Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > There's fewer Mexican rapists inside our borders now

There's fewer Mexican rapists inside our borders now (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think it's a little simpler than conspiracy, but point taken.

I basically see it as thus: Trump Admin comes in, says "Meat's back in the menu boys!" and leaves the room. Doesn't come back to check up on them. I don't see that as a 'conspiracy'.
That sounds a lot more similar to what I'm saying, and different than...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So the short answer is I think behind-the-scenes they've been told differently than what they're presenting to us.
Is it possible I've nudged you closer to my argument?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 11:18 AM
 
I would say I'm open to both possibilities but certainly yours is simpler. Taking my own advice I shouldn't ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by indifference.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
That's my main argument.

I certainly wouldn't put a more aggressively nasty attitude past them, but that ironically makes it less likely.

Let's not ignore the literal elephant in the room. Trump has taken the things in a nasty enough direction not a single one of us batted an eye at the thought of these types of deportations being the official policy. It wasn't until over 80 posts in before someone bothered to check.

That tells me they could have just revoked the exception memo, like they've been doing to what seems like most Obama policy. No one would care... or more specifically, as demonstrated by this thread, anyone who would care is already assuming it's his official policy.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 07:28 PM
 
This is the shit I'm talking about: https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-2...ted-1491443231
Attorneys for Mr. Beristain had asked an immigration judge to rescind his removal order and to stay his removal. Attorneys had also filed a habeas petition challenging his detention.

But before his cases could be heard by a judge, ICE officials took him from a detention facility in Texas and dropped him off at the U.S.-Mexico border and had him walk across into Juarez, Mexico, his attorneys said in a statement.
Was this SOP under Obama? Or is this ICE of the chain? Would it be reasonable to assume this kind of shit won't stop until they get slapped on the wrist by the judicial system?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2017, 10:10 AM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 01:26 AM
 
*throws another on the pile*
Is Fairfield woman's deportation a sign of things to come?
"As Secretary Kelly has stated, ICE will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention, and if found removable by final order, removal from the United States," Khaalid Walls, a Detroit-based spokesman for ICE, said in a statement.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Quoting since I'm no longer on a phone:
The Department of Homeland Security reversed itself Wednesday saying that a young man, identified by USA TODAY as the first DREAMer to be deported by the Trump administration, had valid protective status despite its earlier claim.

On Tuesday, the department said its records showed the protective status of Juan Manuel Montes, 23, expired in 2015. On Wednesday, the department said that status was in fact valid until 2018.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Quoting since I'm no longer on a phone:
The article I read states that according to ICE, his status was revoked when he violated the terms of it. He's claiming that he didn't, and was forced to Mexico involuntarily by Border Patrol before trying to jump a fence back in. From what I've read, it should be easy to verify the story one way or the other, so at least for now the jury is still out on this one.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 04:36 PM
 
It says they reversed that stance, and he had valid protective status. No verification needed.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For instance, how many examples we need before a pattern can be established is a good question. You tell me. Making allowances for underreporting, a certain percentage of ICE employees being assholes, along with a certain percentage failing to sweat the details (gloss over the wrong paragraph, and the exceptions may as well not exist), how many examples do we need to start throwing around allegations their word doesn't match their actions?
Does 5,441 work?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.4dc37c453c05
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 21,362 immigrants, mostly convicted criminals, from January through mid-March, compared to 16,104 during the same period last year, according to statistics requested by The Washington Post.

Arrests of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled to 5,441, the clearest sign yet that President Trump has ditched his predecessor’s protective stance toward most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
In Trump's defense, it appears Obama was just as bad if not worse in his asshole years.


I also think as far as noncriminal percentage of total arrests, its a toss up between 2014 and 2017.

---

Overall, deportations are down by 1.2 percent, to 54,741 in January, February and March, compared to the same period last year. Elzea said it can take time to remove someone from the United States, but the number of noncriminals deported is higher this year, while the number of criminals who were deported fell. Despite his pledge to send criminals packing, Trump has struggled to get countries such as China to take their citizens back.
Advocates for immigrants say they also criticized Obama as the “deporter in chief” and waged a national campaign to create sanctuary cities to shield immigrants from deportation.

But they said Obama sought to avoid deporting longtime immigrants with roots in their communities and American-born children. He also lobbied Congress to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and granted work permits to more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

And in a November 2014 memo, Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson restricted immigration arrests mainly to criminals and those who recently crossed the U.S. border, and immigration arrests plunged.
In January, he issued executive orders that made all undocumented immigrants at risk of deportation. In February, Trump’s press secretary said the “shackles” were off immigration and border agents, whose unions backed Trump in the election.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
What percentage of that 5,411 qualify for an exception?

Lack of a criminal record doesn't grant the exception. The main vectors are being a minor, or having legal ties to an American citizen (marriage and/or parentage).
( Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2017 at 10:04 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
I'm under the impression that the bill of goods sold was prioritizing the removal of criminals. That's what this thread has been about since the OP, right?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 04:18 PM
 
The bill of goods are people on the exception list getting deported.

The two key stories... the one from the OP, and the one with the woman who voted Trump, were being granted exceptions.

