Author Topic: Stephen Miller  (Read 6284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #60 on: June 19, 2018, 02:15:42 PM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19138
  • Tommy Points: 183
  • MASTER OF PANIC
It is the rhetoric that is the problem, not the policy.  Policy can be changed (as Trump did recently) but that doesn't seem to be what all the shouting is about.  Resolving the overall immigration problem will not we easy.  It is a lesser of several evils type of problem.  No easy solutions.  But if this is the rhetoric that is wrapped around it, all you will get is more national division, just as the Russians want.  There is plenty of this on all sides but these days, there is clearly a central figure in promoting "Make America Divided".

A Trump Tweet:

Quote
"Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!" he wrote.

Question to some republican running for office:  Do you agree that Democrats want illegal immigrants to infest our Country? 

I actually think the republicans should impeach Trump, take their licks, and finally move on from him.  He is going to destroy the party.  You keep hearing things like "privately, republicans are concerned" but then nothing publicly.  Every day that goes by, republicans in general will own more and more of what Trump stands for, as in the case of this example.

I don’t think he’s destroying the party. He’s just bringing out the very worst in it - making it much worse than it was. Unfortunately, most who are on “team Republican” will rationalize and find a way to go along with him.

The Republican party as we once knew it is dead. It is now Trump's party and those that once stood against him (Cruz, Rubio, Graham, etc) now have sold out to stay in office.
“The rim is looking bigger and bigger every game.”

 Paul Pierce

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #61 on: June 19, 2018, 03:08:35 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
If we are following the letter of the law by separating children from their parents for the only crime of wanting to come to America for a better life, then we now know why former administrations, Democrat and Republican, weren't following the letter of the law, because its disgusting. The law needs to change.

The decision to create this environment falls squarely on the Trump administration. Of course, why should this surprise anyone. This president loves to alienate our allies and his new buddy is a guy that killed his family to come into power, starved his people out and has one of the worst human rights records of any leader in the world.

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #62 on: June 19, 2018, 03:38:59 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
It does lie with the executive.

Under prior administrations, a lot of people caught at the border were released to enter the United States illegally. That’s terrible policy.

Locking up children in subpar facilities is a terrible policy, although for different reasons.

So, what’s the middle ground?
Imprisoning an innocent man and letting a criminal walk free are both "terrible" judicial outcomes, yet they are not created equal.

To paraphrase what I said before (well, ok, someone else said it, I just blatantly ripped it off :P), if you somehow consider the two policies that you're describing to be equivalent, then we don't have a difference in political opinion, we have a difference in morality.

You're a smart guy with a law degree. I shouldn't have to educate you about the wide variety of options in the middle (ranging from "not reprehensible" to "completely acceptable"). I'm also sure you understand how in a world of limited resources, the Executive cannot universally enforce all laws, all the time, everywhere. In this particular case, every dollar spent on ferrying children around the country, you're not spending a dollar on expediting the hearings of deportable aliens. The Government makes choices where to spend our tax dollars all the time; this particular situation is no different.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 03:46:05 PM by kozlodoev »
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #63 on: June 19, 2018, 03:56:17 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35982
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It does lie with the executive.

Under prior administrations, a lot of people caught at the border were released to enter the United States illegally. That’s terrible policy.

Locking up children in subpar facilities is a terrible policy, although for different reasons.

So, what’s the middle ground?
Imprisoning an innocent man and letting a criminal walk free are both "terrible" judicial outcomes, yet they are not created equal.

To paraphrase what I said before (well, ok, someone else said it, I just blatantly ripped it off :P), if you somehow consider the two policies that you're describing to be equivalent, then we don't have a difference in political opinion, we have a difference in morality.

You're a smart guy with a law degree. I shouldn't have to educate you about the wide variety of options in the middle (ranging from "not reprehensible" to "completely acceptable"). I'm also sure you understand how in a world of limited resources, the Executive cannot universally enforce all laws, all the time, everywhere. In this particular case, every dollar spent on ferrying children around the country, you're not spending a dollar on expediting the hearings of deportable aliens. The Government makes choices where to spend our tax dollars all the time; this particular situation is no different.

How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country? 

If you want to arrest the parents, set bail, return them to Mexico and have them come back to a border facility at a later time for a hearing, I'm fine with that.  Don't let them into the U.S., though, and if they try to cross the border again pending bail, make the consequences severe.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #64 on: June 19, 2018, 04:30:29 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #65 on: June 19, 2018, 04:39:16 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35982
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #66 on: June 19, 2018, 04:44:30 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2018, 04:45:10 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #68 on: June 19, 2018, 06:17:17 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Don't worry, man. After these kids have been separated from their parents and somehow survive imprisonment, you and I and everyone else knows exactly as to what will happen down the line - those now angry, detached, and disenfranchised children will probably turn to a life of crime, etc., in an attempt to get back at the system, by which point, or not, as the case may be, Trump will be out of office and conservatives are going to point to these very same people, again, in regards to the debate over immigration and say, "See? That's why they should have never been allowed to enter the United States in the first place. Thanks, Obama." ::) *facepalm* #TooPredictable ::)

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #69 on: June 19, 2018, 06:20:41 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35982
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?

