President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I guess the easiest answer is that one can deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and remove them from the population. You can't do that for US citizens. Or, if you prefer, we can have the crimes committed by US citizens only, or by both US citizens and immigrants. It may not be the best bang for the buck, but it's an easy fifty cents.

Why publish the list if not to highlight to people that immigrants commit crimes (while hiding the fact that they do so in lower rates than Americans)? Plus you can deport them when they are arrested if you simply increase community resources and police staffing levels.

He is trying to force a narrative and we all know feelings are now more important than facts.

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

Three issues.

One, we've been over this before. There is no way that stricter gun control will have any noticeable effect on the crime rate. Absent a change to the Constitution, which is not going to happen, there can be no significant further restrictions on the right to own the weapons which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crime in the US, let alone actually figuring out how to enforce such a 'removal'. The solution is going to have to lie elsewhere for purely practical reasons.

An armed militia to defend against invaders; either you adhere to the letter of to the law and only allow guns available at the time when it was written or you update what it means and ban guns because such an invasion will never happen today. You can't have it both ways; either it means what is literally written or if you want to interpret it with modern meaning then you update the definition accordingly.

Secondly, Trump's position, which is shared by the majority of the States, is in line with the trend of the last thirty years which is to loosen restrictions on carriage of firearms. He is on record as supporting nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, for example (A bill for such was introduced into Congress last month). It is not an outlier position: 43 States now default to allowing their citizens to be armed in public, the number has only been increasing over time. And it's not just a policy position either: The last State to outright prohibit the practice (Illinois) was told in no uncertain terms by the 7th Circuit that they had to allow it to some extent a couple of years ago. That level of extent is still being debated, 26 States just submitted briefs last week to the Supreme Court (the Peruta case) that restrictions such as those currently in California and Illinois should be further relaxed. Now, though it is important to note the distinction between those lawfully armed, who are generally not causing trouble, and those unlawfully armed who usually are causing trouble, the latter is already, well, illegal. Whether or not better efforts could be made at targetting those is certainly open to question, but I suspect the 'guns off the street' laws that most such folks are advocating are those which would generally affect the first group more than the second.

You can be diagnosed mentally ill and legally buy a gun; you seriously don't think there's a problem there? Or how about the number of school shootings happen with legally bought guns? Selling at gun shows without any checks? You want to fix that you start with restricting who can buy what (assault rifles anyone?) with mandatory checks. Because civilians have shown over and over again they are not capable nor suitable to try to protect themselves and let alone the people around them and put way to many guns in hands of crazies which also help drive police violence. You see if countries such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK or Germany can manage this with lower murder rate per capita you might figure out that it's doable in the USA as well and actually be safer because of it. And if you pull up the "but criminals would have guns" well duh, they do in Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK or Germany as well but in far smaller quantities because there are far fewer guns "to get lost by accident".

Thirdly, Leroy's position on what the voters want is not wrong. You decry the voters as 'stupid', but from the position of the typical conservative and I would argue most moderates, and I would hope even many liberals, no matter what the social background, how under-priviliged or oppressed someone is, they are still capable of comprehending the non-too-subtle concepts that "murdering people is bad" and "armed robbery isn't something society approves of either." Those folks are making the conscious choice to do such things, so regardless of what other programs may exist to solve the societal problems which exist, there is nothing inherently wrong with increasing the ability of the justice system to apprehend and convict those who make such a choice.

You are aware that poverty is the single biggest driver for someone to commit a crime (no matter their skin color), right? So by ensuring further poverty, by ensuring you send someone to jail because the car they drive don't have car tax paid etc. you drive a vicious cycle of further crime. Want to break that cycle then restore the American dream and actually help people get out of poverty and give a damn. Take the 56 billion to the army (wasted money) and as Sanders said you could pay for everyone's public college and university education with money to spare. That will go a hell of a lot longer towards keeping Americans safe then fattening up some more military companies purses with vanity projects which fail more often than not.

Akrasia

Christy42 wrote: »

Why publish the list if not to highlight to people that immigrants commit crimes (while hiding the fact that they do so in lower rates than Americans)? Plus you can deport them when they are arrested if you simply increase community resources and police staffing levels.

