Biden Presidency

[NorthDakota]

Anyone who thinks deportation of all illegals is the answer is just grandstanding - really just promoting the status quo. Even the fear mongers are catering a bit to status quo - they want millions living in fear of deportation.

Bringing these populations out of the shadows is more important for real public safety than deporting the handful of rapists and derelicts.

How freaking hard is it to document everyone and let them stay without granting citizenship willy nilly?

Apparently very difficult.

Yeah, the "one life is too many" card is selectively played.

I just want to know how the rational behind the thought "immigrants cause crime", trying to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of just "Brown people are bad, they commit crime".

I dont know how much is the "brown people" thing. We got a few up here. They work cattle. Most towns seem to have a token Mexican family. Some are certainly not here legally. Hell my uncle brought a group of them to a family christmas/new years deal since they were far from home.

No one in our extended family would be supportive of illegal immigration. We do got some brown folks in the fam. Brown guys get invited to family events. I guess the point is people can be hardliners on illegal immigration without hating Hispanics people.

Quite simple. If he wasn't here illegally, this probably doesn't happen. Now you can say if he was here legally it could still happen, which is possible. However, that's not the case and if he would have been deported when he was found to be here illegally the odds of this happening are extremely low.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Had to be extremely hard on his family.

DUI's aren't taken seriously enough in the US by courts or culturally.

[TorontoGold]

Okay, whomever said illegals create crime at a greater rate raise their hand! Bueller? Bueller? I certainly didn't and if that's what you read into my comment, shame on you. Without even researching, I would assume that illegals crime rates/statistics are lower than a U.S citizen. Being here illegally they don't want any attention so they are on their best behavior. My point about my post was that if that dude hadn't been here illegally, the life of a man isn't taken. And you can search this entire site and you will never find a post where I advocate for sending all illegals home.

I'm sorry you feel like a victim, I wasn't directing my comments to you, as you can see I did not respond to you. I have no issue responding to you if I want to make a response to you :)

It was a general comment about how there is rhetoric that illegals come across the border to wreck havoc.

[dublinirish]

Apparently very difficult.



I dont know how much is the "brown people" thing. We got a few up here. They work cattle. Most towns seem to have a token Mexican family. Some are certainly not here legally. Hell my uncle brought a group of them to a family christmas/new years deal since they were far from home.

No one in our extended family would be supportive of illegal immigration. We do got some brown folks in the fam. Brown guys get invited to family events. I guess the point is people can be hardliners on illegal immigration without hating Hispanics people.



DUI's aren't taken seriously enough in the US by courts or culturally.

Ah just drinking and driving in general. Back home and most of europe its zero tolerance. One drink and you are over the limit and you are getting booked. Folks just don't do it, even in very rural areas before the likes of Uber and Lyft, private taxi's bring people everywhere at all hours for reasonable prices

[Cackalacky2.0]

Quite simple. If he wasn't here illegally, this probably doesn't happen. Now you can say if he was here legally it could still happen, which is possible. However, that's not the case and if he would have been deported when he was found to be here illegally the odds of this happening are extremely low.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Had to be extremely hard on his family.

I’m clearly not following but it seems to me you are saying that a person who is in the country legally can’t commit the crime you describe. Or at least that person legally in the country wouldn’t commit that crime.

I’d counter that in fact yes that very crime has and does happen and is committed by people that of any status. My anecdote being a specific situation to counter the specific situation you described. Vehicular homocide or vehicular manslaughter are quite common crimes committed by any number of persons in this country.

[NorthDakota]

Ah just drinking and driving in general. Back home and most of europe its zero tolerance. One drink and you are over the limit and you are getting booked. Folks just don't do it, even in very rural areas before the likes of Uber and Lyft, private taxi's bring people everywhere at all hours for reasonable prices

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the "one drink is too many" attitude. Seems unreasonable to me. I'm even ok with folks getting a DUI. It happens, and the legal limit is pretty low, I dont want to destroy someone's life over that. But if you don't learn from it, and continue that behavior (get a 2nd or 3rd), you shouldn't be driving anymore.

A friend of a friend has gotten cited for it like 6 or 7 times and the lawyer who always gets him off on a technicality straight up told him he isn't going to help him anymore because the dude refuses to learn.

Uber has helped a lot in Fargo. We don't have uber here in town though. We have a few taxis and they are dirt cheap. Big fan of that.

[ab2cmiller]

[RDU Irish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biden White House wants &quot;some teaching&quot; to happen in-person in schools (meaning at least one day a week) in at least 50% of schools across the country, <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> says.</p>&mdash; Matt Brown (@mrbrownsir) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrbrownsir/status/1359206046028361734?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wow - way to stand up to those unions!

[Irish#1]

I’m clearly not following but it seems to me you are saying that a person who is in the country legally can’t commit the crime you describe. Or at least that person legally in the country wouldn’t commit that crime.

I’d counter that in fact yes that very crime has and does happen and is committed by people that of any status. My anecdote being a specific situation to counter the specific situation you described. Vehicular homocide or vehicular manslaughter are quite common crimes committed by any number of persons in this country.

I guess you don't understand. If that guy had not been here illegally, this accident doesn't happen.

[Cackalacky2.0]

I guess you don't understand. If that guy had not been here illegally, this accident doesn't happen.

Im guessing you dont understand that accident can happen to anyone at any time by anyone no matter what their status is. The fact he was in the country without a piece of paper has zero bearing on it.

[Irish#1]

Im guessing you dont understand that accident can happen to anyone at any time by anyone no matter what their status is. The fact he was in the country without a piece of paper has zero bearing on it.

