Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    23 Feb '17 22:23
    Sheriff Defends Trump: 'No Uproar' When Obama Deported Illegal Immigrants
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/23/louisiana-sheriff-illegal-immigration-ice-crackdown-follow-federal-law-trump

    My question is, why is that?

    Oh, if you don't believe it...
    http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
  2. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    23 Feb '17 22:32 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Sheriff Defends Trump: 'No Uproar' When Obama Deported Illegal Immigrants
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/23/louisiana-sheriff-illegal-immigration-ice-crackdown-follow-federal-law-trump

    My question is, why is that?

    Oh, if you don't believe it...
    http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
    He was an elitist that believed we couldn't "understand" what is good for us. So...He didn't say that he was doing it. He just did it. Trump's mistake was telling us, thinking that we would be able to rationalize it as an intellegent human beings. He was wrong.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Feb '17 09:31
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Sheriff Defends Trump: 'No Uproar' When Obama Deported Illegal Immigrants
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/23/louisiana-sheriff-illegal-immigration-ice-crackdown-follow-federal-law-trump

    My question is, why is that?

    Oh, if you don't believe it...
    http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
    Actually pro-immigration groups complained incessantly about Obama's rate of deportations but since that policy hardly fit into the right wing narrative I'm sure it rarely if ever got mentioned on the news outlets you get your information from.

    Trump's announced deportation policy isn't that bad except for absurdities like wanting to deport non-Mexican citizens "back" to Mexico.
  4. 24 Feb '17 10:27
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Sheriff Defends Drumpf: 'No Uproar' When Obama Deported Illegal Immigrants
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/23/louisiana-sheriff-illegal-immigration-ice-crackdown-follow-federal-law-trump

    My question is, why is that?

    Oh, if you don't believe it...
    http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
    because trump wants to deport more, for idiotic reasons. under regulations proposed by trump, illegal immigrants could be deported for jaywalking.

    so spend a ton of money to deport someone who is not causing any harm and is actively contributing to your economy, split up a family and make a huge community feel threatened and unwilling to report crimes and work with law enforcement officers.

    it's gonna work out great.


    dumbass
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Feb '17 11:36 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Sheriff Defends Trump: 'No Uproar' When Obama Deported Illegal Immigrants
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/23/louisiana-sheriff-illegal-immigration-ice-crackdown-follow-federal-law-trump

    My question is, why is that?

    Oh, if you don't believe it...
    http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
    Obama and before him Bill Clinton have depressing and even disgraceful records on the treatment of migrants because migration is the inevitable and humanly essential corrollory of free trade. Bill Clinton knew perfectly well - he was warned - that NAFTA would wipe out swathes of Mexican business and agriculture, unable to compete with US corporations, leaving appalling economic prospects for the people affected. So to deal with the anticipated influx of economic migrants, he imposed harsh laws that would criminalise the victims of free trade. Once you have criminalised them and defined mogration as a crime, then all the pompous moral certainty of law enforcement can be deployed to silence the last bestiges of human decency as lives are torn apart by a callous and avoidable policy.

    More broadly, US policy and intervention has systematically deprived central American countries of the means to support their own people in decency, and it is US policy that lies behind the movement of migrants to seek opportunities in the US, because however poor those conditions turn out to be, they compare favourably with the American imposed conditions in their home countries. Anything that achieves proper democracy and that seeks to share economic benefits with the general population is defined as communism, and the American corporations can and do call in CIA and other support to put a stop to it, up to and including American inspired and backed military coups.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    24 Feb '17 11:48
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Obama and before him Bill Clinton have depressing and even disgraceful records on the treatment of migrants because migration is the inevitable and humanly essential corrollory of free trade. Bill Clinton knew perfectly well - he was warned - that NAFTA would wipe out swathes of Mexican business and agriculture, unable to compete with US corporations, leavi ...[text shortened]... er support to put a stop to it, up to and including American inspired and backed military coups.
    So it is your contention that Mexico would be better off if the US wasn't their next door neighbour?