He is trying to force a narrative and we all know feelings are now more important than facts.

It's propaganda 101. Breitbart has been publishing lists of crimes by immigrants and muslims for years.

It works based on something called 'The availability Heuristic'
Essentially, this means that people think that something is either common or rare based on how easily they can remember instances of that thing.

If your family and friends happened to be toyota owners, you would think Toyotas are the most common car brand.

If there are weekly reports of crimes committed by immigrants, if someone asks you 'do you think immigrants are more likely to be criminals' you'll be able to remember dozens of instances of immigrants committing horrible crimes so it becomes ingrained in your understanding of the world that immigrants = criminals

Its the first stage towards dehumanising them so that the public will be more likely to accept future crackdowns to 'make the country safe again'

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

I notice a theme emerging amongst the posts praising him. They never refer back to what he said. The speech was well given but the content was worrying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-speech-voice-immigrants-crimes-list-agency-donald-joint-address-congress-a7604836.html

Voice for instance is purely a measure to blame crimes on immigrants. Especially the published weekly list (racist vigilantes are going to love that). Curious as to why he is limiting it to immigrants (there does not seem to be a limitation to illegal) as opposed to including crimes committed by the good honest folk of America (who commit crimes in higher numbers http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-congress-speech-immigrants-crime-debunked-a7604906.html).

In fairness to him he did finally call out the anti semitic attacks (he was asked the question a week ago and ran away from it then).

Nice links to back up your point by the way.

Interesting you keep referring to non-American links could not find any unbiased American websites.

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting you keep referring to non-American links could not find any unbiased American websites.

Are you suggesting that the London Independent is 'fake news'?

What difference does it make if it's an american media source, or a foreign one, as long as it has a good reputation for verifying their facts before reporting them.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting you keep referring to non-American links could not find any unbiased American websites.

They showed up on Google first. Does it matter to you? Are they in any way incorrect? You have yet to provide links to your position so possibly you should not be throwing stones here.

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

They showed up on Google first. Does it matter to you? Are they in any way incorrect? You have yet to provide links to your position so possibly you should not be throwing stones here.

I'm not posting links because i am doing it deliberately. There is no reason to post links that are irrelevant. I am talking about what is already known i don't have to back this up with links every time i post. The other poster is using non-American links to produce facts that can easily be obtained from sites within America. The unfortunate reality is that most American links are biased and this is a concern many Americans have had for a long while. A lot of the big stories over the last few years were broken by the Guardian say from the UK, Wikileaks, Snowdon currently wanted by law enforcement agencies for treason. A variety of online publications that have been thrashed by the mainsteam media incl Trump himself speaking about dishonest media.

KingBrian2

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the London Independent is 'fake news'?

What difference does it make if it's an american media source, or a foreign one, as long as it has a good reputation for verifying their facts before reporting them.

I disagree Americans should have homegrown media that is informing the voters what their gvt is up not having to get it when they come to Europe on their holidays. Yes i realise that with the Internet we know what goes on everywhere in the world but with instant communication we now have a feed directly to the President of the US. In this new era the old media is fighting against online publications that reveal more about the truth than the current lot could ever hope to achieve. Welcome to the 21st century Gutenberg eat your heart out.

Kitsunegari

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting you keep referring to non-American links could not find any unbiased American websites.

I don't think there is a media outlet in the US with a rock solid reputation. Some reporters such as Friedman will always deliver an honest assessment of US politics but laregly the US media will print whatever they're told to print and there are very few 'journalists' left.

Pete29

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I don't think there is a media outlet in the US with a rock solid reputation. Some reporters such as Friedman will always deliver an honest assessment of US politics but laregly the US media will print whatever they're told to print and there are very few 'journalists' left.

Is there any media outlet that's complete rock solid? Everyone in the news business is human and everyone makes mistakes and has their biases.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting you keep referring to non-American links could not find any unbiased American websites.

Dismissing links because you don't like the source is against the charter.

Manic Moran

Nody wrote: »

An armed militia to defend against invaders; either you adhere to the letter of to the law and only allow guns available at the time when it was written or you update what it means and ban guns because such an invasion will never happen today. You can't have it both ways; either it means what is literally written or if you want to interpret it with modern meaning then you update the definition accordingly.