Since this can happen to anyone by anyone regardless of their status this is okay? Given your logic, that's essentially what you are implying. It has a lot of bearing on it. My point is if he had tried to come into this country via the legal process, he probably isn't here and there is no accident and life taken. 1+1 = 2

[Cackalacky2.0]

Since this can happen to anyone by anyone regardless of their status this is okay? Given your logic, that's essentially what you are implying. It has a lot of bearing on it. My point is if he had tried to come into this country via the legal process, he probably isn't here and there is no accident and life taken. 1+1 = 2

No its never ok. I explained earlier how my friend, a legal natural born citizen with all the benefits that that entails was allowed to continue on a self destructiv epath until he did the exact same thing you described the illegal immigrant doing. He did the exact same thing taking someone away from their family. His status as an immigrant legal or otherwise is irrelevant. 1+1=2 just the same as 2-0=2 . End result is someone dead that probably shouldnt be.

I also noticed in your earlier responses that you had a lot more sympathy for my friends situation than what you are showing for the illegal immigrant. Curious as to why? My friend committed multiple crimes (some he he was caught for some he wasnt) like DUIs, hit and runs, etc.

[Blazers46]

Im guessing you dont understand that accident can happen to anyone at any time by anyone no matter what their status is. The fact he was in the country without a piece of paper has zero bearing on it.

That piece of paper has some significance. Its safe to assume the piece paper means he has been properly vetted. I have a friend that is contracted by the FBI to conduct background checks on potential US citizens. They also check on mental health and medical records. My brother-in-law is Hispanic and has family having trouble getting citizenship for various reasons. I also have a former girlfriend that cannot get back into the United States because of mental health reasons (not related to me, lol).

[Cackalacky2.0]

That piece of paper has some significance. Its safe to assume the piece paper means he has been properly vetted. I have a friend that is contracted by the FBI to conduct background checks on potential US citizens. They also check on mental health and medical records. My brother-in-law is Hispanic and has family having trouble getting citizenship for various reasons. I also have a former girlfriend that cannot get back into the United States because of mental health reasons (not related to me, lol).

I take no exception to the need to vet Immigrants. The point of contention is regarding the commission of a crime. If you look at it from the crimes perspective legal citizens commit crimes at a certain rate which is much higher than immigrants( legal or illegal).

If you look at it from the perps perspective it doesn’t matter if they legs or illegal or a natural born citizen.

If you look at it from the victims perspective it also doesn’t matter.

That’s all I’m saying. Irish#1 is saying point blank that person would be alive if the illegal immigrant wasn’t here. Sure yeah that particular incident at that specific time? Ok... what does that matter? The person is dead. People die every day right? Almost all of them die from something other than illegal immigrants committing the same type of crime a natural born citizen does at a much higher rate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IrishLax]

After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.

[Blazers46]

After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.

You're a lying dog faced pony soldier

[NorthDakota]

After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.

The dude abides.

[Cackalacky2.0]

I guess I need to do better at expressing my sentiment.
let’s say that a person has the accepted value of 1/4700 chance of being hit by a car. Also the accepted chance of 1/48000 chance of dying from this event. Now what is the chance that person is an immigrant? that person being an immigrant is much small chance than of occurring than a natural born citizen. And still yet an even smaller chance of that person being an illegal immigrant. But to really deep dive into the stats and you would need to look at struck bye per million miles traveled and other such standard traffic stats which is out of my wheel house.

So in essence, this person was not only unlucky to be struck but to also die and the perpetrator had a much lower chance of committing this crime relative to the general population.

Does this make any more/better sense?

[Irish#1]

No its never ok. I explained earlier how my friend, a legal natural born citizen with all the benefits that that entails was allowed to continue on a self destructiv epath until he did the exact same thing you described the illegal immigrant doing. He did the exact same thing taking someone away from their family. His status as an immigrant legal or otherwise is irrelevant. 1+1=2 just the same as 2-0=2 . End result is someone dead that probably shouldnt be.

I also noticed in your earlier responses that you had a lot more sympathy for my friends situation than what you are showing for the illegal immigrant. Curious as to why? My friend committed multiple crimes (some he he was caught for some he wasnt) like DUIs, hit and runs, etc.

Your sentiment is very clear, at least to me. Here's the problem. You want to make this a referendum on "ALL" illegals and try to deflect from this incident by stating crime statistics and your own example where a U.S. citizen was involved. I already acknowledged that there are many more incidents like this that involve U.S. citizens. No need to circle back to that. I posted about one guy who was here illegally and the fact that more than likely there wouldn't have been a accident/deaths if he had abided by the laws. Your friends status didn't have any bearing on his accidents because he was here legally. This guy wasn't. That's relevant. Did I really say I had a lot more sympathy for your friend/family? Pretty sure I said

"Sorry to hear about your friend. Had to be extremely hard on his family."

How does that mean I don't have sympathy for anyone in the incident I mentioned? I made that comment because I'm conversing with you and your relationship with him and there's a little bit of a symbiotic relationship in play here. This is another example of trying to make this into a larger issue to prove your point. I don't think any statistics would be of any comfort to the families of Jeffrey Monroe and Edwin Jackson.

[ulukinatme]

After six days away, just want to let everyone know these threads are currently showing up on the front page while we keep working on the site updates. So, try to be friendly / respectful like we would see in a normal thread, and less Thunderdome at least for the time being.

I kid. I just love that part.

[RDU Irish]

I promise not to bring up the Uyghurs. That would not be friendly/respectful to Biden at all.

