Presidentvalget i USA 2024

[jallajall]

[shockorshot]

20 minutes ago, jallajall said:

Bransjens beste.

Ah du fant den pollen som regnes som den største outlieren og valgte å presentere den som den beste, ikke overraskende.

Pollen er så unormal at den er den mest diskuterte pollen på 538 redditten for øyeblikket

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/zKzoNhwb0Y

Så hva har mest sannsynligvis skjedd? Vel hvis man ser på resten av svarene av svarene, oversampling av folk med vesentlige konservative verdier.

 

Endret 15. september av shockorshot

[jallajall]

1 minute ago, shockorshot said:

Ah du fant den pollen som regnes som den største outlieren og valgte å presentere den som den beste, ikke overraskende.

Pollen er så unormal at det til og med har fått en egen tråd på 538 redditten

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/zKzoNhwb0Y

Så hva har mest sannsynligvis skjedd? Vel hvis man ser på resten av svarene, oversampling av folk med vesentlige konservative verdier.

 

AtlasIntel er ikke bare en av de aller beste i USA, men også i andre land.

Hvite 69%, R+1, men for høy andel av kvinner.
Legg merke til hvor man poller med hvite på rundt 63-65% eller rundt deromkring.


 

Bransjens beste:
Atlas Intel
Rasmussen
Trafalgar
BigDataPoll
Insider Advantage
Susquehanna

Interessante:
Emerson
HarrisX
TIPP

Dårligere pollsters:
YouGov
Ipsos
Quinnpac
Bloomberg
Marist

 

[shockorshot]

6 minutes ago, jallajall said:

AtlasIntel er ikke bare en av de aller beste i USA, men også i andre land.

Hvite 69%, R+1, men for høy andel av kvinner.
Legg merke til hvor man poller med hvite på rundt 63-65% eller rundt deromkring.


 

Bransjens beste:
Atlas Intel
Rasmussen
Trafalgar
BigDataPoll
Insider Advantage
Susquehanna

Interessante:
Emerson
HarrisX
TIPP

Dårligere pollsters:
YouGov
Ipsos
Quinnpac
Bloomberg
Marist

 

Jeg tror ikke du forstår hva en outlier er eller hvorfor folk tror det har skjedd en oversampling av en demografi på svarskjemaet (noe som kan skje med enhver pollster, flink eller dårlig). Som sagt, hvis man ser på resten av svarene så tyder det på det, mange av dem er også outliers.

Endret 15. september av shockorshot

[Tussi]

Red Frostraven skrev (1 time siden):

Det er jo bokstavelig talt tilbakevist, all den tid en zygote ikke har blitt noe, og ikke er opphavet til et, konkret menneske.

Jeg skal ta signalene i tråden og droppe tema  i denne omgang

SilverShaded skrev (1 time siden):

Her sier du at andre ikke bør ha rett til å fjerne retten til liv. Enig...det bør være opp til den kvinnen det gjelder i hvert enkelt tilfelle.

For nå er vi lei av denne debatten om liv-fremfor-alt vs kvinners rett til å bestemme over egen kropp og skjebne. DET er en rettighet som bør ha presedens over en liten celleklumps rett til å bestemme over kvinners liv. Nå har vi rimelig klart for oss hva du mener, og dette er ikke en abort-tråd hvor det kan drives heftig kampanje for/imot. Abortsaken som en del av valgkampen er noe helt annet.             

Så hvorfor bringer dere det opp? Forventer dere at dere kan bringe det opp og la det stå ubesvart? Nope, jeg lar ikke slike ting stå ubesvart når dere skriver ting som bagatelliserer menneskeliv og forsvarer å ta liv, da vil jeg svare. Så kan dere velge da. For jeg lar ikke anti-liv-ptopaganda bestå ubesvart, uansett hvir lei dere er. Dette er et diskusjonsforum, ikke et ekkokammer, og abort er en del av oresidentvalgkampen

Endret 15. september av Tussi

[SilverShaded]

Tussi skrev (Akkurat nå):

Så hvorfor bringer dere det opp? Forventer dere at dere kan bringe det opp og la det stå ubesvart? Nope

Fordi hver gang noen streifer innom abbort-saken i valgkampen, kommer du med din evinnelige pro-life kampanje.

[Tussi]

SilverShaded skrev (15 minutter siden):

Fordi hver gang noen streifer innom abbort-saken i valgkampen, kommer du med din evinnelige pro-life kampanje.

Når folk forsvarer abort vil jeg forsvare menneskeliv ja. 

Men vi kan godt droppe denne diskusjonen,  som strengt tatt startet ved at noen ikke tålte at andre formulerte meningsmotstandere syn på en korrekt måte... og folkeavstemningen om abort som er planlagt

Du reagerer når jeg svarer, men ikke når andre tar det opp. 

Endret 15. september av Tussi

[jallajall]

15 minutes ago, shockorshot said:

Jeg tror ikke du forstår hva en outlier er eller hvorfor folk tror det har skjedd en oversampling av en demografi på svarskjemaet (noe som kan skje med enhver pollster, flink eller dårlig). Som sagt, hvis man ser på resten av svarene så tyder det på det, mange av dem er også outliers.

