HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jirel » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jul 15, 2019, 06:26 PM
Number of posts: 1,928

Journal Archives

President Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy blocked in federal court

Source: Washington Post

A federal appeals court in California halted the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy on Friday, a blow to the president’s restrictive immigration agenda that cripples one of the government’s approaches to curbing migration across the U.S. southern border.

The program — officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP — called for pushing asylum seekers back into Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearings, part of an effort to limit migrant access to U.S. soil and to lessen a record migration surge among Central American families. More than 470,000 parents and children crossed into the United States last fiscal year, and most were quickly freed into the country to await U.S. immigration court hearings after they claimed asylum.

The Trump administration has claimed that the migrant families have been exploiting loopholes in U.S. law to secure their release, knowing of the court-mandated 20-day limit for detaining children. The MPP program was designed to prevent families from entering the United States and later skipping their court hearings to avoid deportation; instead, families have been sitting on the Mexico side of the border.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold a lower-court’s injunction on MPP, saying that the policy “is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with” federal law, and “should be enjoined in its entirety.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-remain-in-mexico-halted-federal-court/2020/02/28/87bbf85e-e481-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0lbOcHN16KJHrPeRfdHjmyIJm1i_k0XBqnn8-R0psO4B4aNDbkYwpalZQ

End this fetishization of "unity."

The Democratic Party is not "unified" behind a candidate after 3 state contests.
The Democratic Party has half a dozen candidates still in the race.

This is literally how it's supposed to work. Unity comes from testing candidates across all the primaries and caucuses, until the convention. If only one is left standing much earlier, fine. If not, fine.

You can not cause people to "unify" behind one candidate by begging for unity. The magic wish fairy doesn't do political races.

"Unity" is a hypocritical dog whistle.

A plea for "unity" actually means, "OMG, I can't stand candidate X, but my second and third favorites are Y and Z. But a lot of people like candidate X and **I** WON'T UNIFY BEHIND X! I'm going to try to get people to abandon X for Y or Z, asserting that, like, *EVERYONE* won't unify behind X... like me." It's childish, not to mention selfish.

If you don't like a candidate, argue about why you don't like what they stand for. Moaning about "unity" means you have nothing better to argue. Or, you don't want to reveal why you really hate candidate X. Hmm.

We unified pretty early in 2016. You know who didn't? The Republicans. A huge slate of candidates nigh unto forever, all of them hating Trump. All of their supporters hating Trump. The bloviating, demented bankruptcy-monkey reality show rapist was the most divisive they'd had in forever. Guess who won? Guess who unified themselves into insanity?

Unity is a double-edged sword. Pressure to unify on a plan leads to groupthink as the plan starts going awry but the united can't let go of the plan because... unity.

So let unity happen as it will. Stop begging for it, threatening for it, fetishizing it. It's not the end - it's a means.

In the spirit of honesty, who will YOU, PERSONALLY not unify behind if they became the nominee?

Analysis of why picking a moderate candidate is anything but safe.

The prevailing argument about “electability” is all wrong. Dems win when they fire up their base, with people like Obama (and this year, Liz or Bernie). They lose when they try to aim for the meek middle, believing they can pick up swing voters, while deprecating the issues that excite people and bring them to the polls (Kerry, Gore, Hillary).

As she sees it, it isn’t quite right to refer to a Democratic or Republican “base.” Rather, there are Democratic and Republican coalitions, the first made of people of color, college-educated whites and people in metropolitan areas; the second, mostly noncollege whites, with a smattering of religious- minded voters, financiers and people in business, largely in rural and exurban counties.

“In the polarized era, the outcome isn’t really about the candidates. What matters is what percentage of the electorate is Republican and Republican leaners, and what percentage is Democratic and Democratic leaners, and how they get activated,” she said.
[S]he maintains that actual swing voters are a small percentage of the result, even in counties where the vote swing is as large as Wasserman describes. Don’t talk to people in the bleachers of rallies; check the voter file, she says. “It would be one thing if that county had 100,000 people in it who voted in 2012, and then it was the same 100,000 who voted in 2016, but that is not what is happening,” she says. “The pool of who shows up changes.”
But still, the results bore out her theory: For Democrats to win, they need to fire up Democratic-minded voters. The Blue Dogs who tried to narrow the difference between themselves and Trump did worse, overall, than the Stacey Abramses and Beto O’Rourkes, whose progressive ideas and inspirational campaigns drove turnout in their own parties and brought them to the cusp of victory.
“I am arguing radical shit, OK?” Bitecofer told me over a series of phone calls over the past several weeks in her Virginia office. “What I am saying is that almost all of this shit is set in stone for three years, that almost none of the shit that people are hanging onto, in terms of daily articles, or polls, or the economy or incumbency or ideology is really worth that much.”

Go to Page: 1