[ab2cmiller]

If only we could get Christopher Steele to write another fake dossier we could get an investigation. Alas, maybe Steele only takes money from Hillary Clinton.

[Fbolt]

The Steele dossier was fake? WTF?!!

[IrishLax]

I promise not to bring up the Uyghurs. That would not be friendly/respectful to Biden at all.

Not really sure what this means. That situation started years ago during the Trump administration, and it took until 2020 for him to do anything at all. He said that the lack of action and delays were because he thought it was more important to pursue a trade deal with China. That's Trump's own statement on the matter. John Bolton said that Trump gave Xi the green light to do the camps, which Trump denied. Regardless, his legacy is one of -- at best -- tolerating the camps for a very long time with no public statement much less sanctions.

Meanwhile, Biden has been speaking out on the topic since before he took office. He has made many unequivocal statements on the Hong Kong and the Uighur situation. The State Department has also been extremely clear on the administration's position. I assume your contention is about the snipped sentence from the CNN town hall where right aligned pundits are trying to pretend that Biden gave tacit approval to Xi. The full quote was:

BIDEN: We must speak up for human rights. It's who we are. Look, if you know anything about Chinese history it's that the time when they've been victimized by the outer world is when they haven't been united at home. The central principle of Xi is that there must be a united and tightly controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that. I point out to him -- no American President can be sustained as the President if he doesn't reflect the values of the United States. And so the idea that I'm not going to speak out against what he's doing in Hong Kong, with the Uighurs in the western mountains of China, and Taiwan trying to end the One China policy... he gets it. Culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expect to follow. But my point was, when I came back from traveling with him for 17 thousand miles when I was the Vice President and he was the vice president... that's how I got to know him so well, at the request of President Hu and President Obama... and I came back and said they're going to end their one child policy because they're so xenophobic they won't let anyone in and more people are retired than working. How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired -- "

COOPER INTERJECTS: --but is that as far as the conversation goes on human rights? Or will there be repercussions for China?

BIDEN: There will be repercussions for China, and he knows that. What I'm doing is making clear that in fact we are going to continue to reassert our role as spokesperson for human rights at the UN and other agencies that have an impact on their attitude. China is trying very hard to become THE world leader. And to get that moniker and to do that they have to gain the confidence of other countries. And as long as they're engaged in activity that is contrary to basic human rights it's going to be hard for them to do that. But it's much more complicated than that, I shouldn't try to talk China policy in 10 minutes.

So all he did was explain what he is dealing with (i.e. Xi's worldview) in the middle of saying that we're going to stand against their actions (start and end of quote). He's explaining that he's dealing with a guy that is reflecting the will of the CCCP and living in a very different country, so it is not easy to get him to change course unilaterally, and that getting China to course correct is complicated politics that will be centered on threatening their global profile. We're at some weird point in political discourse where if you don't talk in soundbites and actually try to have a discussion on a topic below surface level then it's frowned upon or nitpicked to death by whichever orthodoxy it conflicts with. Anyone could easily cherry pick one of the many Trump quotes literally praising Xi or Kim Jong-un and out of context pretend that means he supports them, their actions, communism, taking political prisoners, etc. but what is the point of playing these kinds of games?

[RDU Irish]

LOL - taking anything Bolton says at face value is hilarious. If you think Biden is tougher on China than Trump, we will just have to agree to disagree. I hear a bunch of apologizing and rationalization for pretty abhorrent behavior. If Biden is that "tough" in a town hall he must have a hard time talking to Xi in person with is mouth full of Xi's balls.

Bigger laugh is on Disney though - let's can the chick who makes a valid point and keep the dude who has patently false and more offensive statements while filming Mulan in the shadow of literal concentration camps. Won't see that on CNN though.

[IrishLax]

LOL - taking anything Bolton says at face value is hilarious. If you think Biden is tougher on China than Trump, we will just have to agree to disagree. I hear a bunch of apologizing and rationalization for pretty abhorrent behavior. If Biden is that "tough" in a town hall he must have a hard time talking to Xi in person with is mouth full of Xi's balls.

Bigger laugh is on Disney though - let's can the chick who makes a valid point and keep the dude who has patently false and more offensive statements while filming Mulan in the shadow of literal concentration camps. Won't see that on CNN though.

I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.

[BilboBaggins]

I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.

It's pretty tough to take someone seriously when they say Trump will have been "tougher" on China. Trump's China rhetoric was all bark and no bite.

If the US was going to take a rising China seriously, you'd expect to see an American President use alliances forged decades ago to build a coalition *of the willing* to stand up to China's power reaches and economic shadiness. I can't name a single time Trump met with allies and even discussed being on the same page when it came to standing up to China.

Instead Trump went around and systematically alienated every ally on the books like he was on a warpath to ruin our American-led post-WW2 order.

Obama was already trying to get the US out of Middle Eastern commitments, have the US stick around as an "off-shore balancer," and free up resources and attention in a "shift-to-China." I assume Biden will do the same and work to repair relations with Europe and other allies.....without Europe on board and re-committing to a US-led global order, fat chance that China feels corner and bows to international norms.

[Irish#1]

Biden to keep Trump tariffs on China as leverage against ‘abusive’ trade practices


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...on-11605132400

[Irish#1]

I don't think we can know yet who will be tougher on China. I will wait and see what "repercussions" and "consequences" there and compare them to what Trump did over the Uighur and Hong Kong situations. I'll also wait to see how each situation unfolds... whether they continue down the path they were on, or whether the situation improves. That's the best way to measure diplomacy.

