And same question to you that I raised with RM. What is your stance on late-term abortions, does your pro-choice have limits?

BTW, I am pro-choice but I do think there are limitations.

There is a line of logic to be laid down, I'm willing to give that. There are only 7 states and DC with no restrictions. Even the least restrictive of the remaining states lists viability as the limit. That's fine. You're looking at something around 28-32 weeks at that point. I also feel like parents should be able to decide if the fetus is tested to have severe developmental challenges that the parents should be able to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy, even if it is late stage. Most screens though are able to determine earlier, but that isn't true in all cases.

Melania Trump visiting immigrant families/facilities in Texas today

A rather obvious truth that somehow gets ignored too often.

She may want to get a new stylist and/or PR adviser.

Jacket she was wearing to board the plane on her visit had the text "I really don't care, do u?".

Not that it matters but just talk about being completely clueless.

I'd think it was strange and something to have a discussion/debate/what-have-you about. There'd be lots of things to talk about and learn; what ways you thought were best to prevent or limit motor vehicle deaths, why you were against air bags and seat belts, etc. And after it was all talked out I most likely would conclude you were wrong, but not necessarily. Even if I did conclude that, it would be shameful of me to assume you didn't really care about motor vehicle deaths; wrong in your proposals of how to address the problem is as far as it would be responsible to go.

I thought you were joking and then I said wait let me look ... and you weren't joking!

Yeah I saw that just now. I have no explanation as to why she would wear that today.

Surely people are overreacting, it's not like she was wearing a tan suit.

The official responses are hilarious.

Melania’s spokesperson: “it’s a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope this isn’t what the media is going to choose to focus on.”

3 hours later...Trump says, “it refers to the fake news media. Melania has learned how dishonest they are and she truly no longer cares”.

Lol yea that’s definitely what she meant...

First thought was the heck she talking about, then figured it was about media. I was about 20 percent sure I was right though, so random.

She married Trump, lets not act like she has the best judgement.

Lathum!

hey there

Nice to "see" you again :)

Thanks. Good to be back. I guess.

I do agree with you in concept. The number of weeks and the definition of "severe developmental challenges" may differ.

My wife teaches special education. If your definition of severe developmental challenges includes autism, I will respectfully disagree.

That wouldn't be something that can be diagnosed prenatally. My oldest is on the spectrum and my wife also taught special ed. I'm thinking severe brain deformity, or some sort of severe musculoskelatal or organ issues that require near round the clock care.

I think its unfair to say 'autism' without indicating where on the spectrum you think 'severe developmental challenges' is set - my sons are on the autistic spectrum, one in the same way most programmers are (ie. very logical and not at very emotionally intuitive), the other more seriously autistic but I'm confident he'll be able to function independently within society long term with a little assistance.

I however have friends who have children on the autistic spectrum who are largely unable to communicate or feed themselves, the spectrum is huge and the difference is night and day between the ends of it imho.

PS - I also expect myself to be on the spectrum to a lesser extent to my sons, but definitely there (looking at my youth and how I learn to interact with people etc.).

My son is also on the spectrum, although he is on the milder side of it. In our efforts to help him, we have met many children who have things much worse than he does. I do have worries about whether he'll ever be able to be fully independent from us.

There is always someone who has it so much worse than you do. Our youngest has to go to the Children's hospital for an MRI every year for his epilepsy and just knowing what all the other families there are going through just makes me sad.



We're in the same boat. My son is 23 now, and we gave him a goal of the end of August 2018, to try and get his things in order and try and move out to try independence. That was a full year notice. He has people who work with him, but he is still in charge of his progress. He is working, but so far hasn't changed to a job that would even allow him to make enough to be on his own.



Nothing will happen if he misses the deadline, except that his mom and I will just resign ourselves to the fact that in one way or another, he will always need us reasonably close by, and more so, if we ever leave Kentucky (where his services are).

I'm against it with the exception of health reasons. I don't know where that point of viability is.

I'd rather we just educate people and give them access to birth control so that we don't have to make those decisions.

One of the things my friends have done is to transition their child to a home environment rather than living with them - their reasoning made a lot of sense to me, although it was really hard for them to do as they felt selfish doing so.

Their reasoning is simply that there is a real chance at some point in the next 15-20 years (as they age) that they might not be able to look after the child at home due to their own health issues, its better that the child transition to the environment now while they can be supportive and help rather than later when heaven forbid they might not be about to do so and the change would be far harder if it involved only 'strangers'.

(just mentioning it because its something few people think about with 'adult' autistic kids - heck knows when I was younger I didn't)

I agree. I was thinking about the kids in my wife's classes who are definitely challenged, many unlikely to live on their own etc. but would not reach my criteria for late-term.

My wife comes home often frustrated, tells stories, but then proudly shows pictures of "her" kids. She has been doing this for years (and really doesn't need to work) so I know this is fulfilling to her.

I agree with this. The next question is, ok we have educated and have free birth control available. People know better and choose not to use the resources available. Now they want a bail out. Of course this is a person who make poor decisions anyway (in this example) and are now at XX weeks. What now?

Looks like the Trump tariffs won't benefit us as promised. I am shocked!

President Trump Struck the First Blow on Trade. The World Is Starting to Hit Back

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/week-...161250141.html

I don't know. I don't think you'll ever be able to eliminate it. My goal is to just reduce the number of them.

Which is working. As access and advancements in contraceptives has improved, unwanted pregnancies have gone down a lot. This despite the Pro-Life movement fighting it. Imagine if they'd come on board and put their efforts into reducing abortions.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when this touches the automobile industry. So many jobs in swing states at risk.

Interesting to see if there will be pushback from his party. Seen some talk but no action. Tariffs are to the left of even Bernie Sanders so it's weird to see the Republican Party backing them.

