Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.
Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.
Yeah, this happened in 2015 and 2016 when Obama was President. You should be crying bloody murder against Obama, oh wait, we never heard about it back then did we?
I have told this story in some fashion before, but it's the main reason I find the "economic" arguments about illegal immigration just don't hold water, or, at the very least, or not the real motivating factor.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
That is similar to my own backstory. My grandfather owned a medium-sized construction business...in Texas...in the late 1970s through mid-1980s. At the time I was too young to be aware of the issue but now, as an adult, I am absolutely convinced that he regularly hired illegal immigrant workers on a regular basis, probably so he could underpay them for their labor. Meanwhile, Socorro (the wife of one of the guys) would often be at my grandmother's house, cooking and cleaning--she probably got paid but, again, I have no way of knowing. All I know is that when she showed up the food was really delicious and I got to spend time playing with her daughter, Juanita (she was cute--I was 8 and kids often just accept each other as equals).
Anyway... I can't prove any of it, of course, and I am not going to pester my father or aunt about it, but the probability of it being true is very high. I do not recall him speaking negatively of them while they weren't around but I suspect it probably happened.
Here is a concrete example of it. They arrested 140 workers at this meat plant. Are there plans to arrest anyone in the hiring or HR departments, or the executives at the top of the food chain?? Because if not, this entire thing is really a sham that simply illustrates that we are prioritizing getting rid of brown people. And I'm going to have to hold that position until the people I mentioned are hauled off in the same manner as the workers:
I have told this story in some fashion before, but it's the main reason I find the "economic" arguments about illegal immigration just don't hold water, or, at the very least, or not the real motivating factor.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
That is similar to my own backstory. My grandfather owned a medium-sized construction business...in Texas...in the late 1970s through mid-1980s. At the time I was too young to be aware of the issue but now, as an adult, I am absolutely convinced that he regularly hired illegal immigrant workers on a regular basis, probably so he could underpay them for their labor. Meanwhile, Socorro (the wife of one of the guys) would often be at my grandmother's house, cooking and cleaning--she probably got paid but, again, I have no way of knowing. All I know is that when she showed up the food was really delicious and I got to spend time playing with her daughter, Juanita (she was cute--I was 8 and kids often just accept each other as equals).
Anyway... I can't prove any of it, of course, and I am not going to pester my father or aunt about it, but the probability of it being true is very high. I do not recall him speaking negatively of them while they weren't around but I suspect it probably happened.
Here is a concrete example of it. They arrested 140 workers at this meat plant. Are there plans to arrest anyone in the hiring or HR departments, or the executives at the top of the food chain?? Because if not, this entire thing is really a sham that simply illustrates that we are prioritizing getting rid of brown people. And I'm going to have to hold that position until the people I mentioned are hauled off in the same manner as the workers:
Maybe it's punishment enough that they have to hire people that they actually have to pay now? As an aside, would you want them to shut down these facilities? Arresting the owners would likely result in that. What happens to those jobs then? Who gains? I'm curious as to your thoughts.
Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.
Yeah, this happened in 2015 and 2016 when Obama was President. You should be crying bloody murder against Obama, oh wait, we never heard about it back then did we?
Some of it did, some of it is still happening now. I would guess we are hearing about it now because the lawsuit is being filed now. Regardless, the idea that we should be purposefully funneling more children into these facilities as a matter of strict policy now seems even more absurd. Given these revelations, what do you imagine the chances are that something similar hasn't taken place in regards to the children taken into custody in the last 6 weeks?? My bet would be there is no chance it hasn't happened. These facilities seem to have no real expertise in caring for children, they seem to be nothing but a money funnel for the private prison industry.
I'm perfectly willing to admit the Obama Administration did not handle the influx of unaccompanied minors that came in from Central America well. You could even say they handled it poorly. There are many reasons for this, but the main one ties back into Obama's main weakness of thinking that if he just showed the Republicans he could be serious about border security, he could get them to cooperate on immigration reform. Bad move. But that was a reaction to an organic problem that sprung up. Now we are deliberately creating more of the same.
I have told this story in some fashion before, but it's the main reason I find the "economic" arguments about illegal immigration just don't hold water, or, at the very least, or not the real motivating factor.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
That is similar to my own backstory. My grandfather owned a medium-sized construction business...in Texas...in the late 1970s through mid-1980s. At the time I was too young to be aware of the issue but now, as an adult, I am absolutely convinced that he regularly hired illegal immigrant workers on a regular basis, probably so he could underpay them for their labor. Meanwhile, Socorro (the wife of one of the guys) would often be at my grandmother's house, cooking and cleaning--she probably got paid but, again, I have no way of knowing. All I know is that when she showed up the food was really delicious and I got to spend time playing with her daughter, Juanita (she was cute--I was 8 and kids often just accept each other as equals).
Anyway... I can't prove any of it, of course, and I am not going to pester my father or aunt about it, but the probability of it being true is very high. I do not recall him speaking negatively of them while they weren't around but I suspect it probably happened.
Here is a concrete example of it. They arrested 140 workers at this meat plant. Are there plans to arrest anyone in the hiring or HR departments, or the executives at the top of the food chain?? Because if not, this entire thing is really a sham that simply illustrates that we are prioritizing getting rid of brown people. And I'm going to have to hold that position until the people I mentioned are hauled off in the same manner as the workers:
Maybe it's punishment enough that they have to hire people that they actually have to pay now? As an aside, would you want them to shut down these facilities? Arresting the owners would likely result in that. What happens to those jobs then? Who gains? I'm curious as to your thoughts.