And I'm not taking Bolton at face value, which is why I emphasized Trump's version of events. Trump says he was soft on the Uighur situation because he was focusing on the trade deal. Is what it is. I understand why Trump emphasized the trade situation when he campaigned on a "good and easy" trade war.

If we want to start assigning blame, we could start with Obama, but TBH China has been doing this long before Trump took office. They weren't using special internment camps, but they were going after what they considered militants. Every one of our presidents should be very vocal about what is happening and work with the UN to end this. The NBA and their stars (Looking mostly at you LeBron) had a great opportunity to make a statement against China during the Hong Kong protests, but chose the almighty dollar over human rights.

In 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative was announced, a massive trade project at the heart of which is Xinjiang. In 2014, Chinese authorities announced a "People's war on terror" and local government introduced new restrictions and banned "abnormal" long beards; akin to some European countries the wearing of the burka in public places was also forbidden In 2014, the concept of "transformation through education" began to be used in contexts outside of Falun Gong through the systematic "de-extremification" campaigns.^[87] Under Zhang, the Communist Party launched its "Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism" in Xinjiang.^[88]

In August 2016, Chen Quanguo, a well-known hardline Communist Party secretary in Tibet took charge of the Xinjiang autonomous region. Chen was branded as responsible for a major component of Tibet's "subjugation" by critics

[Rogue219]

I have no idea what Biden did this weeken or what he Tweeted.

This is the existence I have so longed for again for the last four years.

Now, to the important matters of the day: Is Joe Manchin happy?

[NorthDakota]

Watching this "migrant child overflow facility" stuff come through the news is absolutely amazing.

[Irish#1]

I have no idea what Biden did this weeken or what he Tweeted.

This is the existence I have so longed for again for the last four years.

Now, to the important matters of the day: Is Joe Manchin happy?

Yeah I too had a gun to my head forcing me to read his tweets and watch his PC's.

[Polish Leppy 22]

Watching this "migrant child overflow facility" stuff come through the news is absolutely amazing.

Oh, so we're done with internment camps and cages?

[ab2cmiller]

Oh, so we're done with internment camps and cages?

There appears to be a portion of his base that will justify Biden's continued use of facilities/camps/cages. However, it appears that there is a decent size segment of his base that are pissed that Biden hasn't done anything about the issue. Biden has a pretty big juggling job going on trying to appease all segments of his base and be Chief Uniter at the same time.

[MrIrishCanadian1]

I've personally been trying to understand the whole Uyghur thing and how to make sense of it all. Since I have worked in China, I am probably much more sympathetic to them than most in this forum. But I have trouble seeing what they're doing as a systematic moral wrong. As I've read, the Xinjiang province has had a huge terrorism problem due to a radical stream of Islam that has taught Muslims in parts of Xinjiang that they are guaranteed heaven if they kill non-believers. That's why some such followers just started hacking people to death on the streets or taking their car and running them over. If this is correct, then from my point of view the steps China has taken are justifiable. They've taken a proactive approach to this by bringing Uyghurs into training schools (or the "concentration camps" as western media likes to call them) that de-radicalize them, and give them professional training in Mandarin and job skills to put their life on the right direction. It seems to be well documented that there is a level of freedom at such training schools since the students there are free to return home regularly, such as on a weekly basis if not more often (I say that this is well documented since the documentaries on the anti-Chinese side that have tried to see what's happening at the schools without the peering eye of the Chinese government have also filmed the students leaving the schools).

I suppose one worry is that, even if some go to these schools voluntarily, others are put there forcibly. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have anyone forced into a school or a camp. But a world with the sorts of terrorism problems that are present isn't an ideal world. It's a tricky problem with perhaps no great solution. Do you take a more passive approach and just let people be trained in radical teachings and then deal with the consequences later? Or do you take a more proactive approach and rework people's mindsets before they commit acts of terrorism? China is taking the latter approach, and I don't see that that approach is any morally worse than the alternatives. It does involve cutting off freedoms, such as the freedom to not be coerced into training of sorts. But perhaps that’s a freedom worth giving up if it means that residents of Xinjiang have their freedom to life (not being killed by knife and car attacks) preserved.

This is sort of where I’m at right now. I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system China is employing. Perhaps there are abuses occurring, I have heard cases of rape, and if such things happen they certainly should be condemned and stopped (and I would assume China would agree on this point). But I think the overall plan that China has is an acceptable one given the tough situation they are in.

I still want to do more research on this, and that’s part of why I’m posting here to see where my blinders might be. But I also thought it might be healthy for the board if I presented my minority-ish view. (And I’m sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere…)

[NorthDakota]

Oh, so we're done with internment camps and cages?

Oh its def not that! It has legal services! And basketball courts!

Honestly, I don't know how much things have changed at these facilities or hasn't. But how they are portrayed based on who is in office is absolutely absurd.

When it was Obama's administration in charge, we heard nothing about it really. When it was Trump it was a crime against humanity. And when it is Biden, the entire concept is reframed to make it sound great.

I'm sorry but it seems unlikely that in a month that the Feds have fundamentally changed the conditions to make them awesome.

[zelezo vlk]

I just read the below, a little bit of history of these camps. One of my best friends (not the author of the below) lives just a few miles from the border down in the Rio Grande Valley. While she and nearly everyone there loathes Trump, they're pretty quick to point out that he wasn't the first President to treat migrants like garbage.

https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/post/...on-under-biden

Her name was Mariee Juárez.