That argument has been tried and rejected. Quoting SCOTUS:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. "

You can be diagnosed mentally ill and legally buy a gun;

Umm. I'm fairly sure that federal law prohibits posession of firearms to anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.". There are also many State laws on the issue. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx VA Tech showed that the prohibition was not being well applied, due to the various systems not talking to each other. The solution identified was to fix the system, not pass new laws.

Or how about the number of school shootings happen with legally bought guns?

Definitely a problem. How would you envision a practical gun control law stopping them by focusing on the weapon?

Selling at gun shows without any checks?

Fixing this, I agree with. Not least, it merely expands current policy, without making any new classes of crime or prohibition.

You want to fix that you startwith restricting who can buy what (assault rifles anyone?) with mandatory checks.

They already are restricted by the 1934 NFA.

Because civilians have shown over and over again they are not capable nor suitable to try to protect themselves and let alone the people around them and put way to many guns in hands of crazies which also help drive police violence.

Yet there is no sustainable reason to prohibit the carriage of firearms from private citizens. See, for example, this week's Brief by the Governor of Texas (And other States): http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-California_Brief-of-the-Governors-of-Texas-Arizona-et-al-as-Amici-Curiae-In-Support-of-Petitioners.pdf
"CHL holders are more than 10 times less likely to commit a crime in Texas as compared to the general population. And it is not just the overall crime rate. Even for crimes that often involve guns-such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, or deadly conduct involving discharge of a firearm-the crime
rate for CHL holders is much smaller than for the general population. As illustrated by Table 2, a CHL holder in Texas is 11 times less likely to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And as illustrated by Table 3, a CHL holder in Texas is 7 times less likely to commit deadly conduct involving a firearm. And Texas is not unusual.
[...]Amici are aware of no research suggesting that CHL laws increase crime or otherwise threaten public safety. "

This is a government position, supported by the State's statistics, not NRA hacks or VCDL assessment.

You see if countries such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK or Germany can manage this with lower murder rate per capita you might figure out that it's doable in the USA as well and actually be safer because of it. And if you pull up the "but criminals would have guns" well duh, they do in Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK or Germany as well but in far smaller quantities because there are far fewer guns "to get lost by accident".

Let us stipulate the above is a fact for the sake of argument. This brings us back to my point 1. The law does not permit the prohibiting of an individual to own a handgun absent justifiable restrictions (the aforementioned mental defective, felony, etc). The law is not likely to change in the near or medium term futures. Arguing about it is going to achieve nothing. What's the practical suggestion?

You are aware that poverty is the single biggest driver for someone to commit a crime (no matter their skin color), right? So by ensuring further poverty, by ensuring you send someone to jail because the car they drive don't have car tax paid etc. you drive a vicious cycle of further crime. Want to break that cycle then restore the American dream and actually help people get out of poverty and give a damn. Take the 56 billion to the army (wasted money) and as Sanders said you could pay for everyone's public college and university education with money to spare. That will go a hell of a lot longer towards keeping Americans safe then fattening up some more military companies purses with vanity projects which fail more often than not.

No particular arguments to this, other than to observe that they are not incompatible with the thought of an effective judicial system.

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

That argument has been tried and rejected. Quoting SCOTUS:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. "

Bolded the important part; exactly like Wade vs. Roe changed how something was interpreted nothing stops this from changing again as society evolves. 100 years ago you'd have the court supporting racial segregation which today you'd consider unacceptable. A ruling; esp. one that's purely an interpretation of the constitution can and should change as society changes.

Umm. I'm fairly sure that federal law prohibits posession of firearms to anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.". There are also many State laws on the issue. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx VA Tech showed that the prohibition was not being well applied, due to the various systems not talking to each other. The solution identified was to fix the system, not pass new laws.

The Senate voted Wednesday to join the House in revoking the rule. It would have required the Social Security Administration to add about 75,000 people, currently on disability support, to the national background check database and deny them gun purchases. These individuals suffer schizophrenia, psychotic disorders and other problems to such an extent that they are unable to manage their financial affairs and other basic tasks without help.