Hva er sammenligningsgrunlaget, og hvorfor er det mer riktig? Hvilke av crosstabene er det som stikker seg ut?
 

[jallajall]

La oss heller ta en dødsstraffdiskusjon. Hvem er pro-life?

[SilverShaded]

Tussi skrev (15 minutter siden):

Når folk forsvarer abort vil jeg forsvare menneskeliv ja. 

Ja, du lar deg trigge så utrolig lett...😵‍💫

[Tussi]

SilverShaded skrev (1 minutt siden):

Ja, du lar deg trigge så utrolig lett...😵‍💫

Det har du rett i,  det er et tema som betyr mye. Men ok, jeg skal ta hintet, jeg trenger ikke svare hver eneste som bringer det opp i forbifarten 

[shockorshot]

27 minutes ago, jallajall said:

Hva er sammenligningsgrunlaget, og hvorfor er det mer riktig? Hvilke av crosstabene er det som stikker seg ut?
 

Vi kan dra frem det enkleste, ingen vits med gish gallop:

Bare +2 foretrekker Harris når det kommer til reproductive rights, noe som er en stor outlier.

Endret 15. september av shockorshot

[Selfuniverse]

14 hours ago, JK22 said:

manipulering er svært vanlig i hverdagslivet under sosiale omgang

Det er nok en del av det. Men å basere livet sitt på manipulasjon kan ha negative konsekvenser. Man kan ende opp med å manipulere seg selv også, for å konformere til samfunnet eller folk rundt seg, og lide som følge av det.

Ærlighet ovenfor seg selv, og ovenfor andre er ett svært effektivt verktøy for å forbedre livet sitt. Å lyve har sine fordeler i f.eks farlige eller truende situasjoner (spesielt for kvinner), men i relativt fredelige omgivelser, eller konfliktfylte situasjoner som har blitt bygd opp pågrunn av blandt annet manipulasjon, så er ærlighet veldig ofte ett kjempegodt verktøy for å løse kroniske tilstander.

 

14 hours ago, JK22 said:

og når en leder manipulere en person eller hans/hennes tiltenkte rival er det en del av hans håndtering i et sosialt spill.

Du mener altså at Trump kan lyve og manipulere som han vil fordi det er det en leder skal gjøre? Hvorfor klager du på at Trump skulle brukt manipulasjon og løgner da?

Eller er det du selv som forsøker deg på krumspring for å manipulere meg og andre her for å drive med skadehåndtering av at Kamala lyver og manipulerer?

Dere blir veldig trigget av at jeg pongterer dette. Men jeg er bare ærlig vedrørende dette. Det er noe av det fine med ærlighet. Det kan få andre til å vise sider som ikke er så bra. Man trenger ikke å prøve å manipulere for å få personer til å vise sine dårlige sider. Man kan bare være ærlig.

 

14 hours ago, JK22 said:

Noen ganger blir vi manipulert for vår beste, noen ganger for lederens egne skyld, for det er et sosialt samspill.

Det er alltid å foretrekke med en leder som er ærlig. De fleste gode og kjente ledere i historien har nok vært stort sett ærlige. Ærlig med seg selv og andre. Det er da man får gjort ting og løst problemer. Alle filmer og serier man kan tenke seg har ærlige ledere. Manipulasjon er det monstrene eller fiendene i filmer og tv serier som driver med. Manipulasjon fører til anstrengte forhold, irritasjon, harme, konflikt, og kaos.

Du legger opp til at myndigheter og politiske ledere skal manipulere. Noe annet ville vært utenkelig ifølge deg.

Du sier samtidig at det er naturlig hvis EU myndighetene manipulerer folk i Europa. "For det er ett sosialt samspill".

Når du arbeider i ett firma. Vil du ha ærlige ledere, eller manipulerende ledere? Hvordan er manipulerende ledere best for firmaet?

 

14 hours ago, JK22 said:

Et samspill med hierarkiske atferdsregler og underbevisste aksept som fornektelse, hvor en leder ikke bare er ansvarlig for seg selv. Det er et spill med vinner og taper. Dette vet enhver som hadde makt i deres hender. 

Jeg skjønner ikke denne paragrafen. Kan hende det bare er jeg som ikke greier å skjønne det. Men du er velkommen til å forklare nærmere.

[SilverShaded]

Tussi skrev (10 minutter siden):

Det har du rett i,  det er et tema som betyr mye. Men ok, jeg skal ta hintet, jeg trenger ikke svare hver eneste som bringer det opp i forbifarten 

Veldig fint, for jeg tror faktisk ikke du vinner noen over ved å tre dine ekstreme meninger ned over hodet folk her ved enhver anledning.

Selvsagt er du i din fulle rett til å mene det du mener, men det fins bedre fora for abort-påvirkning enn dette.

[Tussi]

SilverShaded skrev (23 minutter siden):

Veldig fint, for jeg tror faktisk ikke du vinner noen over ved å tre dine ekstreme meninger ned over hodet folk her ved enhver anledning.