I don't actually want the owners arrested. BUT.....if they are going to arrest the workers, not arresting the owners who CLEARLY know what is going on seems to me to be the very definition of wealth, privilege and a two-tiered justice system. What is the benefit or gain in the workers being arrested?? They are the ones who are being taken advantage of in the end.
If "law and order" is the catch-phrase of the day on the right, it can't be selectively applied without revealing it's true intentions. If crossing a line in the sand on the southern border is worthy of having your child taken away from you, but harboring and employing nearly 150 illegal workers knowingly is not even worthy of anything more than what I imagine will be a hefty fine, then the purpose of the push for "law and order" seems fairly clear to me.
I have told this story in some fashion before, but it's the main reason I find the "economic" arguments about illegal immigration just don't hold water, or, at the very least, or not the real motivating factor.
My dad of my best friend in high school is a hard-core conservative voter. Though I haven't talked to him personally in a few years, it is inconceivable this man didn't vote for Donald Trump. Donald Trump's main agenda is curtailing immigration of ALL kinds, but especially illegal immigration.
Now, for upwards of 4 years, I watched this midwestern farmer negotiate with migrant workers who were literally crammed into a van. I watched him give them money with my own eyes. I have walked through the trailer he had set up on the back of the property that was there to give longer-term migrant workers a place to sleep. I have picked rocks in the fields on a hot summer day WITH these workers, and then been ridiculed by my friend's father at the end of the day excoriating us for how much lazier we were than the migrant workers (he wasn't wrong about that part). But as soon as these people are out of earshot, he'd start immediately riffing on "beaners" and "spics".
The cognitive dissonance here, in retrospect, is even more frightening. He had no problem paying them for work he knew he couldn't get anyone else to do. He even freely admitted they were far better workers at what he needed done than me or my friends could ever be. And yeah, it may be illegal, but who the hell was ever going to find out?? Rural Minnesota is a no-man's land. It's the kind of place where if you know a cop well enough he'd cover up a DUI for you. Certainly no one is going to report a farmer hiring migrant farmhands. But they will SURE AS SHIT complain about illegal immigration at the bar until the cows come home, even though they are LITERALLY the people who are helping fund it.
That is similar to my own backstory. My grandfather owned a medium-sized construction business...in Texas...in the late 1970s through mid-1980s. At the time I was too young to be aware of the issue but now, as an adult, I am absolutely convinced that he regularly hired illegal immigrant workers on a regular basis, probably so he could underpay them for their labor. Meanwhile, Socorro (the wife of one of the guys) would often be at my grandmother's house, cooking and cleaning--she probably got paid but, again, I have no way of knowing. All I know is that when she showed up the food was really delicious and I got to spend time playing with her daughter, Juanita (she was cute--I was 8 and kids often just accept each other as equals).
Anyway... I can't prove any of it, of course, and I am not going to pester my father or aunt about it, but the probability of it being true is very high. I do not recall him speaking negatively of them while they weren't around but I suspect it probably happened.
Here is a concrete example of it. They arrested 140 workers at this meat plant. Are there plans to arrest anyone in the hiring or HR departments, or the executives at the top of the food chain?? Because if not, this entire thing is really a sham that simply illustrates that we are prioritizing getting rid of brown people. And I'm going to have to hold that position until the people I mentioned are hauled off in the same manner as the workers:
Maybe it's punishment enough that they have to hire people that they actually have to pay now? As an aside, would you want them to shut down these facilities? Arresting the owners would likely result in that. What happens to those jobs then? Who gains? I'm curious as to your thoughts.
I don't actually want the owners arrested. BUT.....if they are going to arrest the workers, not arresting the owners who CLEARLY know what is going on seems to me to be the very definition of wealth, privilege and a two-tiered justice system. What is the benefit or gain in the workers being arrested?? They are the ones who are being taken advantage of in the end.
If "law and order" is the catch-phrase of the day on the right, it can't be selectively applied without revealing it's true intentions. If crossing a line in the sand on the southern border is worthy of having your child taken away from you, but harboring and employing nearly 150 illegal workers knowingly is not even worthy of anything more than what I imagine will be a hefty fine, then the purpose of the push for "law and order" seems fairly clear to me.
The true intentions are protecting (somewhat) the people who actually employ others. Fines are probably the best punishment in these cases anyway unless forcing them out of business promotes replacing them with somebody less unscrupulous.
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
On this forum we have people that include themselves within (and without) various political parties. We have brought up the subject of generalizations in the past but it needs to be addressed again. Perhaps a better way to keep tensions from rising within our forum would be to change the way we word sentences. A reference to X politicians as opposed to everyone in party X is less likely to bring up feelings of aggravation in our fellow forumites. Even among politicians views do vary, but at the moment at least, we don't have any politicians on this forum, so feel free to continue to discuss their issues. I will add this also refers to that of country wide generalizations made toward different nations, as there is an even greater diversity of views within whole countries. A debate style of interaction is not the best way to get someone to understand one's point of view. It often brings out a win/lose attitude which can be further detrimental to a dialogue.
***Some things to keep in mind that might just help, as well as possibly change or enlighten someones views. *Try and separate people from the problem. Getting personal or generalizing others thoughts brings one's guard up, and often closes minds. *Try to focus on common interests, not holding a position to the point of not hearing what another is trying to get across. *Try and invent ideas or options for mutual gain. People are a little more willing to listen with an open mind if an idea/option is not presented as the only right thing to believe in. *Just trying to be cognizant of what and why others may feel the way they do, and asking them to go into more detail can often lead to better understanding.