Yet they should be allowed to buy guns; because it's important that people who can't handle basic things such as financial affairs own guns.

Definitely a problem. How would you envision a practical gun control law stopping them by focusing on the weapon?

Same way as noted above; limit the guns sale and enforce guns to be stored in locked certified gun cabinets in two separate parts of the house.

In regards to concealed carry; why do you need it in the first place? The police is specifically there to enforce the law and it would save hundreds of people who die every year from accidents at home.

By the end of 2015, about 265 children under 18 picked up a firearm and shot someone by accident, and 83 of those shootings were fatal, according to research compiled by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Some 41 of those deaths involved the shooters themselves, and most of the shootings involved toddlers or teens who were playing recklessly with the guns.

Guns don't belong on citizens; hunting rifles with local police approval stored appropriately I can see a reason for. Guns, no, sorry. The police is there for a reason so get them to do their job and the point of gun carrying civilians to react to react appropriately in an intense situation is simply asking for problems. In regards to concealed gun carriers being more law abiding; compare two groups of equal income and racial distribution and I'll listen. Until then all you're saying is people who can afford to buy guns and get permits are more law abiding; however the most common driver for a criminal record is income (or lack there of). Hence showing that poor people commit more crime vs. rich people with guns is not really backing up any argument about the validity or reason for people to carry guns; only that rich people are less likely to commit crimes (and get caught) than poor people.

demfad

jobbridge4life wrote: »

IS this your own private conjecture about whatlies out there or is it based on something you have read from credible or mostly credible sources?

The latter. I can go through the entirety again if anyone is interested.
For now consider this recent CNN report. This caused the whitehouse to go into full Nixon cover up mode last weekend. Senators were rolled out, FBI agents to refute etc etc.
The reason is simple. The FBI captured and interviewed (with CIA) a hacker called Nikulin on Prague. Assuming he was one of the Hackers mentioned in the Steele dossier then he will have collaborated with some in Trumps team.
The U.S. Knows Russia hacked the DNC servers this is provable. If Nikulin had talked with any member (the way WH panicked he had plenty to say) then that is impeachment. A big inquiry and impeachment.
That's just Nikulin. They will have Dimitri Firtash (connected with Manafort) and Flynn. Not to mention Carter Page. Not to mention the encyclopaedia of Russian mobsters, money laundering , that Trump has. Every crooked businessman and billionaire who knows Trump will be dragged in.
For trump to be tried for treason someone will have to spill.
Here's Carter page denying it to Jon Snow. How do you think poor Carter will do under FBI interrogation?

https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-carter-page-interview

Manic Moran

Nody wrote: »

Bolded the important part; exactly like Wade vs. Roe changed how something was interpreted nothing stops this from changing again as society evolves. 100 years ago you'd have the court supporting racial segregation which today you'd consider unacceptable. A ruling; esp. one that's purely an interpretation of the constitution can and should change as society changes.

It is not like Roe v Wade. The method of interpreting the Constitution is probably the most fundamental, fixed part of the way the US Courts operate. They can certainly conclude differences of opinion on the result of the interpretation, but just like "The People" is given the same meaning throughout the Constitution, so is the concept of applicability for new technology. In theory, sure, I guess that the Judges could decide to change their tune, but they don't like doing so in the face of lengthy precedent. Roe v Wade is pretty recent and restricted to a single part of the Constitution.

Yet they should be allowed to buy guns; because it's important that people who can't handle basic things such as financial affairs own guns.

How did I know you were going to come up with that one? The ACLU is a believer in the 'collective rights' theory, that individuals should not have a right to own guns. Here's what their senior lawyer had to say about the repeal:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/20/gun-control-congress-aclu-editorials-debates/98147914/

"But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular. [...] The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights."

(My bold)

Same way as noted above; limit the guns sale and enforce guns to be stored in locked certified gun cabinets in two separate parts of the house.

We have already agreed that most of the weapons used in mass shootings are lawfully acquired. What is to stop the lawful owner from opening his cabinets, putting the two pieces together, and then going off and doing mischief?

In regards to concealed carry; why do you need it in the first place? The police is specifically there to enforce the law and it would save hundreds of people who die every year from accidents at home.