Then there's soybean farmers, one of which the tariffs have already cost $250,000. It may seem like a lot, but apparently not enough to make then change their support for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/polit...ion/index.html

And a nail factory that has seen orders drop by 50%, let go 15% of their work force and may have to layoff another 200 soon.

https://www.semissourian.com/story/2532801.html

Who knew trade wars were so easy to win?

Agreed.
FWIW my stance is that I am morally opposed to all abortions, for any reason. However, I do not feel it is the governments place to regulate morality.



So in short I think abortion is wrong and I will permanently shape my opinion of a person if they make that choice. However I fully believe it should be legal and a choice available to make.


Interestingly its the same stance I have on drugs.

I'm not worried. Winning is so easy. It's easy to make deals where you win all the time. That's why he's the boss. He wins and deals and makes it look so easy. I'm still not sick of all the winning yet. It's awesome.

Nah, the propaganda of blaming Obama for anything that isn't right and taking credit for everything that is, regardless of policy, will continue to work. Its staggering how well it works at this point.

Watch out Trump! Tom Arnold is coming after you!

Tom Arnold Says He's 'Taking Trump Down' With Michael Cohen's Help | HuffPost

h/t 538:

DeVos Has Scuttled More Than 1, 200 Civil Rights Probes… — ProPublica

"To each their own" really shouldn't be all that controversial.

That it is at all is because of folks who have similar views of morality to your own, but fear that if their morality isn't imposed universally, that their belief system will fall apart.

Then we wind up with Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and a hundred years of mess to clean up because of people who tried a one-size-fits-all approach to government and morality.

I'm in the same boat. I would never choose to use drugs myself, and I drink alcohol at all about once a year. But that's my choice for me, and to the extent I support restricting the access of others, it's to the extent that such protection impacts public safety. Banning beer sales outright? No. Reasonable restrictions to prevent past offenders from continuing to drive under the influence and put others at risk? Yes.

Abortion? Not a fan. OTOH, I also understand that trying to ban abortion will be about as successful as Prohibition was - it won't eliminate it, merely drive it underground. Wanna reduce abortion rates? Comprehensive sex education (and I'm not talking about abstinence-only), and STOP FUCKING BLAMING POOR PEOPLE FOR BEING POOR is how you deal with that. Quit trying to undermine the social safety net and expand it instead. Do something serious about income disparity, parental leave, and for those near the poverty line, food and housing security. Put pregnant women in a position where the economics of whether to have a child aren't at the front of that decision, and I guarantee you abortion rates will drop. There will always be those who seek abortion because of incest, rape, or, less frequently, because of medical necessity.

But if women aren't put in a position where they have to consider whether they can even afford to raise the child, they will be more likely to have children in the first place, and even to have multiple children. I know plenty of women in their 20s who would love to have children, but have IUDs installed because having even one child would be to flirt with economic disaster.

That isn't casual birth control. That's a hand forced by the same political ideology that wants to ban abortion also supporting policies that undermine the middle class and incentivize the poorest to choose abortion over life. It's a pro-fetus political ideology, not a pro-life ideology. If they were remotely intellectually consistent, they would admit that.

Of course he autographed the photos of loved ones lost to violence.

There’s not an absurd idea that can be presented where you can honestly say it has 0% of chance occurring with this moron.

Another Sunday speaking head that I enjoyed watching, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not.

Unfortunately, I think his time is past and the party now belongs to Trump.

George Will Leaves Republican Party Over Donald Trump | Fortune

What are the chances that Melania did the whole jacket thing knowing the blow back it would cause donald? I mean, she's not in open revolt, but she's clearly not madly in love or in a good marriage with him. It's a subtle dig and one that can be played off, but the optics of the first lady purposely wearing a jacket like that, in that situation where she's going to show concern is dubious. The other possibilities are that she's simply clueless, or her staff is, and I just don't see either of those being that probable. In fact, my example, might just be the easiest explanation, which in my mind, makes it also the most likely. She is showing up as herself, talking to people, and being en envoy, and by wearing the jacket before and after away from the event brackets the overall point that she is still representing her husband. I clearly want to believe this is the case more than stupidity on her part anyway.

13.06.2018 - Trump tweets after the NK summit:
“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea” and “sleep well tonight!”

23.06.2018 - Trump renewed sanctions on North Korea, citing an "extraordinary threat"

So Pence here today at Coastal Carolina for a rally with McMaster, Trump here Monday in Columbia. Ugh. Meanwhile the woman who just beat Sanford in the Republican primary gets seriously hurt (and a friend) when a car crosses the road and hits her head on as she was on her way to a rally in Hilton Head. She survived but pretty badly hurt, will need multiple surgeries, and about 2 weeks in the hospital. The guy that hit her died.

I can imagine a lot of people putting on their tin foil hats after that car accident.

Yeah she's trending on Twitter all day, and I stopped reading them when the conspiracies started.



Meanwhile Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant (?) in Lexington, VA-the Red Hen, by the owner because she worked for Trump, and she made sure to Tweet about it. Also protestors found Sec. Nilsen's home and protested outside replaying the children crying from being separated at the border over and over again.

Conway now trending on twitter and not just because of Pence's visit.

What happened to Republicans supporting the freedom of religion of business owners.

Psalm 101:7
He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.

Allowing get to eat there would have been a violation of the owner's strongly held religious views.

yeah karma is a bitch

I'm good with Sanders being kicked out. The owner should know there will be consequences and he/she may lose or gain business over it.

On Nilsen's home, didn't see the article but I would be pissed with the noise disturbance. I think peaceful demonstration is fair game but playing children crying is over the top. Wonder how the cops are handling the neighbors' complaints.

FWIW, I support stopping illegal immigration and am for the wall. But separating kids from parents is immoral, stupid policy and certainly doesn't help the cause, find an alternative.