That's what's so ignoble about the deportations, right? They were handed out to people making the ICE check-ins required to maintain the exception.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 04:42 PM
 
Okay, that's fair. Though you missed the third example above. The one where they deported a guy before a judge could weigh in.

And of course the guy who was deported but then they said had a legal exception not to be.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 05:40 PM
 
This isn't helping: ‘We’ll See’: Sessions on Whether DREAMers Will Be Deported | Law News
Sessions, who appeared Sunday on This Week, reemphasized the president’s policy that deportation will focus on people who commit crimes in the states, but he didn’t think DREAMers should necessarily get more protection from removal.

“So they can rest easy?” host George Stephanopoulos said about young immigrants benefitting from DACA.

“We’ll see,” said Sessions, who pointed out Homeland Security, not the Justice Department, had primary jurisdiction. “I believe that anyone who enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported. However, we’ve don’t have the ability to roundup everybody and there’s no plans to do that.”
I could see you highlighting the last paragraph as bolstering your case, however.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 02:47 PM
 
Well, it's both.

The exceptions are discretionary. The idea they can get yanked isn't new.

In terms of overall policy, I stand by what I said earlier.

There has been no agency wide directive to dispense with the exceptions.

Agents who are otherwise meeting their quota can be as magnanimous with exceptions as they see fit.

Agents who are cocksuckers will be allowed to continue as such as long as they don't get it made into a national story, or violate the prime directive to use resources judiciously.


I'll repeat though, even though this policy is "hands-off", the result will be net **********.


I guess cocksuckers is okay but ********** is not. This is singleist.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 02:57 PM
 
Well, if they're discretionary then they could have changed that discretion from erring on the side of letting people slide to erring toward bringing anyone in. Or is that conspiratorial?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, if they're discretionary then they could have changed that discretion from erring on the side of letting people slide to erring toward bringing anyone in. Or is that conspiratorial?
My instincts tell me it's conspiratorial.

This directive would need to make its way to thousands of people, pretty much guaranteeing there would be a leak.

Doing nothing is already a negative feedback loop. People with legit exceptions are rightfully scared to check-in with ICE, which can then be used grounds for getting the exception revoked.

However, both of these pale compared to the following: they could have done it publicly, and no one would have been surprised.

The exception is the Trump supporter wife who was roundly mocked. She was mocked because everybody here assumed they had done it publicly.

I keep saying, this thread went on for 80+ posts under the assumption this was their public policy. What is motivating them to do it Secret Squirrel style?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 03:57 PM
 
You've forgotten about this post:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 04:41 PM
 
The memo in question is superseded by the exception memos. The memo in question states this explicitly. This is the same memo we've been talking about the entire time.

That the memo says everyone else is fair game isn't under contention.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 05:10 PM
 
Memo memo memo.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The memo in question is superseded by the exception memos. The memo in question states this explicitly. This is the same memo we've been talking about the entire time.

That the memo says everyone else is fair game isn't under contention.
For the sake of my clarity, which memo supersedes which memo?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2017, 02:31 AM
 
Exception memo supersedes meat is on the menu memo.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Exception memo supersedes meat is on the menu memo.
Yeah, which came out when, made by who?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 02:23 PM
 
Exception memo one: DHS (Napolitano) June 2012
Exception memo two: DHS (Johnson) November 2014
Meat memo: DHS (Kelly) February 2017


Edit: and to put this into the context of the original question, the article from the OP references the 2017 memo for the changes in immigration policy, the Trump supporter wife article references the 2017 memo, and the article I "forgot" references the same 2017 memo.

All these articles are discussing the same thing. My response is the same to all of them, which is to reference the earlier memos. The earlier memos are relevant because the first paragraph of the 2017 memo states "these earlier memos are still in effect".
( Last edited by subego; May 6, 2017 at 03:54 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2017, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Exception memo one: DHS (Napolitano) June 2012
Exception memo two: DHS (Johnson) November 2014
Meat memo: DHS (Kelly) February 2017


Edit: and to put this into the context of the original question, the article from the OP references the 2017 memo for the changes in immigration policy, the Trump supporter wife article references the 2017 memo, and the article I "forgot" references the same 2017 memo.

All these articles are discussing the same thing. My response is the same to all of them, which is to reference the earlier memos. The earlier memos are relevant because the first paragraph of the 2017 memo states "these earlier memos are still in effect".
That's an important thing to note, but call me cynical if I'm not surprised if some agents read the Meat memo (available on pornhub) and threw nuance out the window. Lacking nuance, one might see them as contradicting.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017, 01:26 PM
 
https://twitter.com/elisefoley/statu...86962188169221
ICE arrested more than twice as many noncriminals in Trump’s first ~100 days than in the same period last year bit.ly/2qwLSB3
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
DHS is using stingrays to hunt illegals. Jesus.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ant/101859616/
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
I assume anyone who has a Stingray uses it for whatever they can get warrants for.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2017, 03:41 PM
 
That's when they bother to get warrants for it's use. IIRC there were some police departments using them without warrants.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2017, 04:18 PM
 
How recently? IIUC, some big change happened in 2014.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2017, 05:02 PM
 
Court ruling?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2017, 12:10 PM
 
Yes. Though I was skimming rapidly so I may have missed important details.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,