The concept is that the police are not always there to protect you. (It is not just theory, it is settled caselaw that they have no duty to any individual). Besides, if the accident happens at home, then there is no need for a license to concealed carry. It is also worth noting the philosophical difference between being the victim of a crime (not your fault) and having an accident (your own fault).

In any case, the parade of horribles which comes up every time a State proposes loosening carrying laws has never happened. Not once. Quoting the Western States Sheriff's brief: "San Diego County’s assertions that allowing lawabiding citizens to carry concealed will result in firearms accidents on public streets, escalation of minor altercations into public gun battles, and a need to adopt extreme security measures at every place that is open to the public are unfounded. When states began implementing “shall-issue” systems, similar dire
predictions were made. Those fears turned out to be baseless. No state that implemented a “shall-issue” system has reverted to a highly restrictive system or imposed a de facto ban such as the one in San Diego County. "

Speaking of police opinion, from the same brief:

"The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked: “Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 19. The results were overwhelming: 91.3% of the respondents selected “Yes, without question and without further restrictions,” and only 8.6% were of the belief that concealed carry should be restricted to law enforcement officers, were neutral, or were unsure. [...]
"Regarding concealed carry specifically, the chiefs and sheriffs were asked [by the National Association of Chiefs of Police] “Does your department support nationwide recognition of state issued concealed weapon permits?” Of these law enforcement leaders, 86.4% answered “Yes,” eight times as many as the 10.6% who answered “No.”

So, there is no evidence that concealed carry causes trouble, and the police who have to deal with the results of concealed carry also seem to support it. That, I think, shuts down the argument about lawful carriage. The arguments thus are confined to ownership and accessibility, not carriage.

Guns don't belong on citizens; hunting rifles with local police approval stored appropriately I can see a reason for. Guns, no, sorry.

Well, we seem to simply have an impassable difference of opinion here.

The police is there for a reason so get them to do their job and the point of gun carrying civilians to react to react appropriately in an intense situation is simply asking for problems.

Doesn't seem to have resulted in particularly many issues yet. If Illinois could not provide a single evidentiary argument in defense of its prohibition on the basis of experience of the 49 other States which had no blanket prohibition (as noted by the 7th Circuit), it seems that the problems being asked for are simply not showing up. In any case, the phrase "There's never a cop around when you want one" still applies.

In regards to concealed gun carriers being more law abiding; compare two groups of equal income and racial distribution and I'll listen. Until then all you're saying is people who can afford to buy guns and get permits are more law abiding; however the most common driver for a criminal record is income (or lack there of). Hence showing that poor people commit more crime vs. rich people with guns is not really backing up any argument about the validity or reason for people to carry guns; only that rich people are less likely to commit crimes (and get caught) than poor people.

Well then, since we've agreed that the folks who can legally buy and carry guns aren't a particular crime problem, what's the objection?

listermint

For the amount of research you do manic.

I'm perplexed how you can come to terms with the creation of a task force who is designed to hunt down immigrants and publish lists about them.

Being yourself an immigrant to the united states I expected a more social view.

How does one countance these thoughts with their own experience. For example trump is and has thrown out family's of active service men.

Manic Moran

I'm not entirely sure about the practical purpose of such lists, other than posturing. I'm not a fan of posturing by politicians.
For full disclosure, I'm a dual citizen by birth. Immigration in my case was easy. It wasn't for my girlfriend, she couldn't get in. (We broke up as a result).

However, something which seems to be missing from a lot of the discussion is the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. There are three categories of opinion that I can tell: Those who support the privileges of all immigrants to remain in the country regardless of how they got in (and to within a spectrum, for example, how long they've been in may be a factor); those who are fine with legal immigration, but are far less generous towards illegal immigration (Again, with a bit of a spectrum, such as debating just how many H-1B visas should be issued); and those who are not fans of immigrants of any flavor. I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, maybe slightly on the left side of the line. The last group are, I think, a decided minority. Trump is obviously well to the right on that line than Obama was, but he has not expanded any laws. Congress back in the Clinton years passed the laws Trump is relying on, such as the 'two-year-limit' for expedited deportations. Neither Bush nor Obama chose to actually go more than 14 days, but the law itself is long-standing and perfectly valid for enforcement.