I disagree with the business owner entirely. I'm not a fan of a being in a country where I can be refused to be seated based on my political beliefs or party affiliation. She might as well put out a sign saying "We can refuse to serve anyone".


What is the solution? If you want to make illegal immigration ummm illegal then don't you have to arrest or otherwise punish those who immigrate illegally? Should family units have an exemption? I know Obama had 'catch and release' and hope the immigrants show up to court. But then what do you do to punish the 30 odd percent (according to politifact) that don't show up to their court dates?

I believe we can hire more judges and expedite court cases. Perhaps we can streamline the system somehow. What do other countries do?

If you commit a felony in this country you are likely going to jail and separated from your kids, even before going to trial. Separation is part of doing time. This goes for immigrant and American citizens alike.

I agree, you can’t refuse to serve someone a standard menu for any reason if it is available to others.

However I do side with a couple of bakers that have made the news over the last couple of years: they should not be forced to take on a contract to ice a cake with a message that goes against their beliefs.

In my mind - can’t refuse to bake the cake; can refuse to message it.

I'm not a Republican, but I fully support the restaurant's right to do whatever they want. They should be able to treat customers however they choose, and have their customer base react accordingly(as they are, in both directions). Freedom is messy sometimes. Still beats the heck out of the alternative.

I actually agree with you, she shouldn't have been blamed. I don't think she really "supports" it but finds ways to rationalize the process to survive the best she can.

I don't view this as political or party affiliation. I do view this on moral ground. In my mind, there are not many crimes as heinous as purposely separating a child from parent(s) without good cause.


I do support stopping illegal immigration and do not support 'catch and release'. Illegal immigration needs to be dealt with holistically (e.g. the demand side as well as the supply, laws, additional guest workers etc.) but specific to this situation ...

If you have to hold the applicant/illegal for breaking a law, find a way to keep the child with them.

Maybe they did or maybe they didn't - did they tell the parents they were holding that if they voluntarily left the country, they would be reunited with their child? Or did we keep them in limbo land ... I don't know but would not surprise me if it was the latter.

Change the laws on requesting for asylum (e.g. don't allow it on the mexican border anymore) so we don't have to deal with the busloads of them showing up on our border after weeks of news media.


I don't see this as a valid analogy. If a US citizen commits a felony and is tossed in a jail, does the underage children get tossed into a holding camps/cell as well or do they go with other family or social/foster support?

It's not the act of holding the illegals that I have a problem with. Its the separation of the underage children and tossing them into holding camps for long periods of time.

Keep them with the parents and fix the other processes/laws to prevent illegals from coming or staying with some holistic immigration reform program.

Two points.

A business owner can refuse service to any individual. It's only when they refuse classes of people that they run into problems.

If you're claiming asylum at a point of entry there is no crime. If you cross illegally for the first time it' a misdemeanor. Show me the misdemeanor where the government takes your kids and flies them to another state.

To many people political affiliations and moral grounds are one in the same. I'm not a fan of refusing service to people who leave their politics at the door.


I'd be interested in hearing more about this holistic approach. I'm assuming that you don't want the kids to be kept in a regular jail with their parents. So what kind of conditions should they be kept in? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm also going to assume that you want the kids to be kept in fairly comfortable positions. If that is so then wouldn't that encourage illegal immigration?


No idea what options are given to the parents.

I'm also interested in how you want to change the laws on asylum. Maybe refuse anyone coming in through Mexico unless they are actually fleeing Mexico? In the end I think you need to hire more justices to get the giant backlog of cases cleared.


The point is that Americans who commit crimes are separated from their children, why should illegal immigrants be treated different?

I think people know that kids of inmates generally get sent to a next of kin. However a lot of kids crossing the border do not have this option.

Should there also be a holistic approach for incarcerated Americans who get to spend their prison time with their kids?

For almost all of them it's either not a crime or a misdemeanor.

And taking the kids isn't the worst of it. They took them with no plan on reuniting them and now they can't figure out how to reunite them.

It's a misdemeanor punishable by prison time to cross the border illegally. It's a felony in certain circumstances.

I'll agree it is inexcusable to lose track of the kids.

So is the transportation of water hyacinths, marking on money, and using the flag as clothing.

The law says they can be fined or imprisoned or both. The Trump admin is choosing to jail them and was choosing to take away their kids.

They don't have to.

Glad to have this conversation and it is complex. My ask is have a two-way dialog. If you criticize my suggestions, provide some alternatives yourself and let's have a dialog.

Before I start rambling, its always good to try level set a baseline. Here's where I'm coming from. Not in any particular order. Feel free to agree, disagree or add to.

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element
2) Legal visa holders stay in the US after their visa has expired
3) We can't track well who is in the country
4) Some industries need "migrants" to work jobs that American's won't. Many are hiring illegals and turning a blind eye (not as bad as before though)
5) It is to the US advantage to encourage highly skilled people (e.g. entrepreneurs, PhD students but not sure about pure wealth etc. you get the idea) to immigrate to the US. Certain groups should have preference
6) There is not a "chain immigration" problem where an immigrant is able to sponsor non-immediate family members. One should be able to sponsor immediate family members (e.g. spouse, child) but not an uncle, aunt etc.
7) There is a problem with H1B visa's, it has been abused by global companies. Benefit of visa lottery is suspect. Country quotas may not be fairly distributed
8) Non-citizen woman that has a baby in the US has secured US citizenship for that baby. Consider changing this law, maybe when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth

So my holistic solution (admittedly easier said than done) to immigration reform includes