The more we can improve the style of our dialogue, the better and more productive it can be. Thanks
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
Studies looking at this indicate it isn't true. There is a loss of taxed, that is offset by the illegals claiming much less benefits as well. An US citizen losing out on the job requires that a) US citizens want the job, b) that the business would still make profit paying minimum wage. Even if an US citizen loses that particular job, every immigrants also creates demand for more jobs.
Immigrants also need doctors, cashiers, clothiers, teachers and all sorts of different services...
That you only have a fixed amount of jobs to distribute with every working immigrant taking one away, is one of the biggest right-wing illusions in the immigration debate.
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
Studies looking at this indicate it isn't true. There is a loss of taxed, that is offset by the illegals claiming much less benefits as well. An US citizen losing out on the job requires that a) US citizens want the job, b) that the business would still make profit paying minimum wage. Even if an US citizen loses that particular job, every immigrants also creates demand for more jobs.
Immigrants also need doctors, cashiers, clothiers, teachers and all sorts of different services...
That you only have a fixed amount of jobs to distribute with every working immigrant taking one away, is one of the biggest right-wing illusions in the immigration debate.
If that's the case then there isn't a problem at all. So what are we debating? Why hunt them down and deport them, those of us on the right, and why bother making them citizens, those of you on the left? Status quo is the way to go!
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
Studies looking at this indicate it isn't true. There is a loss of taxed, that is offset by the illegals claiming much less benefits as well. An US citizen losing out on the job requires that a) US citizens want the job, b) that the business would still make profit paying minimum wage. Even if an US citizen loses that particular job, every immigrants also creates demand for more jobs.
Immigrants also need doctors, cashiers, clothiers, teachers and all sorts of different services...
That you only have a fixed amount of jobs to distribute with every working immigrant taking one away, is one of the biggest right-wing illusions in the immigration debate.
If that's the case then there isn't a problem at all. So what are we debating? Why hunt them down and deport them, those of us on the right, and why bother making them citizens, those of you on the left? Status quo is the way to go!
You are joking, but speaking from a purely economic perspective status quo would be the optimal way to go in my opinion.
However, I do have problems with establishing a permanent population with less rights, i.e. people who are not able to seek redress in court or report crimes comitted against them, because they are always afraid of deportation.
Status quo is actually pretty close to my view as well. We have a situation where high-skilled immigrants have a relatively easy way of legally entering the country while low-skilled immigrants are seldom able to do it legally. You can list advantages and disadvantages of immigration in general, but with net immigration at a 20-year low, and with a large immigrant population already in the United States, it's not obvious to me that immigration needs to be much higher or much lower than it currently is.
We're not swamped by immigration, nor are we starved of it. I think we have larger problems to tackle in the U.S.
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
Studies looking at this indicate it isn't true. There is a loss of taxed, that is offset by the illegals claiming much less benefits as well. An US citizen losing out on the job requires that a) US citizens want the job, b) that the business would still make profit paying minimum wage. Even if an US citizen loses that particular job, every immigrants also creates demand for more jobs.
Immigrants also need doctors, cashiers, clothiers, teachers and all sorts of different services...
That you only have a fixed amount of jobs to distribute with every working immigrant taking one away, is one of the biggest right-wing illusions in the immigration debate.
If that's the case then there isn't a problem at all. So what are we debating? Why hunt them down and deport them, those of us on the right, and why bother making them citizens, those of you on the left? Status quo is the way to go!
You are joking, but speaking from a purely economic perspective status quo would be the optimal way to go in my opinion.
However, I do have problems with establishing a permanent population with less rights, i.e. people who are not able to seek redress in court or report crimes comitted against them, because they are always afraid of deportation.
I'm only joking in the context that I know that doing nothing never seems to be an option (or maybe it's just that the people against doing nothing are just louder). I'm pretty much with @semiticgod on this issue.
I think we have larger problems to tackle in the U.S.
Exactly. The whole "brown people are MS13 animals!" is a distraction.
The rich trying to make the middle class afraid of the poor while they run off with all the money.
This a horrible racist distraction by Trump, the Republican party, and Conservative media. The biggest problems in the United States are not immigrants - people without power looking for a better life. We have real problems, this is a distraction. Putting children in cages is not going to fix America's problems.
I'm not familiar with immigration statistics in the US, so looked at a few sites to see what data is around. This one (from a non-partisan organization) seems to be a decent summary and suggests that the overall population of illegal immigrants has been pretty stable for some years now.
@WarChiefZeke you're right ... but it's still an unjustifiable policy.
What part do you find unjustifiable? The treatment of illegal immigration as a criminal offense, or the policy of seperating parent and child when the parent commits a crime?
For my view, I support illegal immigration being treated as a crime. It is against the wishes of the american people and their interests.I also think that illegal migrants should be treated to the same procedures as anyone else in the justice system. If that means the parents aren't jailed along with their kids like the rest of society, that's what we should do.
Consider this thought experiment: - family of British tourists goes shopping - family crosses the road where they shouldn't (jaywalking) - police arrest family - parents are taken away and put into indefinite detention without telling the children where they are - children are placed with a relative (if there is one) or, more likely, put into the state fostering system - at some point in the future parents go in front of a judge who immediately releases them as time served is already a far greater punishment than was expected for the crime of jaywalking - parents are deported, still without knowing where their children are
While I understand the point you are trying to make here, I can't agree with it because it relies on the person being unaware they are commiting a crime. I feel that it is incredibly unlikely that illegal migrants do not actually know that sneaking into the country without going through the legal permit process is against the law. It seems as common sense as murder laws, really.