I suspect that the servicemen family thing is an omission which will be fixed. The Army is very big on making sure that soldiers don't have troubles at home to distract them away from doing their jobs in combat, so I'm sure it'll pass up through Mattis and get fixed. That said, there is also a notable amount of servicemen who have also been deported over the years. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/deported-veterans-support-house-hector-barajas-tijuana-mexico/ so it is a topic as a whole which seems to have been going on for several years without entirely satisfactory resolution yet.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, something which seems to be missing from a lot of the discussion is the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. There are three categories of opinion that I can tell: Those who support the privileges of all immigrants to remain in the country regardless of how they got in (and to within a spectrum, for example, how long they've been in may be a factor); those who are fine with legal immigration, but are far less generous towards illegal immigration (Again, with a bit of a spectrum, such as debating just how many H-1B visas should be issued); and those who are not fans of immigrants of any flavor . . .

Well, among those who may be blurring the distinction is Trump himself. In his comments on the new agency he has directed the Dept of Homeland Security to set up, he distinguishes between "American victims" and "immigrant crime". Words like "illegal" or "undocumented" are conspicuous by their omission. And the London Independent is reporting that the new measures will include publication of a weekly list of all crimes committed by aliens. There's apparently to be no distinction made between permanent residents, temporary residents and undocumented aliens.

As for the practical purpose of the list, I share your cynicism, and perhaps even exceed it. The stated purpose of the new agency is "to serve American victims". There's no attempt to explain how the publication of a list of crimes is supposed to serve the victims, still less any hints as to why victims of crimes committed by aliens need this service in a way that victims of crimes committed by US citizens do not. So what's going on here?

One of the things that leaps out when you read the text of Trump's speech is that he never explicitly states that there is a link between immigration (or illegal immigration) and crime, while constantly either hinting that he believes this, or making statements which only make sense if this is true. The purpose of the proposed link is simply to call attention to crimes committed by immigrants, thereby giving them greater visibility and assisting the formation of a public impression that immigration is linked to crime in a way that is not, in fact, the case.

Manic Moran

I will generally agree with you, especially with the last paragraph. But I will observe a caveat: Even legal immigrants are present at the sufferance of the host nation, and it is not unreasonable to make adherence to the laws a condition of that presence. My unfounded suspicion is that visa-holders are one of the most law-abiding segments of American society as a result, so there probably won't be very much to report, but inherently I see nothing wrong with the concept of reporting the facts along the lines of 'this is the benefit we get from legal immigration, and this is the downside.' It would come down to presentation. After all, the figures, if correctly provided, could well prove counterproductive in a 'propoganda campaign' to prove just how law-abiding they are given that legal immigrants are a known quantity.

InTheTrees

Breaking news tonight in the US.

There's a report out saying that attorney general Jeff sessions met with the Russian ambassador twice during the campaign while he was acting as an advisor to the trump campaign.

He denied any meetings took place during questioning at his confirmation hearing. Under oath.

Its possible he will have to resign. He'll certainly have to recuse himself from the investigations into Russian interference in the elections. It may also mean the appointment of a special prosecutor.

I haven't heard yet what is the source of the "report" . I wonder if its more FBI or CIA leaks?

Peregrinus

The source of the report is the US Dept of Justice, on the record. So there isn't any doubt; Sessions did meet the Russian Ambassador.

Sessions' stance is not that he didn't meet the ambassador; it's that he met the ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whereas the questions put to him at his confirmation referred to his role as an adviser to the Trump Campaign.

(Impressed? No, me neither. A bit too jesuitical. But that's the line they're running with.)

As to whether there has been a leak, so far as I can make out the Dept of Justice offered information about the meetings in response to an inquiry from the Washington Post. It's possible that the Post were acting on a tip-off, but it's also possible that they were simply doing research for a story, and asked a question which elicited this answer.

jooksavage

Peregrinus wrote: »

The source of the report is the US Dept of Justice, on the record. So there isn't any doubt; Sessions did meet the Russian Ambassador.

Sessions' stance is not that he didn't meet the ambassador; it's that he met the ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whereas the questions put to him at his confirmation referred to his role as an adviser to the Trump Campaign.

