries being tech or not - jobs in general are just getting more technical.

The larger states offer more tax benefits and have a more qualified work force. Basically leaves the less populated states with less educated professionals, which leaves them with jobs like manufacturing, etc...

At the same time, isn't this what is happening in basically every country?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sinema-program-remove-migrants-asylum

Freshman Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., was one of a number of Democrats to join Republican colleagues this week who called for the implementation of a pilot program that would work to quickly identify and deport migrants at the border who are judged not to have a valid asylum claim.

Sinema, along with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Doug Jones, D-Ala., joined Republicans in writing to President Trump urging the implementation of Operation Safe Return -- a Department of Homeland Security pilot program that that would focus on quickly identifying, processing and returning family units who do not have valid asylum claims in the U.S.


We need more cooperation like this instead of all the back stabbing going on in Congress. This is a step in the right direction.

The problem is that, however valid this approach would be, it's unlikely to get much traction from Trump unless he gets his wall money. I hope you're planning to vote Democrat in 2020, then.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Then vote out the GOP.

I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I was going to vote for anyone in the GOP.

Conservative Republicans have scuttled every attempt at bipartisan immigration reform for at least the last decade plus.

For some of them there is too much political value in not fixing the problem, others want to shape the demography of the country for electoral and racial reasons. This latter group has only grown with Trump now that nativism and white nationalism have been mainstreamed by a far right party. I think the prospects for bipartisan immigration reform are worse now than probably any point in my lifetime.

And yet I still find value in proclaiming that we need more bipartisan actions. That is no replacement for showing up in the voting booth to vote against the GOP.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I was going to vote for anyone in the GOP.

And yet I still find value in proclaiming that we need more bipartisan actions. That is no replacement for showing up in the voting booth to vote against the GOP.

Can you give an example of the sort of bipartisan action you're looking for?
 

akenbennu

Senior member
Jul 24, 2005
705
274
136
Impeachment proceedings would be a good one.


Unfortunately, I can't imagine too many scenarios where the GOP is going to vote to decapitate itself, since Pence has a vanishingly small chance to win an election should Trump get impeached.