There's another point to be made as well - that applying for asylum is legal under both US and international law. A considerable number of the migrants don't wish to be illegal, but want to apply for asylum. However, the US Border Patrol is deliberately making that hard or impossible.
Applying for asylum is legal but, as I went over, this isn't a policy related to legal asylum seekers, but people who enter illegally and then, often, apply. It being hard is no excuse for violating the law.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This policy (again hopefully now ended) did not represent simply a different perspective on the best way to tackle a real problem, but was evil. Chaos and human misery was deliberately caused in order, depending on various sources I've seen: - to act as a bargaining counter to get immigration reforms through; and/or - to make would be immigrants think again about coming to the US; and/or - to make Republican voters more likely to turn out to vote in the forthcoming elections. I do not believe that for any of those objectives, "the end justifies the means".
This is an example of the hysterical rhetoric and outlandish hyperbole being casually thrown about. "Chaos and human misery were deliberetely caused" none of that is remotely proven nor can be reasonably implied. This is a consequence of both existing law and new laws criminalizing illegal entry, no motivations are neccesary and, being unneccesary, require justification to assert. At least 2 of those 3 accusations are unprovable because they are based on unspoken motivations, but more than that, dont make sense in their own right
For example, on influencing voter turnout. It was never Trump or the GOP promoting this policy to their voters or marketing it. It was all, from the very beginning, a story from the media against Trump's policy. Because of that, I think the exact opposite is more likely to be true. The media has hyperventilated and sensationalized and crafted a narrative about this precisely to influence *their* voter turn out.
I think it's far more likely that it is what it appears to be: a logical consequence of existing law as it is written, rather than malicious conspiracy. Even if I am in support of Trump's overall agenda, I don't see him as some 5-D underwater chess cunning strategist.
A crisis actor was spotted at a Texas immigrant Children's Detention Center (child cages). First Lady Melania Trump, the crisis actor, was there for damage control over Trumps policies.
Prior to arriving at the facility the First Lady, who chooses her wardrobe carefully, wore a green jacket reading "I don't care. Do u?".
The first lady is an immigrant who has sponsored her parents to the US through chain migration. She also broke immigration law by seeking employment illegally while on a tourist visa. Tell us again how the law is so important, Mr. Fraud University, Fraud charity, serial lying blowhard who pardons people who intentionally broke the law?
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
For the purposes of this thought exercise, it doesn't matter if you are an immigrant (whether legal or illegal) or a citizen (whether naturalized or native). Let us suppose that I have captured or bought you--the circumstances of how you wound up in my possession are irrelevant, take you to my ranch/farm/factory/mine, put a monitoring device on you so that I may track your GPS coordinates, remove any pieces of identification you may have on you, take all your money, and make certain you have no means of communicating with the outside world. For the first week or two you are held indoors under close supervision to assess your flight risk but during this time I give you comfortable and clean clothing, make certain the room in which you held is reasonably comfortable--your own clean toilet and sink, comfortable bed without insects in it, heating or air conditioning as needed, your own shower, and food which is fresh and nutritious. Despite the fact that you cannot leave or communicate with the outside world, the fact that you are being held in comfort does not negate the fact that for all intents and purposes you are my slave.
Are you better off under my care or being homeless in any large city? How about in a shelter like a Salvation Army? Recall--even at the SA you might be mugged for whatever small amount of valuable belongings you have managed to collect for yourself.
I suppose if your choices are "be in jail" or "be killed by a gang" then "jail" is the better option, but that really isn't "better off" in many circumstances.
*************
Now let us take a step back from the immediate situation of incarcerating families entering the country illegally. *Why* are they coming here under such circumstances? The answer we usually see is "they are fleeing gang and/or cartel violence in their country of origin". Considered from this point of view, illegal immigration is the symptom, not the disease.
What would be the ramifications of addressing the disease instead of the symptom? On the one hand this would necessitate invading another country and probably overthrowing the government (working from the presumption that the politicians there are either in control of the gangs or on the cartel payroll) but we have an incredibly poor track record of engaging in that behavior. On the other hand, the government and military might actually be outmanned and outgunned--they may appreciate the helping hand.
Fixing the cause of illegal immigration is simply not realistic. We cannot make foreign countries better places to live. Military intervention is possible but should be reserved strictly for the most extreme scenarios.
The problem was that the minors were being separated from their parents before there was any conviction, as a blanket policy. That's why some legal immigrants had their children kidnapped as well--because it was done without a hearing. An extrajudicial punishment. If you separate someone from their children, you have to do it after due process of law; not before.
Detaining people as a family is a better policy unless the kids have someone else to take them in (a family friend or what have you), but I'm still concerned about the duration of this detainment. By law, detainees have to be granted a hearing within 20 days of arrest, but 20 days seems pretty extreme, even as a maximum. It seems like the sort of thing that should be done within a week.
So what is this all about?? Are we now trying to catch people driving while Canadian?? The loophole that allows border agents to basically do ANYTHING within 100 miles of the border means that if you live or travel near a border, you have no 4th Amendment rights anymore. Those protections are, essentially, suspended. And this appears to have been done not on some backwoods highway, but on Interstate 95. What sort of massive criminal conspiracy could possibly be going on in Northern Maine that would require a "papers please" check-point on a major US interstate highway??
So what is this all about?? Are we now trying to catch people driving while Canadian?? The loophole that allows border agents to basically do ANYTHING within 100 miles of the border means that if you live or travel near a border, you essentially have no 4th Amendment rights anymore. Those protections are, essentially, suspended. And this appears to have been done not on some backwoods highway, but on Interstate 95. What sort of massive criminal conspiracy could possibly be going on in Northern Maine that would require a "papers please" check-point on a major US interstate highway??