(Impressed? No, me neither. A bit too jesuitical. But that's the line they're running with.)

As to whether there has been a leak, so far as I can make out the Dept of Justice offered information about the meetings in response to an inquiry from the Washington Post. It's possible that the Post were acting on a tip-off, but it's also possible that they were simply doing research for a story, and asked a question which elicited this answer.

That line about meeting Kislyak in his capacity on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be enough for the die-hard Trump supporters. However it doesn't sound too convincing, especially when it looks like no other members on that committee met with Russian diplomats. The fact that the outcome of this revelation is more than uncertain speaks volumes about where US politics is heading.

Manic Moran

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14786100/jeff-sessions-russia-trump

Has the transcript of the exchange, and some opinion.

Peregrinus

jooksavage wrote: »

That line about meeting Kislyak in his capacity on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be enough for the die-hard Trump supporters. However it doesn't sound too convincing, especially when it looks like no other members on that committee met with Russian diplomats. The fact that the outcome of this revelation is more than uncertain speaks volumes about where US politics is heading.

Well, two thoughts.

First, it's not the "die-hard Trump supporters" they need to convince on this. If Jeff Sessions lied here, he lied to Congress. He lied about meeting the Russian ambassador while he was a senior member of the Trump campaign. And Jeff Sessions is the man in charge of the investigation into Russian involvement in the election - an investigation which is being conducted to satisfy Congress. So the question comes down to this; will Congress now be satisfied with an investigation presided over by Jeff Sessions? Flynn had to go because he lied to the Vice-President about this. If Congress take the view that Sessions lied to them about this, he's toast. The views of "diehard Trump supporters" won't come into it.

And the second thought: Yes, all these allegations regarding ties to Russia may end up being nothing. Maybe it's all perfectly innocent, nothing to worry about. But why do they lie about it? Every. F@cking. Time?

On edit: several senior Democrats in Congress have already called on Sessions to resign. That, of course, is entirely predictable. The reactions to watch for are those of the Republicans in Congress.

B_Wayne

The big question is how many of these scenarios have to play out before people admit that Trump campaign had complete knowledge of these meetings.

BabyCheeses

This administration had a lot of secret meetings with Russia. If they are just wanting better relations then why hide it? As I heard elsewhere, at this point it would be quicker to just investigate who has ties with America.

The mention of pizza in emails is enough to raise suspicion but secret meetings with Russia is nothing?

Sam Russell

The proposed list of crimes committed by aliens - will that be after conviction by a court of law or merely on suspicion?

If it is after due process, surely the list will be cold comfort to the victims and will be little good for propaganda. They can of course make up the details if it is merely on suspicion.

jooksavage

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the second thought: Yes, all these allegations regarding ties to Russia may end up being nothing. Maybe it's all perfectly innocent, nothing to worry about. But why do they lie about it? Every. F@cking. Time?

This. It's one misleading statement or outright lie from them after another. It's entirely reasonable at this stage to assume there's something pretty bad behind all of this.

26000 Elephants

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, something which seems to be missing from a lot of the discussion is the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

Why should it be a distinction when it is not a distinction for Trump?

There is only one 'i' in VOICE. 'i' for immigrant. Nothing about illegal.

Indeed, why should there be any distinction when it comes to crime? If you are beaten and raped by a white, US born criminal are you in some ways less of a victim than if the perpetrator was an immigrant? Do ordinary crimes become extraordinarily heinous depending upon their status?

*edit* Ah, I see Peregrinus made this point already. Apologies.

Quin_Dub

Granted it's from Fox News, but they are quoting the Justice department as saying the following..

The Justice Department said late Wednesday that one of the discussions between Sessions and Sergey Kislyak was an office visit that occurred in Sessions' capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The second conversation took place in a group setting with other ambassadors following a Heritage Foundation speech.

If that is true then neither meeting would appear to have offered Sessions any real opportunity for nefarious activities...

However as another poster said , his response to the question during his confirmation hearings was "Jesuitical" to say the least.

Fundamentally , if there's nothing to hide why all the obfuscation about the interactions between Trump and his extended team with the Russians?