Mariee and her mother Yazmin were forced to flee Guatemala in 2018. At the time, Mariee was just a little baby. In nearly every picture you can find, she looks at the camera with a cheeky, toothless grin. Yazmin hoped that the United States would be a place where her little girl would grow up with “a better, safer life.” And then, there was Dilley.


Dilley, or the “South Texas Family Residential Center” is the largest internment camp for immigrants in the United States. Every year, it’s used as a base for the incarceration of hundreds of women and their children.


It was at Dilley that Mariee and Yazmin ended up in after a journey of roughly 1,500 miles. Once there, they were packed into a single room of 12 other people. Mariee was sick within a week. Yazmin took her to the camp’s clinic, which gave Mariee some Tylenol and honey for her cough and told Yazmin to follow up in six months. By the next day, Mariee had a fever of 104 degrees, along with vomiting and diarrhea. Within 10 days, she had lost almost 8% of her body weight. Eventually, ICE deigned to process Yazmin and Mariee out of detention so that they could go to Yazmin’s mother in New Jersey. Yazmin immediately sought medical care for Mariee, but her little body had been fighting a viral lung infection almost entirely unassisted for weeks. Mariee died on May 10, 2018 – the day that Guatemalans celebrate Mother’s Day. She wasn’t even two years old.


Yazmin and Mariee’s story is one of hundreds from the Trump administration. But what most don’t know is that Trump alone isn’t to blame. You see, Yazmin and Mariee may have been detained in the Trump administration, but Dilley, the internment camp where they were held, was built by the Obama administration, when Joe Biden was Vice President.


At a primary debate in June, when it was pointed out that Obama had deported over three million immigrants, Biden praised Obama’s immigration policies.

“President Obama, I think, did a heck of a job. To compare him to what this guy’s doing is absolutely – I find [it] close to immoral.”

This, for me, is what defines Joe Biden when it comes to immigration. For him, the best thing he can think to do for immigrants is simply to pretend as if Trump had never happened. It seems as if, in his mind, whatever Obama did was good enough for him. His pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was the deputy Secretary during the Obama years.


His immigration plan itself remains woefully short of anything which would meaningfully improve the lives of immigrants. A broken system which gives the government every possible advantage and immigration judges nearly unrestrained power over the lives of those subject to their authority? Let’s add more judges and courts to make it bigger! An internment camp system responsible for mass illness, death, and pain? Ending it is too much, but we can try some alternative case management systems for those we deem worthy of not dying a slow death on the cement floors of their cells. The atrocities committed by ICE and CBP agents are known to anybody who has watched any immigration story over the last four years, but Biden’s plan gives them only a single line, where he promises to ensure that they “abide by professional standards” by giving them yet more funding.


To make matters worse, Biden and his incoming administration have barely been enthusiastic about even these uninspiring and derivative policies. In an interview in December, Biden said that he wanted to undo Trump policies which have obliterated asylum and legal protections for immigrants, but that it would “take time…. probably the next six months.” His reasoning for doing so is that he wants to make sure that America doesn’t end up with “2 million people on our border.” This is Biden’s priority to avoid. The worst thing he can think of is more immigrants at the border.


The night he was elected, President-Elect Biden promised that his administration would be “a time to heal.” But as we head into Inauguration Week, all I can ask myself is how many immigrants will die before he decides that his administration should be a time to grow.
Her name was Mariee Juárez.


Mariee and her mother Yazmin were forced to flee Guatemala in 2018. At the time, Mariee was just a little baby. In nearly every picture you can find, she looks at the camera with a cheeky, toothless grin. Yazmin hoped that the United States would be a place where her little girl would grow up with “a better, safer life.” And then, there was Dilley.


Dilley, or the “South Texas Family Residential Center” is the largest internment camp for immigrants in the United States. Every year, it’s used as a base for the incarceration of hundreds of women and their children.


It was at Dilley that Mariee and Yazmin ended up in after a journey of roughly 1,500 miles. Once there, they were packed into a single room of 12 other people. Mariee was sick within a week. Yazmin took her to the camp’s clinic, which gave Mariee some Tylenol and honey for her cough and told Yazmin to follow up in six months. By the next day, Mariee had a fever of 104 degrees, along with vomiting and diarrhea. Within 10 days, she had lost almost 8% of her body weight. Eventually, ICE deigned to process Yazmin and Mariee out of detention so that they could go to Yazmin’s mother in New Jersey. Yazmin immediately sought medical care for Mariee, but her little body had been fighting a viral lung infection almost entirely unassisted for weeks. Mariee died on May 10, 2018 – the day that Guatemalans celebrate Mother’s Day. She wasn’t even two years old.


Yazmin and Mariee’s story is one of hundreds from the Trump administration. But what most don’t know is that Trump alone isn’t to blame. You see, Yazmin and Mariee may have been detained in the Trump administration, but Dilley, the internment camp where they were held, was built by the Obama administration, when Joe Biden was Vice President.


At a primary debate in June, when it was pointed out that Obama had deported over three million immigrants, Biden praised Obama’s immigration policies.

“President Obama, I think, did a heck of a job. To compare him to what this guy’s doing is absolutely – I find [it] close to immoral.”

This, for me, is what defines Joe Biden when it comes to immigration. For him, the best thing he can think to do for immigrants is simply to pretend as if Trump had never happened. It seems as if, in his mind, whatever Obama did was good enough for him. His pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was the deputy Secretary during the Obama years.