1) Definitely kick out illegals with felonies
2) Acknowledge that economic need is the main driver. Setup something/fund etc. that helps the southern economies and encourages US companies that used illegals/migrant labor to invest further south; setup a renewable guest worker program
3) Make it harder for illegals to come and stay in the country. I personally believe the Wall is a good start to show commitment, resolve & deterrence; add the deterrent that if you are ever caught as an illegal, you can never, ever come back to the US legally or get guest worker visa
4) For the demand side of employers hiring, really crack down on them. I'm not just talking about a small business unit in a big conglomerate, I'm talking about the mom-and-pop farmers, builders, chicken processors, lawn improvement etc. also
5) However, don't just crack down on demand without offering an alternative. I think a renewable guest worker program is good. Allows us to track and control who stays or not. I do not know if guest worker should have a path to citizenship. I lean towards no but it should be renewable
6) Identify highly skilled immigrants and, assuming we can overcome the security and background check challenges, give them a fast track to US citizenship. Many of these will probably be Chinese or Asian students
7) Implement a system that can track all immigrants, guest workers, identified illegals, folks that overstayed their visas etc.
8) Fix the abuse with H1-B; get rid of lottery and give its allocations to other visa spots; review quota allocations to ensure its fair regardless of national origin
9) Fix the birthright law. Unsure what is possible but possibly when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth.

Other:

10) I think its perfectly reasonable to not allow immigrants/refugees from countries that we cannot clear satisfactorily. This is obviously tricky and I don't know the definition of "satisfactorily" is. We get flak from the Europeans but I don't see them (or the Vatican for that matter) volunteering to take our Latin/South American "refugees" or, in other words, you worry about countries close to you and we'll do the same.
11) I don't agree with US allowing dual citizenship. Probably a small matter in the big scheme of things but it eats at me. I understand US citizens benefit from this also from other countries (e.g. Canada)
12) DACA is tough. Under the assumption there is a holistic immigration reform, then I say let them stay (e.g. grandfathered) and provide path to citizenship
13) I don't see how this could work but if there was a way to ensure immigrants will "assimilate" that would be great. Obviously controversial and I don't know how to write a proposed law but here's a use case for me -- if you immigrate and insist on wearing a full burkha with face covered, see'ya. You want to wear a head scarf for modesty, no problems with that.

Whew, I'm sure I'll think of more after a good nights rest. I look forward to understanding your POV and alternatives to reform and lets have the dialog. I am personally interested in this as I am an immigrant myself.


I am not educated enough on this subject. In general, I do think people should be able to apply for asylum (although I am not sure it's evenly applied e.g. political refugees, economic refugees, fear for life etc.).

I don't disagree that more justices will help but that's addressing the symptom and not the bigger issue of immigration reform IMO. Are you saying the immigration/illegal issues will be resolved by just hiring more justices? e.g. you are okay with the immigration laws as they stand today?

If they weren't able to apply at the border (e.g. the current debate with the children) would we be in this situation? Other asylum seekers find a way to apply without being on our border.


They are being treated differently based on where their kids end up and with whom.

I don't understand why you do not see a clear difference between holding cell with strangers vs other family members or social/foster support. Maybe I'm missing a nuance to your counterpoint.


I don't know about "holistic" approach but incarcerated Americans get visitation rights with their family/kids and their kids are not in holding cells in the meantime. Can we say this was going to happen without the public outcry?

There are two things I want to point out; the first is directly aimed at Edward's comment about wanting "assured" assimilation:

the thing about 'assimilation' is that that has always, always, been generational. Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa, they tend to cling to the "old ways."

And the first-generation kids become Americanized with ridiculous rapidity, because socialization with other kids assimilates them in a way stripping cultural identity via dress codes never could.

That's not a suggestion. That's literally how things happen. Go back and look at non-Anglophile immigration over the last 150 years. Check out primary sources, and look at how the older generations of each immigrant wave have been aggravated by the children, both those who came over and those who were born here. And, yeah, the older immigrants end up leaning on the kids to translate and shit.

You (not YOU you, but you get the idea) wanna gripe about adults speaking Spanish and having their kids translate instead of learning English? History lesson - the same exact thing happened with Italian immigrants a century ago.

The older generations will bust ass to build a better life for their kids, but the reality is that assimilation on the degree you demand is a bottom-up thing. Give it two, three generations, and what you'll see are kids that might be multilingual, might be multi-cultural, but they will also be functionally inseparable from an "American" identity.

The second thing, not aimed directly at Edward, but rather something that's been on my mind for a while now which may have already been touched on:

2) The government's approach here is "one-size-fits-all." That is to say, the separations aren't just happening to "illegal" families. It's happening to folks who are coming here and turning themselves in at the border seeking asylum, as well.

When you (not YOU you, but you get the idea) frame it as "well American citizens who commit crimes and go to jail get imprisoned, also," it ignores the reality that these forced separations are happening under the assumption that ALL the migrants are illegals and we'll sort it out later. Years later, generally, given how backlogged immigration courts are.

Which is part of the issue with Trump's "deport them all NOW" approach; immigration courts don't have the same presumption of a right to counsel that criminal courts do, and the backlog and administrative demand that shit happen right the fuck now means that you have two pressures on these families, whether they're asylum seekers (which is a status provided for by law), or illegal immigrants: the first is that the prohibition on children being detained for more than 20 days means that families are getting ripped apart with no real expectation of when or even if they might be reunited and 2) if someone gets swept up in an ICE raid, the presumption ends up being that "if they weren't guilty they wouldn't have gotten swept up" and they're unable to present affirmative defenses, even if the facts support their appeal to stay.

And that ignores all of the OTHER ways immigration law is broken (some of which you address).

(FYI - 1st gen can refer to the immigrant or child of the immigrant. I am using 2nd gen to define the child of the immigrant for clarity)

I agree with you about 2nd gen. My 2nd gen kids are well assimilated in the US culture, as I have as 1st gen, which is fantastic and do believe this is the case for vast, vast majority of others.