/s I dunno, those Canucks did just pass legislation for legalizing weed starting in October! (le gasp).
Also Trump official said there's a special place in hell for Justin Trudeau and passed tarrifs on Canadian Steel because "national sekurity reasons". Gee maybe we need another wall.
Up North, if they don't get their stuff together pronto, Trump might level Toronto. /s
Actually it just seems like more police state crap.
So, we have been having a discussion about what level of crime crossing the border illegally actually amounts to. It turns out, even the Administration, despite all their bluster, views it as less important than a ticket for littering:
The Trump administration border crackdown that has separated thousands of children from their parents is built on a mountain of small-time criminal prosecutions that typically end with people sentenced to spend no additional time in jail and pay a $10 fee, according to a USA TODAY analysis of thousands of cases.
The “zero tolerance” push along the U.S. border with Mexico was meant to deter migrants by bringing criminal charges against everyone caught entering the United States illegally. In addition, it served as the legal machinery for splitting children from parents who were accompanying them across the border. Since the crackdown began in May, border agents have separated about 2,300 children from their families.
The administration gave little sign that it would ease that stance Thursday despite an international backlash so intense that even some of the president's allies had threatened to break with the White House. The Justice Department said there would be "no change" in its enforcement push, and Trump insisted the government must to maintain "a very tough policy" along the border.
The crackdown has produced a high-velocity assembly line of prosecutions that has sped thousands of migrants through crowded federal courtrooms to answer for the misdemeanor of having entered the United States illegally.
An examination of thousands of pages of federal court records show that those cases are seldom more than a symbolic undertaking. In many cases, migrants are taken from an immigration holding facility, bused to federal court, quickly plead guilty to having entered the country illegally, and are sentenced to whatever time they have already spent in the government’s custody and a $10 court fee. Then they're returned to immigration authorities to be processed for deportation.
We have been taking their kids from their parents for committing an infraction that results in (and I want to emphasize this again so we can all wrap our heads around it) a $10 fine. Ten. dollars. Proving once again that the REAL punishment (since the actual punishment barely exists) was taking the children. The real sentence here was not being handed out by judges, but by the Executive Branch and on the ground law enforcement. That is what is defined as "extrajudicial". Seriously. $10. Given this information, I don't see how we can't come to the conclusion that the entire process the last 6 weeks was to SPECIFICALLY take the children, since no actual sentences or punishment of any monetary significance are even being handed out in court.
And that's a surprise somehow? I can't recall ever a politician actively campaigning for somebody who doesn't agree with them. Most of the time they either ignore them or try to subtly undermine them (or actively undermine them if they're an 'official' enemy). Isn't that the whole point of politics? Just sayin'...
On this forum we have people that include themselves within (and without) various political parties. We have brought up the subject of generalizations in the past but it needs to be addressed again. Perhaps a better way to keep tensions from rising within our forum would be to change the way we word sentences. A reference to X politicians as opposed to everyone in party X is less likely to bring up feelings of aggravation in our fellow forumites. Even among politicians views do vary, but at the moment at least, we don't have any politicians on this forum, so feel free to continue to discuss their issues. I will add this also refers to that of country wide generalizations made toward different nations, as there is an even greater diversity of views within whole countries. A debate style of interaction is not the best way to get someone to understand one's point of view. It often brings out a win/lose attitude which can be further detrimental to a dialogue.
***Some things to keep in mind that might just help, as well as possibly change or enlighten someones views. *Try and separate people from the problem. Getting personal or generalizing others thoughts brings one's guard up, and often closes minds. *Try to focus on common interests, not holding a position to the point of not hearing what another is trying to get across. *Try and invent ideas or options for mutual gain. People are a little more willing to listen with an open mind if an idea/option is not presented as the only right thing to believe in. *Just trying to be cognizant of what and why others may feel the way they do, and asking them to go into more detail can often lead to better understanding.
The more we can improve the style of our dialogue, the better and more productive it can be. Thanks
Although I agree with you in principle @Zhaghoul, as an apparent minority conservative viewpoint on this forum I've never felt threatened or ignored. My main opponents, @jjstraka34 and @smeagolheart are very passionate but have never gotten personal with me. I try to let them see things from my perspective as I'm sure they do the same with me. The only true way to reach a middle ground is for people to view things from other's perspective. My viewpoint has changed because of them and I hope their views of conservatives has been evolved because of the views of myself, @WarChiefZeke and @Mathsorcerer. This forum is by far the best for allowing all viewpoints without condemnation that I've ever seen. That's a tribute to all parties involved in the dialogue!
What part do you find unjustifiable? The treatment of illegal immigration as a criminal offense, or the policy of seperating parent and child when the parent commits a crime?
For my view, I support illegal immigration being treated as a crime. It is against the wishes of the american people and their interests.I also think that illegal migrants should be treated to the same procedures as anyone else in the justice system. If that means the parents aren't jailed along with their kids like the rest of society, that's what we should do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to treat it as a crime. I do think it's unreasonable to treat it as a serious crime worthy of splitting families up at all - let alone possibly permanently.
While I understand the point you are trying to make here, I can't agree with it because it relies on the person being unaware they are commiting a crime. I feel that it is incredibly unlikely that illegal migrants do not actually know that sneaking into the country without going through the legal permit process is against the law. It seems as common sense as murder laws, really.