His immigration plan itself remains woefully short of anything which would meaningfully improve the lives of immigrants. A broken system which gives the government every possible advantage and immigration judges nearly unrestrained power over the lives of those subject to their authority? Let’s add more judges and courts to make it bigger! An internment camp system responsible for mass illness, death, and pain? Ending it is too much, but we can try some alternative case management systems for those we deem worthy of not dying a slow death on the cement floors of their cells. The atrocities committed by ICE and CBP agents are known to anybody who has watched any immigration story over the last four years, but Biden’s plan gives them only a single line, where he promises to ensure that they “abide by professional standards” by giving them yet more funding.


To make matters worse, Biden and his incoming administration have barely been enthusiastic about even these uninspiring and derivative policies. In an interview in December, Biden said that he wanted to undo Trump policies which have obliterated asylum and legal protections for immigrants, but that it would “take time…. probably the next six months.” His reasoning for doing so is that he wants to make sure that America doesn’t end up with “2 million people on our border.” This is Biden’s priority to avoid. The worst thing he can think of is more immigrants at the border.


The night he was elected, President-Elect Biden promised that his administration would be “a time to heal.” But as we head into Inauguration Week, all I can ask myself is how many immigrants will die before he decides that his administration should be a time to grow.

[RDU Irish]

I've personally been trying to understand the whole Uyghur thing and how to make sense of it all. Since I have worked in China, I am probably much more sympathetic to them than most in this forum. But I have trouble seeing what they're doing as a systematic moral wrong. As I've read, the Xinjiang province has had a huge terrorism problem due to a radical stream of Islam that has taught Muslims in parts of Xinjiang that they are guaranteed heaven if they kill non-believers. That's why some such followers just started hacking people to death on the streets or taking their car and running them over. If this is correct, then from my point of view the steps China has taken are justifiable. They've taken a proactive approach to this by bringing Uyghurs into training schools (or the "concentration camps" as western media likes to call them) that de-radicalize them, and give them professional training in Mandarin and job skills to put their life on the right direction. It seems to be well documented that there is a level of freedom at such training schools since the students there are free to return home regularly, such as on a weekly basis if not more often (I say that this is well documented since the documentaries on the anti-Chinese side that have tried to see what's happening at the schools without the peering eye of the Chinese government have also filmed the students leaving the schools).

I suppose one worry is that, even if some go to these schools voluntarily, others are put there forcibly. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have anyone forced into a school or a camp. But a world with the sorts of terrorism problems that are present isn't an ideal world. It's a tricky problem with perhaps no great solution. Do you take a more passive approach and just let people be trained in radical teachings and then deal with the consequences later? Or do you take a more proactive approach and rework people's mindsets before they commit acts of terrorism? China is taking the latter approach, and I don't see that that approach is any morally worse than the alternatives. It does involve cutting off freedoms, such as the freedom to not be coerced into training of sorts. But perhaps that’s a freedom worth giving up if it means that residents of Xinjiang have their freedom to life (not being killed by knife and car attacks) preserved.

This is sort of where I’m at right now. I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system China is employing. Perhaps there are abuses occurring, I have heard cases of rape, and if such things happen they certainly should be condemned and stopped (and I would assume China would agree on this point). But I think the overall plan that China has is an acceptable one given the tough situation they are in.

I still want to do more research on this, and that’s part of why I’m posting here to see where my blinders might be. But I also thought it might be healthy for the board if I presented my minority-ish view. (And I’m sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere…)

Appreciate your insights - I had not heard this take on the situation. Seems like a logical opposite side of the coin. As someone in favor of more robust "military school" for kids in crappy situations or making bad decisions (or just voluntarily available to poor/middle class to opt in), I am sympathetic to what you describe.

[Blazers46]

I have no idea what Biden did this weeken or what he Tweeted.

This is the existence I have so longed for again for the last four years.

Now, to the important matters of the day: Is Joe Manchin happy?

I did read an odd article spinning how Biden doesnt do anything is a good thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8a2_story.html

[drayer54]

Not Russian Disinformation---> Hunter Biden was living with his brother Beau's widow Hallie while sending raunchy texts and FaceTiming in the shower with her married SISTER as they declared their love and she called him her 'prince'

A text message exchange recovered from the laptop hard drive revealed a sexual conversation between Hunter and Secundy from September 2016 - at the time he would have been dating Hallie.

Hunter offered to teach Secundy 'how to masturbate' and referenced buying her 'panties'.

Secundy, now 49, also referred to Hunter as her 'prince' and told him she loved him in the texts.

Files on the laptop suggest the relationship continued well into 2018, with one document showing they had rented a home together starting in July that year.

Hunter's love life has already been a source of several scandals in the years since his split from his first wife Kathleen, the mother of his three daughters.

After raising some eyebrows for dating his sister-in-law, the former lobbyist was then revealed to have fathered a child with a DC stripper whose paternity he initially denied, and later married his current wife, Melissa, just six days after meeting her in 2019. They too now have a one-year-old child, named after Hunter's late brother.

Hunter found himself in hot water once again in 2020 when his laptop, that he reportedly had left at a Delaware computer store for repairs, fell into the hands of several media organizations and the FBI.

Photos recovered from the device showed him posing with a crack pipe in his mouth and partying with prostitutes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ip-sister.html

[Irish#1]

There appears to be a portion of his base that will justify Biden's continued use of facilities/camps/cages. However, it appears that there is a decent size segment of his base that are pissed that Biden hasn't done anything about the issue. Biden has a pretty big juggling job going on trying to appease all segments of his base and be Chief Uniter at the same time.

At his age even two balls are hard to juggle.