The use case I proposed (admittedly to the extreme) is the full fledge burqa (e.g. only eye slit) in the 1st gen (and the inevitable 2nd gen). I do not know how wide spread the issue is in the US but I use the example as clear cut for me line in the sand.

A couple links.

European countries seem to be "fighting" back The Islamic veil across Europe - BBC News

Doesn't seem to be a restriction in the US, article is not specific to immigrants https://www.quora.com/Is-wearing-the...ted-in-the-USA

My stance is not fear of terrorism in the US with burqa covered men/women. Some will say its about religious freedom but to me it is primarily about assimilation (1st or 2nd gen).

Curious to know what is your stance on this specific burqa issue?

I'll point out again that some countries have no process for renouncing citizenship. My daughter retains her Chinese citizenship and can never renounce it. There are many countries where that's true.

Is there a reason you are using the term “illegals”?

I’m not sure it was your intent in this post, but you didn’t really explain why such a massive, expensive and draconian approach is necessary.

Seems like she asked the staff and how they felt serving/cooking.

If this was analt right nazi spokesperson and a staff of color, would it have been reasonable to refuse? I’m just not sure the person who delivers a message of hate gets to decide when the are political/hateful to others.

No one would care if they kicked out David Duke or Richard Spencer. Why is this pig any different?

Extreme partisanship is one of the characteristics of the atmosphere in which authoritarianism flourishes and democracy withers.

I take it you don't think there is an illegal immigration problem? To solve this I propose there needs to be a holistic approach which I attempted to explain to NobodyHere my POV.

I re-read and do think "illegals" is appropriate.

"1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element"

Can you help me understand why you brought up the wording of "illegal"?

Interesting developments, didn't know Jared was that far along (or so he claims).

No specifics on the deal he is working on but he's bypassing Abbas and appealing to other Arab nations and supposedly appealing to the Palestinian people.

I wonder how much support he really has from SA, Jordan, Qatar and Egypt.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1JJ16D

Much easier to forge a deal when you only need to worry about working with one side.

I’m having a hard time understanding the problem your approach is addressing. The only one I can see is you think there is a problem of small businesses hiring?

I think calling a person an “illegal” is akin to saying Jap (YMMV). It is only for this particular class of people are we ok with describing their identity as merely an illegal. A felon, a gang member, a drug user are all illegals. But some how a single illegal act does not change the status of their personhood. Yet with undocumented people they are defined, dismisses and known as an illegal. Just my opinion, of course, and I was more interested in your reasoning/motivation in using that term.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “holistic approach”. Are your suggestions aimed at creating a healthier America? It certainly does not seemed aimed at creating the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (humanity being in need of a holistic approach).

Please see #10569. If that doesn't explain what I think the problem is and what I think the solution is, I don't know what else to do?


I don't agree its akin to saying Jap as that is an ethnic slur. Illegal is a common vernacular used even before Trump (and national origin neutral). I used what I have read/heard. I guess "undocumented" is the more PC term now but tbh it didn't come to mind.


Sorry for not being clear. In my industry, "holistic" is to see the big picture vs a discrete chunk of a problem/issue/challenge etc. In other words, trying to solve the illegal immigration issue by reforming immigration "holistically" vs. just tossing illegals into prison.

It's complicated, and I don't have time to untie Gordian's knot right this moment (but I may try later tonight); that said, I would offer this quote from the Vice President of the United States. From his speech accepting the VP nomination in 2016:


You want to talk about assimilation? Here's a white male who takes it for granted that his values are "American" and that he doesn't need to proclaim them. He lists his religious and political identities as being prima facie what he's about.

His political rivals seized on that, but otherwise? Nobody batted an eye. But if an immigrant puts their religious identity ahead of national identity, they're viewed with suspicion. A third-generation Turkish immigrant wearing a burqa would, by the stance you took, be seen as fundamentally inassimilable, even though we already just agreed that 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrant kids assimilate to American culture like a duck to water. But if they hold on to the faiths of their fathers and adopt those cultural aspects, their American-ness gets called into question.

I'll try to revisit this later tonight when I get home from work, but chew on that mentally for a bit, if you would.

Don't really know much about Pence and know he is not representative of majority of Americans.

But I think I would prefer him to be President over the person we have now. Regardless of his religious/political beliefs, he is a professional politician and the old rules/controls (wherever they are now) would have applied to him.

Religion is still important but its lower than Family and Country.

Americans don’t cite ‘God, family, country’ quite like the cliche goes - The Washington Post


I did agree with 2nd Gen assimilating quite well. My point is 1st Gen Burqa woman will not assimilate well in the US and there is a fair chance she will share her values to the 2nd Gen and they won't assimilate as well either.

Holding onto faiths is good with me. In a prior post I said if a woman wants to keep her headscarf/hijab for religious reasons (e.g modesty) that is fine. I just see a burqa as extreme and a definite red flag.

Thanks for the discussion. I am interested in your reply specific to the burqa.

And we shouldn’t govern as if he were.

So I’ve read it a few times, still unclear. It seems your solutions are about how to remove people and prevent any further undocumented stays?

Maybe, working backwards would help me. How would America be better (great again?) if all your suggestions were implemented?

Let's have a two way dialog. Interested in your suggestions?

I don't have any great solutions to the immigration situation. I do think setting up concentration camps and separating families is disgusting. A black mark on the country.

While we can't take in every person, I do think we can show compassion to those we can't help. Most are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. Something every one of us would do in that situation. Instead of brutally punishing them for that act, perhaps we could punish the businesses that sidestep the law in offering them jobs. I know this goes against our country's stance to openly fellate any and all large businesses, but it would help.

Another idea is to help these other countries improve. We hand billions in aid to horrific countries across the globe yet ignore our neighbors. Improving their situations would mean less reason to cross the border. You could probably figure out that it would save us money in the long run.