My thought experiment didn't require someone not knowing something was against the law, though I agree that adds to the problem. To give a more concrete example, I was travelling in the US years ago (I think 1987). As it happens at that time I did know that jaywalking was illegal, but did it anyway. I didn't, however, know that you were required to come to a full stop at a junction before turning and got pulled over for that despite there being no other traffic around. The cop let me go there with a warning, but if he'd charged me and I'd had to pay a fine I would have grumbled a bit, but just done so. What I would not have accepted, whether as a penalty for jaywalking or not stopping at a junction, was that this level of crime justified splitting me up from my family. There are countries where people need to be aware that the justice system can be incredibly unfair and arbitrary, but the US has not generally been thought of in that way in the past.
Applying for asylum is legal but, as I went over, this isn't a policy related to legal asylum seekers, but people who enter illegally and then, often, apply. It being hard is no excuse for violating the law.
OK, but if you take that line then the huge majority of people would be split up from their families given that virtually everyone breaks some sort of law on a regular basis. Also please note that illegally entering the country does not mean you can't claim asylum - in fact an asylum claim is specifically provided for in the US legal process as a defense against deportation. See this summary from the Dept of Homeland Security. The issue is therefore not to do with whether you're an asylum seeker or not, but whether the crime of illegal entry justifies family separation. Prior to October 2017 it was extremely clear it did not and I'm not aware of a single case where this happened (separation did occur of course where other more serious crimes had been committed). There was no change in the law from October 2017, but just a change in the policy. Personally I'm quite sure that this change in policy was in fact illegal under the existing law and a number of challenges to the policy had been made - but none resolved in the time since then.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This policy (again hopefully now ended) did not represent simply a different perspective on the best way to tackle a real problem, but was evil. Chaos and human misery was deliberately caused in order, depending on various sources I've seen: - to act as a bargaining counter to get immigration reforms through; and/or - to make would be immigrants think again about coming to the US; and/or - to make Republican voters more likely to turn out to vote in the forthcoming elections. I do not believe that for any of those objectives, "the end justifies the means".
This is an example of the hysterical rhetoric and outlandish hyperbole being casually thrown about. "Chaos and human misery were deliberetely caused" none of that is remotely proven nor can be reasonably implied. This is a consequence of both existing law and new laws criminalizing illegal entry, no motivations are neccesary and, being unneccesary, require justification to assert. At least 2 of those 3 accusations are unprovable because they are based on unspoken motivations, but more than that, dont make sense in their own right
For example, on influencing voter turnout. It was never Trump or the GOP promoting this policy to their voters or marketing it. It was all, from the very beginning, a story from the media against Trump's policy. Because of that, I think the exact opposite is more likely to be true. The media has hyperventilated and sensationalized and crafted a narrative about this precisely to influence *their* voter turn out.
I think it's far more likely that it is what it appears to be: a logical consequence of existing law as it is written, rather than malicious conspiracy. Even if I am in support of Trump's overall agenda, I don't see him as some 5-D underwater chess cunning strategist.
I have a bit of sympathy with you here as there clearly is a danger of hyperbole around this issue. However, I don't think I'm particularly given to that and don't believe I indulged in it here. Given that the change from October 2017 (later extended by the policy of 'zero tolerance') was totally unconnected with any change in the law I can't accept that this was simply a consequence of existing and new laws. Trump's recent reversal of the policy was also unconnected to the law of course.
As for motivation, the first 2 objectives are certainly supported by public comments. I have seen dozens of comments all the way from individual border patrol employees up through Congressmen and members of the administration to Trump himself supporting the idea that immigrants needed to be dissuaded from coming here. The idea of using the policy as a bargaining counter is slightly less prevalent, but still pretty common and has been a theme in Trump's tweets for quite a while. Prior to the zero tolerance policy he was regularly complaining about the inability to take action on immigration due to the obstructive Democrats. Having then actually taken action anyway he shifted to complaining that the Democrats were preventing immigration reform - there's been a whole series of this type of tweet
Separating families at the Border is the fault of bad legislation passed by the Democrats. Border Security laws should be changed but the Dems can’t get their act together! Started the Wall.
In relation to getting the Republican voters out I agree that's not as obvious, but if you think that's not a factor how do you explain this sort of language?
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!
And that's a surprise somehow? I can't recall ever a politician actively campaigning for somebody who doesn't agree with them. Most of the time they either ignore them or try to subtly undermine them (or actively undermine them if they're an 'official' enemy). Isn't that the whole point of politics? Just sayin'...
Normally our political enemies aren't in Germany, the UK, France, etc and our friends aren't Wonderful Kim Jong Un, Strong Vlad Putin, and Tough Dueterte, etc.
So yeah, it's pretty unprecedented for a President to campaign to smear and try to overthrow the government leaders in friendly countries.
Comments
Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/06/20/ice-arrests-nearly-150-meat-plant-workers-in-latest-immigration-raid-in-ohio/?utm_term=.b4d94ed13ad4
I'm perfectly willing to admit the Obama Administration did not handle the influx of unaccompanied minors that came in from Central America well. You could even say they handled it poorly. There are many reasons for this, but the main one ties back into Obama's main weakness of thinking that if he just showed the Republicans he could be serious about border security, he could get them to cooperate on immigration reform. Bad move. But that was a reaction to an organic problem that sprung up. Now we are deliberately creating more of the same.
If "law and order" is the catch-phrase of the day on the right, it can't be selectively applied without revealing it's true intentions. If crossing a line in the sand on the southern border is worthy of having your child taken away from you, but harboring and employing nearly 150 illegal workers knowingly is not even worthy of anything more than what I imagine will be a hefty fine, then the purpose of the push for "law and order" seems fairly clear to me.