[Irish#1]

I've personally been trying to understand the whole Uyghur thing and how to make sense of it all. Since I have worked in China, I am probably much more sympathetic to them than most in this forum. But I have trouble seeing what they're doing as a systematic moral wrong. As I've read, the Xinjiang province has had a huge terrorism problem due to a radical stream of Islam that has taught Muslims in parts of Xinjiang that they are guaranteed heaven if they kill non-believers. That's why some such followers just started hacking people to death on the streets or taking their car and running them over. If this is correct, then from my point of view the steps China has taken are justifiable. They've taken a proactive approach to this by bringing Uyghurs into training schools (or the "concentration camps" as western media likes to call them) that de-radicalize them, and give them professional training in Mandarin and job skills to put their life on the right direction. It seems to be well documented that there is a level of freedom at such training schools since the students there are free to return home regularly, such as on a weekly basis if not more often (I say that this is well documented since the documentaries on the anti-Chinese side that have tried to see what's happening at the schools without the peering eye of the Chinese government have also filmed the students leaving the schools).

I suppose one worry is that, even if some go to these schools voluntarily, others are put there forcibly. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have anyone forced into a school or a camp. But a world with the sorts of terrorism problems that are present isn't an ideal world. It's a tricky problem with perhaps no great solution. Do you take a more passive approach and just let people be trained in radical teachings and then deal with the consequences later? Or do you take a more proactive approach and rework people's mindsets before they commit acts of terrorism? China is taking the latter approach, and I don't see that that approach is any morally worse than the alternatives. It does involve cutting off freedoms, such as the freedom to not be coerced into training of sorts. But perhaps that’s a freedom worth giving up if it means that residents of Xinjiang have their freedom to life (not being killed by knife and car attacks) preserved.

This is sort of where I’m at right now. I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system China is employing. Perhaps there are abuses occurring, I have heard cases of rape, and if such things happen they certainly should be condemned and stopped (and I would assume China would agree on this point). But I think the overall plan that China has is an acceptable one given the tough situation they are in.

I still want to do more research on this, and that’s part of why I’m posting here to see where my blinders might be. But I also thought it might be healthy for the board if I presented my minority-ish view. (And I’m sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere…)

Interesting point about the Islamic terrorists groups. We have our hands full with that crap. I wonder if the Chinese government sees this as simply a terrorists threat or more of a threat to their communistic government? I have not read that much, but some of what I read several months back indicate, that most in those camps were put there against their will and/or their families were threatened if they didn't go. I also remember reading that while they may be allowed to go home on weekends, it's only after they have spent so much time in the camp and have demonstrated some actions that they are becoming assimilated. I have not read much more about this, but your posts certainly creates some questions. Like most stories the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I will say I still question their government since they saw the Hong Kong protests as a threat to their downfall and they have a history of bad actions like Tiananmen Square.

[Irish#1]

Not Russian Disinformation---> Hunter Biden was living with his brother Beau's widow Hallie while sending raunchy texts and FaceTiming in the shower with her married SISTER as they declared their love and she called him her 'prince'




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ip-sister.html

Every guy needs to party every now and then.

[drayer54]

[QUOTE=irishff1014;n2978765]

Not Russian Disinformation---> Hunter Biden was living with his brother Beau's widow Hallie while sending raunchy texts and FaceTiming in the shower with her married SISTER as they declared their love and she called him her 'prince'




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ip-sister.html[/

will an admin delete this post please.

You have a stellar future ahead of you in big tech.

[Wild Bill]

I've personally been trying to understand the whole Uyghur thing and how to make sense of it all. Since I have worked in China, I am probably much more sympathetic to them than most in this forum. But I have trouble seeing what they're doing as a systematic moral wrong. As I've read, the Xinjiang province has had a huge terrorism problem due to a radical stream of Islam that has taught Muslims in parts of Xinjiang that they are guaranteed heaven if they kill non-believers. That's why some such followers just started hacking people to death on the streets or taking their car and running them over. If this is correct, then from my point of view the steps China has taken are justifiable. They've taken a proactive approach to this by bringing Uyghurs into training schools (or the "concentration camps" as western media likes to call them) that de-radicalize them, and give them professional training in Mandarin and job skills to put their life on the right direction. It seems to be well documented that there is a level of freedom at such training schools since the students there are free to return home regularly, such as on a weekly basis if not more often (I say that this is well documented since the documentaries on the anti-Chinese side that have tried to see what's happening at the schools without the peering eye of the Chinese government have also filmed the students leaving the schools).

I suppose one worry is that, even if some go to these schools voluntarily, others are put there forcibly. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have anyone forced into a school or a camp. But a world with the sorts of terrorism problems that are present isn't an ideal world. It's a tricky problem with perhaps no great solution. Do you take a more passive approach and just let people be trained in radical teachings and then deal with the consequences later? Or do you take a more proactive approach and rework people's mindsets before they commit acts of terrorism? China is taking the latter approach, and I don't see that that approach is any morally worse than the alternatives. It does involve cutting off freedoms, such as the freedom to not be coerced into training of sorts. But perhaps that’s a freedom worth giving up if it means that residents of Xinjiang have their freedom to life (not being killed by knife and car attacks) preserved.

This is sort of where I’m at right now. I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system China is employing. Perhaps there are abuses occurring, I have heard cases of rape, and if such things happen they certainly should be condemned and stopped (and I would assume China would agree on this point). But I think the overall plan that China has is an acceptable one given the tough situation they are in.

I still want to do more research on this, and that’s part of why I’m posting here to see where my blinders might be. But I also thought it might be healthy for the board if I presented my minority-ish view. (And I’m sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere…)

No it's all true. Just like Saddam's WMDs, Milosevic’s concentration camps, Assad gassing kids, etc. We have to go to war with China. Believe the neocons.