I don't have an issue with the word "illegal" but I see where he's coming from. The word is only used to describe those coming from Mexico or South America. I've never heard it mentioned when discussing Asian or European immigrants. I've never heard someone who overstayed their student visa described as "illegals". There is definitely a ethnic stereotype to the term despite the fact that illegal immigrants come from all over the world.


Seems kind of weird that you'd want such control over other people's lives. There are negative consequences to not assimilating to culture already. Not sure why it matters to you or anyone else how they choose to live their life as long as it doesn't hurt you. That was kind of the point of this country in the first place.

It seems there are several popular reasons for immigration reform:

1. Too many people taking jobs away from citizens
2. Undocumented people are a drain on our resources
3. Many are dangerous, reform will make us safer
4. They bring in drugs and weapons

Is this about right? Are you saying your holistic approach will significantly improve some of these 4?

For me, I believe #4 is the only real, urgent problem. But because it is the least addressed I believe most immigration talk is merely rooted in political opportunism

I think my position in describing the problem was


I can see where you would derive #1 from my list. I don't think #2-4 was on my list or I didn't stress them?

Can you explain where you think I said #2-4? Or are they your definition of what the problem is?

What about Hassids or the Amish or native traditions from other parts of the world?

I’m trying to put words in your mouth because I don’t see you describe the problem.

Is the problem their very existence? The fact they are here illegally they are constantly trespassing on our land? If every undocumented person pooped golden eggs, would there still be a problem?

It seems it is not what they do in America that is your problem, it is merely they are in America. Yes?

I have agreed that separating families is bad.


I do agree with you. I think renewal guest worker programs is great. I do also believe the "demand" side needs to be address, not just he "supply".


I agree. We need to help our neighbors to the south more.


I see the nuance now, thanks for the insight. I don't think of illegals as just south of the border, I think of all illegals -- Europeans, Asians, Latin/South America etc.

When I went through the process in the 90's, the term illegals was not limited to just south of the border.

When I hear undocumented workers I think of Latin/South America. I personally think illegal is a better term but I see where you are coming from.


I guess it matters to me because, as an immigrant, I believe there are plenty of people that would love to immigrate to the US and assimilate.

If someone does not wish to assimilate (e.g. my use case of a full burqa woman), then I see her quota slot as being wasted and could have been better spent on another who would love to assimilate.

I don't mean everyone become like the Smiths or Johnsons. It's good to retain your culture and your religion but the full burqa just seems to be the extreme.

Just my experience, not sure if its truly representative ...

I've worked in New York and have seen hasidic jews interact with the public. I visited B&H and believe they are owned by hasidic jews so IMO it seems they have assimilated pretty well.

I see Amish assimilate pretty well also. I've worked in Ohio and they have restaurants and businesses that cater to the public.

I don't see other examples that are to the degree of full burqa's. I have and will admit this is the clear cut example to me, there may be others.

Question to you -- are you okay with an immigrant that insists on wearing a full burqa?

I think I see the confusion.

I think its sufficient to say they have broken laws in the country. With that said, I don't think the immigration laws are perfect and do believe the laws need to be reformed.

I'm not sure I see your point. Putting words in your mouth ...

Why don't you think illegals in the country is bad?

There's a Hassid community not far south of me that demanded a male bus driver for the boys because the sexes can't mingle. Women in Amish communities are generally very restricted in their dealings with men.

But as with the burqa, I'm absolutely fine as long as it is a choice of the wearer. I'd very much disagree with it being forced, but I don't see any real difference between that and the isolation through clothing and behavior of Hassid women.

Correct.


There aren't, honestly, many options that would have been objectively 'worse.'


I mean, I think the old rules went out the window once McTurtle decided that the judiciary wasn't an urgent matter unless a Republican sat the White House. The controls might have mattered, but the rules were a dead letter once he decided to spend eight years obstructing the ability of the executive to fill judicial vacancies by any means necessary, followed by forcing a Supreme Court vacancy to go unfilled for 11 months in the hopes that a Republican could nominate a True Believer.

(Witness the urgency with which he's moved on judicial nominations since Trump's election; suddenly This Must Be Done where before 'eh, the Courts of Appeals don't REALLY need their vacancies filled')

The rules at that point became "whatever necessary" and I'm not sure a Pence Presidency would have been exactly 'normal.' But that's getting off topic.


Mothers passing their values to their sons and daughters is not a new phenomenon; if you think Italian mothers, Russian mothers, Polish mothers, Mexican mothers, etc, haven't shared their values with their children in the last 150 years, you're mistaken. Thing is? Hasn't mattered. The kids assimilate, because childhood is a natural melting pot in a way legislation can never replicate.

As far as the religious aspect of wearing a burqa, that's where we get into Gordian's knot. See, the thing is, religion is only partly about faith in a Higher Power. Part of it is about control. If you look at, say, Judaism, and particularly Leviticus, and look at the rules set forth for the practice of the faith, a lot of those rules were about cementing the power of the faith leaders (and by extension, men) in those societies.

Clothing rules in the Abrahamic faiths are an extension of that control, of demarcating the Proper Roles of men and women in society. To the extent that a devout Muslim woman would have difficulty assimilating in American society, that's going to be a function of what her faith has mandated about her role. It's not the burqa; the burqa is just the outward demonstration of the woman following the rules her faith has laid upon her. The kids may follow those rules while they're under their parents' control, but they won't hew to it as tightly as adults as their parents did, and their children will cling less tightly still.

Again, let's bring it back to Christianity. A hundred years ago, church revivals were a Big Deal. They still are in some parts of the country, and you still have the older people crying about how a return to faith is needed and how this thing or the other thing is because we don't let public schools indoctrinate children with Christianity anymore, but if you talk to people of a certain age and they talk about the impact faith had on their lives as children, compare that then to someone of childbearing age today. They still raise their children in faith, but you're more likely than not to find that people raising children now, two-three generations after revivals were last a Big Deal, are *probably* not saturating their children's lives as heavily with religion as their parents' or grandparents' lives were saturated. That's not to say that nobody does, but it's the nature of cultural drift.