    You think that there is a nett flow of wealth North across the border rather than the other way?
  7. 24 Feb '17 12:15
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-does-mexico-treat-illegal-immigrants-jim-dougherty
  8. 24 Feb '17 12:26
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Obama and before him Bill Clinton have depressing and even disgraceful records on the treatment of migrants because migration is the inevitable and humanly essential corrollory of free trade. Bill Clinton knew perfectly well - he was warned - that NAFTA would wipe out swathes of Mexican business and agriculture, unable to compete with US corporations, leaving appalling economic prospects for the people affected.
    Although I am fully aware that the US had interfered with its southern neighbors to their detriment, I fail to see what you are arguing here. It just doesn't make any sense.
    If you are saying that US exports to Mexico affected Mexican farmers negatively, then you might have a point, but don't call it 'free trade' because it isn't. Do you have any idea what the US spends on farm subsidies?
  9. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Feb '17 15:48
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Although I am fully aware that the US had interfered with its southern neighbors to their detriment, I fail to see what you are arguing here. It just doesn't make any sense.
    If you are saying that US exports to Mexico affected Mexican farmers negatively, then you might have a point, but don't call it 'free trade' because it isn't. Do you have any idea what the US spends on farm subsidies?
    This is what economic progress looks like in the neoliberal era:

    Carlos Slim - US$ 74 billion - Telmex, INBURSA, América Móvil, CompUSA, WorldCom and Telcel
    Alberto Baillères - US$ 16.5 billion - Peñoles
    Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco - US$ 14.2 billion - Grupo Mexico
    Ricardo Salinas Pliego - US$ 8 billion - Grupo Salinas
    Jerónimo Arango - US$ 4 billion - Founder of Aurrerá (currently part of Wal-Mart Mexico)
    Emilio Azcárraga Jean - US$ 2 billion - Televisa, Univision, Club América, Necaxa, Club San Luis
    Carlos Hank Rhon - US$ 1.4 billion - Bank
    Alfredo Harp Helú - US$ 1 billion - Banamex, Red Devils Baseball Team
  10. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    24 Feb '17 16:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Actually pro-immigration groups complained incessantly about Obama's rate of deportations but since that policy hardly fit into the right wing narrative I'm sure it rarely if ever got mentioned on the news outlets you get your information from.

    Trump's announced deportation policy isn't that bad except for absurdities like wanting to deport non-Mexican citizens "back" to Mexico.
    It wasn't reported on leftist media either. Why?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Feb '17 22:35
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    It wasn't reported on leftist media either. Why?
    I'm not sure what's "leftist" to you but here's some examples:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/immigration-deportation-democrats-obama-217378

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-struggling-with-immigration-rules-and-cruelties-of-deportation/2016/01/18/5c2d4258-bba7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html?utm_term=.012bcdd76274

    https://www.thenation.com/article/why-has-president-obama-deported-more-immigrants-any-president-us-history/

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-immigration-raids-20160512-snap-story.html

    A Google search will yield many more of these types of articles. Even Hillary criticized the level of Obama's deportations in an interview on Telemundo: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-faults-obama-for-aggressive-immigration-enforcement/
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Feb '17 23:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Although I am fully aware that the US had interfered with its southern neighbors to their detriment, I fail to see what you are arguing here. It just doesn't make any sense.
    If you are saying that US exports to Mexico affected Mexican farmers negatively, then you might have a point, but don't call it 'free trade' because it isn't. Do you have any idea what the US spends on farm subsidies?
    In 1994, the Clintons oversaw the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a result of US goods flooding local markets, Mexican merchants and farmers, whether selling textiles or corn, have been forced to shut down. Approximately 2 million farmers had to abandon their occupations, and today 25 million Mexicans live in “food poverty.” As Laura Carlsen of the Center for International Policy points out, “Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact.” Restrictive trade policies, disguised as “free trade,” mean the displacement of millions of people who had up to that point been able to survive and thrive in their native economies. NAFTA eventually caused massive waves of immigration as desperate Mexicans streamed across the border.

    The Clintons’ method of working with what was now a migrant/refugee crisis was to initiate the draconian Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both in 1996. Scholars Rebecca Bohrman and Naomi Murakawa point out that while the latter was supposed to tackle domestic terrorism in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, it has in fact “justified immigration restrictions in criminological terms and criminal penalties in anti-immigration terms.” Taken together, the legislation increased the penalties for what were formerly relatively minor infractions and expanded the reach of the prison industrial complex. For instance, before 1996, undocumented immigrants apprehended and imprisoned for crimes were released after serving their sentences. After 1996, they would remain in prison until deported. Minor offenses, such as driving under the influence or filing a false tax return, would now be classified as “aggravated felonies” and place immigrants on the fast track to deportation.


    This is copied from a book by Liza Featherstone; False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton. pp 104, 105