[NorthDakota]

[QUOTE=irishff1014;n2978765]

Not Russian Disinformation---> Hunter Biden was living with his brother Beau's widow Hallie while sending raunchy texts and FaceTiming in the shower with her married SISTER as they declared their love and she called him her 'prince'




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ip-sister.html[/

will an admin delete this post please.

Whats the problem with the post??

[Irish#1]

Evidently she deleted over 1,000 "mean" tweets. lol

'Mean tweets' threaten Biden budget pick Tanden as U.S. moderates balk

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2AM16Z

A number of tweets appeared to have been deleted from Tanden's account Monday night, but according to The Wall Street Journal, she also once tweeted, "I’m glad McConnell is fiddling, while the markets burn."

A Google search for posts on McConnell under her account revealed at least four tweets that were no longer available.

A look at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine showed that the number of tweets under Tanden's account declined from 88,600 on Nov. 16 to 87,600 as of Monday morning. By 8 p.m. EST Monday, the number of tweets on her account dropped to 87,500.

[drayer54]

Evidently she deleted over 1,000 "mean" tweets. lol

'Mean tweets' threaten Biden budget pick Tanden as U.S. moderates balk

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2AM16Z

This is 100% bullshit and narrative. Mean tweets are only a part of the problem.

The reality is that Neera Tanden is a disgusting person and is not qualified or with anything close to the right temperament to be in the building, nonetheless in charge. She has a history of terrible management at CAP, violent outbursts, outing sexual harassment victims at her own org, and being a sick person. She has openly floated wildly flawed Russiagate theories, the idea that Russia tweaked vote totals (insurrection?) and that Anthony Kennedy was bought off by the Russians. Her tweets are indicative that she is insane and should never be in that office. Her nomination shows that Biden and Klain don't give a hoot about unity or actual qualifications.

[NorthDakota]

Evidently she deleted over 1,000 "mean" tweets. lol

'Mean tweets' threaten Biden budget pick Tanden as U.S. moderates balk

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2AM16Z

Shes a conspiracy theorist too. The more you read about her the more you laugh.

[IrishLax]

I've personally been trying to understand the whole Uyghur thing and how to make sense of it all. Since I have worked in China, I am probably much more sympathetic to them than most in this forum. But I have trouble seeing what they're doing as a systematic moral wrong. As I've read, the Xinjiang province has had a huge terrorism problem due to a radical stream of Islam that has taught Muslims in parts of Xinjiang that they are guaranteed heaven if they kill non-believers. That's why some such followers just started hacking people to death on the streets or taking their car and running them over. If this is correct, then from my point of view the steps China has taken are justifiable. They've taken a proactive approach to this by bringing Uyghurs into training schools (or the "concentration camps" as western media likes to call them) that de-radicalize them, and give them professional training in Mandarin and job skills to put their life on the right direction. It seems to be well documented that there is a level of freedom at such training schools since the students there are free to return home regularly, such as on a weekly basis if not more often (I say that this is well documented since the documentaries on the anti-Chinese side that have tried to see what's happening at the schools without the peering eye of the Chinese government have also filmed the students leaving the schools).

I suppose one worry is that, even if some go to these schools voluntarily, others are put there forcibly. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have anyone forced into a school or a camp. But a world with the sorts of terrorism problems that are present isn't an ideal world. It's a tricky problem with perhaps no great solution. Do you take a more passive approach and just let people be trained in radical teachings and then deal with the consequences later? Or do you take a more proactive approach and rework people's mindsets before they commit acts of terrorism? China is taking the latter approach, and I don't see that that approach is any morally worse than the alternatives. It does involve cutting off freedoms, such as the freedom to not be coerced into training of sorts. But perhaps that’s a freedom worth giving up if it means that residents of Xinjiang have their freedom to life (not being killed by knife and car attacks) preserved.

This is sort of where I’m at right now. I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the system China is employing. Perhaps there are abuses occurring, I have heard cases of rape, and if such things happen they certainly should be condemned and stopped (and I would assume China would agree on this point). But I think the overall plan that China has is an acceptable one given the tough situation they are in.

I still want to do more research on this, and that’s part of why I’m posting here to see where my blinders might be. But I also thought it might be healthy for the board if I presented my minority-ish view. (And I’m sorry if this has been discussed to death elsewhere…)

Very thoughtful post, thanks for sharing.

[longliveautrydenson]

This is 100% bullshit and narrative. Mean tweets are only a part of the problem.

The reality is that Neera Tanden is a disgusting person and is not qualified or with anything close to the right temperament to be in the building, nonetheless in charge. She has a history of terrible management at CAP, violent outbursts, outing sexual harassment victims at her own org, and being a sick person. She has openly floated wildly flawed Russiagate theories, the idea that Russia tweaked vote totals (insurrection?) and that Anthony Kennedy was bought off by the Russians. Her tweets are indicative that she is insane and should never be in that office. Her nomination shows that Biden and Klain don't give a hoot about unity or actual qualifications.

1. I don’t like Neera Tanden. This is not a defense of her.

2. I’m not sure you are a good arbiter of what constitutes a disgusting person given your recent posts in this thread. What purpose does it serve sharing hacked text messages from Hunter Biden? He is a deeply flawed private citizen who has no role in this Administration.

3. I would suggest the mods move any discussion of Hunter Biden elsewhere and reserve this thread for actual discussions of Biden Administration. There are certainly good discussions to be had here about the current president and his policies. I don’t think delighting in the past missteps of a recovering drug addict are one of them.