Islam is a thousand years younger than Christianity, and a good three or four thousand years younger than Judaism. That's part of what makes it seem more alien, for those who are concerned about its adherents' ability to assimilate. There hasn't been time for the same level of cultural drift to happen as has done with its geographical brethren, where faith is just kind of 'assumed' but isn't as outwardly fundamentalist anymore.


And yet, that still boils down to "how pious am I comfortable with other people being?" If you look at orthodox Christians and Jews, women don't dress all that differently from fundamentalist Muslims. Not surprising, because the three originate from more or less common ground. But, again, pious Christian and Jewish women don't draw the same backlash for that level of dress.

It's when the dress is, or appears to be, explicitly Muslim that the more fundamental it gets, the more objectionable it becomes.


Getting back to the Gordian knot here, part of what makes my feelings on the burqa so difficult to unravel is because it's rooted in the concept of male supremacy/authority within the faith (and other Abrahamic faiths have similar control elements), but at the same time, it's a thing devout Muslim women adopt as an expression of their faith and submission to Allah.

I don't know how to separate the two.

I do know that if a burqa ban isn't about terrorism fears, then it becomes about whose religious expressions are most valid. Whether you mean it to or not, when you start saying "well I'm okay with THIS but not with THAT and if they want to immigrate they have to agree to stop doing THAT thing" what you're doing is undermining the First Amendment. It's a judgment as to whose religious views and expression thereof have inherent value.

I'm leery of that.

If a burqa ban is about security or terrorism fears, that's a different conversation. I'm not sure I'd be any more open to it, but that's a different conversation with different leverage points.

If it's not about security, then the conversation you're really having is about whose religious freedom is more valid, and which groups are allowed to be more assertive in their devotion to faith.

Specific to my experience of Amish in Ohio, I didn't see that at all. In the stores and restaurants, they were mostly women. They smiled and interacted with everyone (and I like to think one flirted with me).

Are you sure they weren't Mennonite? They often live together, but the Mennonites are far more open in their dealings with the public.

But, regardless, we could go through all sorts of religious traditions where women cover themselves and are largely forbidden from associating with men. Why is that okay? What is the marker for assimilation?

edit: After some reading the Amish apparently have allowed unmarried women and women with children more contact with the public. It generally wasn't like that when I was a kid, but the Amish have gotten much more commercial and connected to the rest of the world. But it took them many many years to reach this point. Why can't women in burqas be given the same opportunity?

I don't see this assimilation problem that you do. Middle Eastern immigrants are higher educated than Americans. They make more money than Americans. And they gain English proficiency at a higher level than the average immigrant. What's the issue?

If it's a dress thing, I don't see it either. I've lived in Chicago for most of my life and I don't believe I've ever seen someone in a full burqa. Maybe this is taking place but it has to be such a minuscule part of the population that I can't see what the problem is.

I agree on first paragraph. I see 2nd Gen assimilating quite well.

I have seen women dress in full burqa in Chicago, New York (but they could have been tourists) and on a flight I took.

I'm about assimilation. My theory (right or wrong) is that someone in a burqa does not wish to assimilate in the US and therefore lets give that slot to someone that does.

I saw Sacks answer and will respond back tomorrow after more thought. But I can see how "assimilation" may mean different things to different people and maybe it would be good to try define it.

Positive they were not Mennonite.

Re: women in burqas given the same opportunity to assimilate. I believe a woman that insists on wearing a full burqa will not assimilate well. Because of that, give that quota slot to an immigrant that will.

Re: the marker for assimilation, I think that is a valid point. I can see from Sacks, RM and your response that maybe we need to try define what assimilation means. I'll try do that tomorrow.

Well there it is, the question I have been asking you for the last few posts. Should of asked that in the first place :D. I assume what you think is bad about undocumented people in the country is addressed in your holistic approach?

We live in a country where undocumented people do more good than harm. We have built massive industries(justice, bails bonds, prison guards, etc) and raised our standard of living on the backs of undocumented people.

Bad people (alt right, Trump) have gained power and influence by scapegoating illegals.

Most southern undocumented people and drugs come across in vehicles, the wall is political theater. If we were serious, we would treat border crossings like an airport. But we don’t because of the massive economic hit that would be to commerce.

So until I see otherwise, I’m with my country and politicians, and agree with them that undocumented people do more economic and political good than harm.

That is the irony in all this. The areas that actually cut down on crime (such as border crossings) aren't funded enough because they would hurt so many industries. More drugs coming across the border means more work for police and prison guards.

Also worth pointing out that a study showed that refugees are a net positive on our economy. This was a report done by Trump's own DHS. The White House killed it because it went against their bogus excuses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/u...ort-trump.html

We all deep down know what the reason is on a lot of this stuff.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any sources on this?

We do live in a country with laws. Sure some laws are bad or inadequate, let's change them (e.g. immigration laws) through the process.

My holistic approach was not just for illegals, it was for legal and illegals (e.g. that's how I define holistic reform). So yes, I am sure my approach addressed some of the issues but would not say it was the all encompassing solution because I wasn't just focused on illegals (nor do I think it should be).


"Treat border crossing like an airport" is interesting analogy but means different things if you mean "domestic" or "international" airport.

If international - you have to get a visa, security checks, you come into country do some visiting or meeting, maybe live in the country for however long the visa allows, and then you leave (or renew your visa).

I view this as akin to renewable guest workers programs. Controlled entry and exit.

If domestic - no visas, you do have security checks, but basically no restriction to travel or work.