The workers are only being exploited in the context of comparing them to US citizens which they are NOT. By the standards of the countries they fled from they're most likely BETTER OFF. How is that exploiting them? The aggrieved party here are the US citizens who would have a job if the illegals weren't here. Oh, and the government by not collecting taxes on the higher wages that should be paid.
On this forum we have people that include themselves within (and without) various political parties. We have brought up the subject of generalizations in the past but it needs to be addressed again. Perhaps a better way to keep tensions from rising within our forum would be to change the way we word sentences. A reference to X politicians as opposed to everyone in party X is less likely to bring up feelings of aggravation in our fellow forumites. Even among politicians views do vary, but at the moment at least, we don't have any politicians on this forum, so feel free to continue to discuss their issues. I will add this also refers to that of country wide generalizations made toward different nations, as there is an even greater diversity of views within whole countries.
A debate style of interaction is not the best way to get someone to understand one's point of view. It often brings out a win/lose attitude which can be further detrimental to a dialogue.
***Some things to keep in mind that might just help, as well as possibly change or enlighten someones views.
*Try and separate people from the problem. Getting personal or generalizing others thoughts brings one's guard up, and often closes minds.
*Try to focus on common interests, not holding a position to the point of not hearing what another is trying to get across.
*Try and invent ideas or options for mutual gain. People are a little more willing to listen with an open mind if an idea/option is not presented as the only right thing to believe in.
*Just trying to be cognizant of what and why others may feel the way they do, and asking them to go into more detail can often lead to better understanding.
The more we can improve the style of our dialogue, the better and more productive it can be.
Thanks
Immigrants also need doctors, cashiers, clothiers, teachers and all sorts of different services...
That you only have a fixed amount of jobs to distribute with every working immigrant taking one away, is one of the biggest right-wing illusions in the immigration debate.
However, I do have problems with establishing a permanent population with less rights, i.e. people who are not able to seek redress in court or report crimes comitted against them, because they are always afraid of deportation.
We're not swamped by immigration, nor are we starved of it. I think we have larger problems to tackle in the U.S.
The rich trying to make the middle class afraid of the poor while they run off with all the money.
This a horrible racist distraction by Trump, the Republican party, and Conservative media. The biggest problems in the United States are not immigrants - people without power looking for a better life. We have real problems, this is a distraction. Putting children in cages is not going to fix America's problems.
What part do you find unjustifiable? The treatment of illegal immigration as a criminal offense, or the policy of seperating parent and child when the parent commits a crime?
For my view, I support illegal immigration being treated as a crime. It is against the wishes of the american people and their interests.I also think that illegal migrants should be treated to the same procedures as anyone else in the justice system. If that means the parents aren't jailed along with their kids like the rest of society, that's what we should do.
While I understand the point you are trying to make here, I can't agree with it because it relies on the person being unaware they are commiting a crime. I feel that it is incredibly unlikely that illegal migrants do not actually know that sneaking into the country without going through the legal permit process is against the law. It seems as common sense as murder laws, really. Applying for asylum is legal but, as I went over, this isn't a policy related to legal asylum seekers, but people who enter illegally and then, often, apply. It being hard is no excuse for violating the law.
This is an example of the hysterical rhetoric and outlandish hyperbole being casually thrown about. "Chaos and human misery were deliberetely caused" none of that is remotely proven nor can be reasonably implied. This is a consequence of both existing law and new laws criminalizing illegal entry, no motivations are neccesary and, being unneccesary, require justification to assert. At least 2 of those 3 accusations are unprovable because they are based on unspoken motivations, but more than that, dont make sense in their own right
For example, on influencing voter turnout. It was never Trump or the GOP promoting this policy to their voters or marketing it. It was all, from the very beginning, a story from the media against Trump's policy. Because of that, I think the exact opposite is more likely to be true. The media has hyperventilated and sensationalized and crafted a narrative about this precisely to influence *their* voter turn out.
I think it's far more likely that it is what it appears to be: a logical consequence of existing law as it is written, rather than malicious conspiracy. Even if I am in support of Trump's overall agenda, I don't see him as some 5-D underwater chess cunning strategist.
Prior to arriving at the facility the First Lady, who chooses her wardrobe carefully, wore a green jacket reading "I don't care. Do u?".
The first lady is an immigrant who has sponsored her parents to the US through chain migration. She also broke immigration law by seeking employment illegally while on a tourist visa. Tell us again how the law is so important, Mr. Fraud University, Fraud charity, serial lying blowhard who pardons people who intentionally broke the law?
Are you better off under my care or being homeless in any large city? How about in a shelter like a Salvation Army? Recall--even at the SA you might be mugged for whatever small amount of valuable belongings you have managed to collect for yourself.
I suppose if your choices are "be in jail" or "be killed by a gang" then "jail" is the better option, but that really isn't "better off" in many circumstances.
*************
Now let us take a step back from the immediate situation of incarcerating families entering the country illegally. *Why* are they coming here under such circumstances? The answer we usually see is "they are fleeing gang and/or cartel violence in their country of origin". Considered from this point of view, illegal immigration is the symptom, not the disease.
What would be the ramifications of addressing the disease instead of the symptom? On the one hand this would necessitate invading another country and probably overthrowing the government (working from the presumption that the politicians there are either in control of the gangs or on the cartel payroll) but we have an incredibly poor track record of engaging in that behavior. On the other hand, the government and military might actually be outmanned and outgunned--they may appreciate the helping hand.
Detaining people as a family is a better policy unless the kids have someone else to take them in (a family friend or what have you), but I'm still concerned about the duration of this detainment. By law, detainees have to be granted a hearing within 20 days of arrest, but 20 days seems pretty extreme, even as a maximum. It seems like the sort of thing that should be done within a week.