We should solve the problem of our own malingers before bringing in another country’s. Literally having open borders through a “catch and release” system makes the problem worse.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #70 on: June 19, 2018, 06:43:27 PM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19138
  • Tommy Points: 183
  • MASTER OF PANIC
Labeling of others and being disrespectful of their opinions is not tolerated here. Let this be a warning to all.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 07:28:35 PM by nickagneta »
“The rim is looking bigger and bigger every game.”

 Paul Pierce

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #71 on: June 19, 2018, 06:47:44 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4134
  • Tommy Points: 341
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Trump said that illegal immigrants are infesting our country.  That is a follow up to they are mostly rapists and drug dealers.  I assume Roy H. is an independent thinker but have a hard time believing that he and others like him are not influenced by this narrative when they ask things like "how much tax dollars are being spent on illegal immigrants".

Now no one wants "illegal" immigrants to be here and benefiting from tax dollars and I think most people believe that legal immigration is good and needed but everyone is shouting so much that no one is stopping to consider what they are actually arguing for.  Statements that are intended to apply to illegal immigrants are spilling over to all immigrants.  People who have compassion for asylum seekers are being painted as being pro-drug dealers and wanting open boarders.

I know I may sound condescending which I hate and is not the intent but people should stop listening to anything Trump says and then just take a step back and reassess what you are actually trying to debate and as part of that, listen to what the other side is actually trying to say. 

I don't think there are too many Americans that want illegal, criminal immigrants pouring over the boarder (as our president claims that all democrats do).  Further, I think most Americans understand that legal immigration and asylum are a good things.  Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Trump is instigating the fringe to harbor and increasing level of hostility towards all immigrants and I really resent Trump for this.  The division that it is creating in the name of some political points is really a dangerous thing for our country.  This is what people should be shouting about.

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #72 on: June 19, 2018, 06:51:23 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12877
  • Tommy Points: 1470

To the thread title, I wanted to chime in with my impression of Stephen Miller – based on watching his TV performances, reading some of his writings and listening to TV talking heads talk about him.   So… basically I don’t know him at all, so the following is nothing more than an impression, and probably unfair to him: 

I see Miller as an agitator who essentially believes that you create “wins” by creating chaos and breakdown usually with bullying tactics -- and then, from the rubble you build things back as you want them to be and claim victory (whether victory is real or not).  I think this is his methodology for power mongering, similar to tactics that have been utilized by autocratic regimes throughout history.   

Trump (I believe) is strongly influenced by Miller's dogged ideological determination and impudence, and by his aggressive blueprint for "winning" (or his interpretations of winning).   The rationale is that chaos (the means) is justified by the successful “end” (as interpreted by Miller/Trump), which usually means that he has successfully fired up and solidified the base.   

Trump created chaos/unrest in order to “scare” Kim to the table in Singapore (“Little Rocket Man”; “Fire and Fury”; “Bigger Button”); Trump is creating chaos in the international marketplace (tariffs) to bully others into new "deals" that he can claim will “put America first" to the exclusion of supporting friends and longer-term world interests; Trump is creating chaos amongst “friendly” world leaders (G7 dissonance; pulling out of agreements; lauding Putin and Kim); and Trump is creating chaos at the Mexican border in order to manipulate the direction of immigration policy – ultimately solidifying the fear of “The Others” among his base --justifying "The Wall" and other hardline immigration management ideas that codify his power.
   
I believe Stephen Miller has that smile of the ten year old boy who has successfully teased his little sister into tears.  My guess is that he loves the family separation because of the chaos and division it has created—getting everyone riled up, allowing the mouthpiece (Trump) to use his greatest skill (lying) to push the left/center into compassionate musings that Trump’s base can unify in scoffing at.  Long game is that the center/left will need to address the family separation legislatively -- once again providing justification of a Miller/Trump win by “proving” that it was the left that caused the immoral policy to begin with.   Miller is both dangerous and smart.

Stephen Miller has far more power than a person of his experience, moral bandwidth, and intelligence should ever have in this country.   The Miller-Trump team is scary.

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #73 on: June 19, 2018, 06:51:34 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?

We should solve the problem of our own malingers before bringing in another country’s. Literally having open borders through a “catch and release” system makes the problem worse.

You mean malingerers, right?

Either way -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt8VYOfr8To

;D

Re: Stephen Miller
« Reply #74 on: June 19, 2018, 06:52:00 PM »

Online SparzWizard

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5693
  • Tommy Points: 340


But wait, some Republicans and extreme conservatives excuses are "they're breaking the law, they shouldn't be crossing our borders illegally to begin with"  ::)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 07:29:23 PM by nickagneta »