It seems as if you want the "domestic" version? Does that mean you want non-US people, assume you meant from the southern borders but could also apply from all over the world, to be able to travel & work in the US at will (e.g. pretty much no limitations other than for security checks)?

The "forced" part is maybe where I have the problem.

I do believe majority of burqa's are "forced".

Islam says women should cover themselves to be modest (paraphrase), I'm pretty sure there is not the full-burqa requirement, its just the interpretation. There are many Muslim countries that say the hijab is acceptable.

Are there consequences for a woman not to wear a burqa in a burqa-wearing country? I think the answer is yes.

Are burqa's a way for men to control "their" women. I think the answer is yes.

I think its valid to ask, if they are forced & oppressed, shouldn't we be willing to let them immigrate? Three scenarios and not sure how they could be implemented.

• If we want to give them a period of "adjustment", counseling, and see if they will stop wearing burqa's before immigration, I'm good with that.
• If we want to make sure her husband will allow the non-wearing of burqa I'm good with that also.
• If a woman is willing to exchange her burqa for a hijab and the husband is not willing, then let's have a path for just the woman.

In the dialog on immigration reform with SackAttack, RM and JPhillips, we talked about assimilation (e.g. use case is the woman in a burqa).

I think its good to try define what people think assimilation. I found lots of different definitions or markers (no surprise). Invariably, lots of "its more complicated than that" which is true but IMO, its almost analysis-paralysis.

So here's what I found.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...of-an-American

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/d...to-assimilate/

This one is where I came up with the analysis-paralysis statement. The author proceeded to counter the 3 points by saing it complicated, multi-dimensional and other characteristics of assimilation. He says the below.


Attention Required! | Cloudflare
The factors they used in table 1.1. are

So my definition/markers of assimilation are:

(I use Salins definition as a base and updated them)


I think this is fair gauge. So no change.

Yes, you will have the 1st Gen adults who may not know English well or the elderly grandma. Not saying we shouldn't allow them to immigrate, just saying this is a far marker of their progress/lack of in assimilation.

Quote:

First, they had to accept English as the national language.

The word Protestant may bring up "religion". I like the sentence but would remove "Protestant", so my rewording is:

Quote:

Second, they were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the US ideal (?) work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).

Can probably ask what does "American identity" mean and I'll just define it using other phrases in the 1st and 3rd links.

Quote:

adopt the various mannerisms and behavior of native-born or per the third study 7) Civic engagement 8) Social cohesion.

I'm not sure I would have democratic and egalitarian principles, it seems too high-level?

So how I would reword it is:

Quote:

Third, they were expected to take pride in their American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion)

So we need to adopt the mannerisms and behavior of Native Americans?

That definition is based on the idea that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American, but they did. The Puritans did, the Spanish did, the French did, the Africans did, the Germans did, the Italians did, the Irish did, the Caribbeans did, etc. The idea that they need to become us hasn't ever been the reality of how immigration works.

Now I don't have time to discuss longer because I have to go to an Irish Hooley, plan for the big Columbus Day parade, buy my liederhosen for Oktoberfest, print my photos from Puerto Rico day.....

Don't disagree. I've always used "salad bowl" vs melting pot which means there are cultural, ethnic etc. stuff that says separated but we're all one happy family mixed in a bowl, overlaid by the American "special salad dressing".

However, I do believe there are those that won't get into the salad bowl with the rest of us so let's not waste our time.


TBH, I don't see "clothing in all Abrahamic faiths is an extension of that control". Its kinda broad. I do agree it applies to muslim women wearing burqas.


I know my POV has religious overtones but it really is about assimilation (see prior post on my definition of assimilation).

There is no doubt devout muslim women can assimilate (I see more and more with hijabs, saw one at my Starbucks the other day and see several working at Hartsfield airport), I just don't see it with women insistent on wearing the full burqa.

But your paragraphs does raise an interesting point. It seem to say -- Christianity took 2 thousand years, give Islam the same amount of time. I don't think I agree but maybe a topic for another day.


I know its somewhat semantics but its not "more fundamental it gets", its really the "more extreme it gets".

I don't see an equivalent in the Christian or Jewish world re: burqa. Can you elaborate on what you think is the most fundamentalist garbs that Christian and Jewish women wear day-to-day?


Because I see plenty of devout muslim women and men accept the hijab in muslim countries in SEA, I do question if the burqa is accepted freely by those muslim women that are not allowed to wear anything other than burqas.

Per a prior post to JPhillips.

Quote:

Are there consequences for a woman not to wear a burqa in a burqa-wearing country? I think the answer is yes. Are burqa's a way for men to control "their" women. I think the answer is yes.

Religion is not a main driver for me. It is the idea of "assimilation" which is much broader (and I tried to define in a prior post).

But I do see where you are coming from, its a slippery slope.

But because its tough to define or set the criteria of who should be allowed in or not doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to set those criterias. Obviously alot of different opinions and some are going to lose out.


It's not about security (or at least not until the first incident on US soil) and its not about religious freedom (although there are religious overtones). It is about assimilation which I define from the prior post as:

1. They had to accept English as the national language.
2. They were expected to live by what is commonly referred to as the US ideal (?) work ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking, and morally upright).
3. They were expected to take pride in their American identity (e.g. adopt the mannerisms and behavior of native-born, civic engagement, social cohesion)

What about cloistered nuns?

It is not based on the definition that previous waves of immigrants didn't change what it meant to be American.

Certainly don't think that is logical to assume we are still all from the white, Puritan stock. There is nothing I read in the linked studies that indicate or implied that (please let me know if you see differently).

What it means to be American evolves over time. At this point in time, a burqa clad woman will not assimilate well is what I am saying.

Per my other post to you -- do you believe the majority women dressed in burqas do so willingly or are they forced?