So what is this all about?? Are we now trying to catch people driving while Canadian?? The loophole that allows border agents to basically do ANYTHING within 100 miles of the border means that if you live or travel near a border, you have no 4th Amendment rights anymore. Those protections are, essentially, suspended. And this appears to have been done not on some backwoods highway, but on Interstate 95. What sort of massive criminal conspiracy could possibly be going on in Northern Maine that would require a "papers please" check-point on a major US interstate highway??
I dunno, those Canucks did just pass legislation for legalizing weed starting in October! (le gasp).
Also Trump official said there's a special place in hell for Justin Trudeau and passed tarrifs on Canadian Steel because "national sekurity reasons". Gee maybe we need another wall.
Up North, if they don't get their stuff together pronto, Trump might level Toronto.
/s
Actually it just seems like more police state crap.
The Trump administration border crackdown that has separated thousands of children from their parents is built on a mountain of small-time criminal prosecutions that typically end with people sentenced to spend no additional time in jail and pay a $10 fee, according to a USA TODAY analysis of thousands of cases.
The “zero tolerance” push along the U.S. border with Mexico was meant to deter migrants by bringing criminal charges against everyone caught entering the United States illegally. In addition, it served as the legal machinery for splitting children from parents who were accompanying them across the border. Since the crackdown began in May, border agents have separated about 2,300 children from their families.
The administration gave little sign that it would ease that stance Thursday despite an international backlash so intense that even some of the president's allies had threatened to break with the White House. The Justice Department said there would be "no change" in its enforcement push, and Trump insisted the government must to maintain "a very tough policy" along the border.
The crackdown has produced a high-velocity assembly line of prosecutions that has sped thousands of migrants through crowded federal courtrooms to answer for the misdemeanor of having entered the United States illegally.
An examination of thousands of pages of federal court records show that those cases are seldom more than a symbolic undertaking. In many cases, migrants are taken from an immigration holding facility, bused to federal court, quickly plead guilty to having entered the country illegally, and are sentenced to whatever time they have already spent in the government’s custody and a $10 court fee. Then they're returned to immigration authorities to be processed for deportation.
We have been taking their kids from their parents for committing an infraction that results in (and I want to emphasize this again so we can all wrap our heads around it) a $10 fine. Ten. dollars. Proving once again that the REAL punishment (since the actual punishment barely exists) was taking the children. The real sentence here was not being handed out by judges, but by the Executive Branch and on the ground law enforcement. That is what is defined as "extrajudicial". Seriously. $10. Given this information, I don't see how we can't come to the conclusion that the entire process the last 6 weeks was to SPECIFICALLY take the children, since no actual sentences or punishment of any monetary significance are even being handed out in court.
They are encouraging all the far-right anti-immigrant fear mongering dictator types that Trump prefers.
-Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b2bbc25e4b00295f15a1d5d
My thought experiment didn't require someone not knowing something was against the law, though I agree that adds to the problem. To give a more concrete example, I was travelling in the US years ago (I think 1987). As it happens at that time I did know that jaywalking was illegal, but did it anyway. I didn't, however, know that you were required to come to a full stop at a junction before turning and got pulled over for that despite there being no other traffic around. The cop let me go there with a warning, but if he'd charged me and I'd had to pay a fine I would have grumbled a bit, but just done so. What I would not have accepted, whether as a penalty for jaywalking or not stopping at a junction, was that this level of crime justified splitting me up from my family. There are countries where people need to be aware that the justice system can be incredibly unfair and arbitrary, but the US has not generally been thought of in that way in the past.
OK, but if you take that line then the huge majority of people would be split up from their families given that virtually everyone breaks some sort of law on a regular basis. Also please note that illegally entering the country does not mean you can't claim asylum - in fact an asylum claim is specifically provided for in the US legal process as a defense against deportation. See this summary from the Dept of Homeland Security. The issue is therefore not to do with whether you're an asylum seeker or not, but whether the crime of illegal entry justifies family separation. Prior to October 2017 it was extremely clear it did not and I'm not aware of a single case where this happened (separation did occur of course where other more serious crimes had been committed). There was no change in the law from October 2017, but just a change in the policy. Personally I'm quite sure that this change in policy was in fact illegal under the existing law and a number of challenges to the policy had been made - but none resolved in the time since then.
I have a bit of sympathy with you here as there clearly is a danger of hyperbole around this issue. However, I don't think I'm particularly given to that and don't believe I indulged in it here. Given that the change from October 2017 (later extended by the policy of 'zero tolerance') was totally unconnected with any change in the law I can't accept that this was simply a consequence of existing and new laws. Trump's recent reversal of the policy was also unconnected to the law of course.
As for motivation, the first 2 objectives are certainly supported by public comments. I have seen dozens of comments all the way from individual border patrol employees up through Congressmen and members of the administration to Trump himself supporting the idea that immigrants needed to be dissuaded from coming here. The idea of using the policy as a bargaining counter is slightly less prevalent, but still pretty common and has been a theme in Trump's tweets for quite a while. Prior to the zero tolerance policy he was regularly complaining about the inability to take action on immigration due to the obstructive Democrats. Having then actually taken action anyway he shifted to complaining that the Democrats were preventing immigration reform - there's been a whole series of this type of tweet In relation to getting the Republican voters out I agree that's not as obvious, but if you think that's not a factor how do you explain this sort of language? This comment article explains the argument about Trump appealing to his base in more detail.
So yeah, it's pretty unprecedented for a President to campaign to smear and try to overthrow the government leaders in friendly countries.