Selvsagt er du i din fulle rett til å mene det du mener, men det fins bedre fora for abort-påvirkning enn dette.

Hva som er ekstremt kan diskuteres, men vi kan legge den død...

[JK22]

Processing towns

Five years ago, Kris Kobach, Kansas’ former secretary of state, announced on Fox Business Network that, in order to quickly deport undocumented immigrants seeking asylum in the United States, the Trump administration would need “camps.” 

Or, as he also put it, “processing towns.”

The U.S. government owns “thousands of empty mobile home trailers,” Kobach told host Lou Dobbs, and it should “deploy them to border cities and create processing towns that are confined.” People who cross the border seeking refuge in the United States, he said, should be detained there until their claims are rejected, then promptly expelled from the country. 

Kobach, then the general counsel of a private border wall-building effort — two former leaders of which later went to prison for defrauding donors – was a lonely voice at the time. But in the years since, the Trump wing of the Republican Party has come around to his point of view. 

Key allies and advisers aren’t mincing their words: In order to carry out Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the United States will need enormous prison camps for immigrant families, part of an effort to deport millions of people at a record pace.

The mass deportation operation will be a “bloody story,” Trump said last weekend. And key advisers have promised a historic infrastructure project to churn people out of the country. 

The camps will be built “on open land in Texas near the border” and should have the capacity to house as many as 70,000 people, which would double the United States’ current immigrant detention capacity, Stephen Miller, the main point man on immigration in Trump’s White House, said last year. In multiple interviews, Miller has gleefully described daily flights out of the camps to all corners of the world, an undertaking he said would be “greater than any national infrastructure project” in American history. 

“Trump comes back in January — I’ll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen,” Thomas Homan, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration, said in July at a conference for Trump-aligned conservatives.

“They ain’t seen shit yet,” Homan said.“Wait until 2025.”

Eisenhower 2.0

Trump himself, as usual, has stayed away from the details of his plan to deport more than 10 million people, and his campaign didn’t respond to HuffPost’s questions about specific policies.

Instead, the campaign’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement: “President Trump will restore his effective immigration policies, implement brand new crackdowns that will send shockwaves to all the world’s criminal smugglers, and marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history.”

Trump has frequently invoked former President Dwight D. Eisenhower ― whose administration infamously oversaw a massive, deadly deportation program named after a slur, “Operation Wetback” — as a model.

That program, launched in 1954 to push undocumented migrants into Mexico, has been a Trump hobbyhorse for years. In 2016, CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Trump to respond to critics who called it a “shameful chapter in American history”; Trump countered by saying, “Some people think it was a very effective chapter.” 

Eisenhower “did a massive deportation of people,” Trump told Time in April this year. “He got very proficient at it.” 

I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen ... They ain’t seen shit yet. Wait until 2025. Thomas Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration

Eisenhower’s deportation effort resulted in the expulsion of more than 1 million people, according to a government report. That tally is likely exaggerated, though, and includes a significant number of people who today might be said to have “self-deported” ― that is, they left the country on their own rather than face arrest or deal with court proceedings.  

Government records detail a militaristic operation using trucks, jeeps and planes. The government conducted naval deportations on cargo ships that a congressional investigation later compared to cramped slave ships — and which led to highly publicized drownings. Law enforcement agencies, from local police up to the federal Border Patrol, pitched in on mass sweeps of industrial areas and immigrant-dense neighborhoods.

Press clippings from the time noted numerous camps were used to house people awaiting deportation. The Los Angeles Times described one such “concentration camp” as “a wire-fenced security camp” capable of holding 1,000 people in Elysian Park. Within a few years, the same area would host Dodger Stadium. Subsequent coverage included a photo of a 10-month-old in her mother’s arms — “youngest internee,” the caption reads — and a 1-year-old American citizen being deported along with his family. Other stories referred to “human freight” being shipped back to Mexico.

“I have seen mothers deport[ed] and leave on this side their nursing babies,” one South Texas resident reportedly wrote to the attorney general. “What is wrong with this country any way?”

The nature of immigration, and immigration law, was much different in the ’50s, when the U.S.-Mexico border was more porous and seasonal migration was common. But Trump and the modern Republican Party have embraced the Eisenhower operation’s purge of immigrants: At the Republican National Convention, scores of people held up “Mass Deportation Now!” signs distributed by organizers, and this year’s GOP platform promises “the largest deportation operation in American history.” 

Aspects of Trump’s plan would almost certainly be challenged in court. But the scope of Republicans’ ambitions is nonetheless startling.

The GOP platform calls for immigration arrests executed in cooperation with local police and “massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement” who’ve been shifted from their normal work over to immigration enforcement, alongside “thousands of Troops” who would be transferred to the border. The platform also calls for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that gives the president broad powers to deport people from hostile nations. Trump has reportedly considered using the law as a pretext to deport people whose countries of origins contain drug cartels and gangs, accusing them of invading the United States. 

‘Large-Scale Staging Grounds’

If Trump and his team are serious about deporting every undocumented person in America, they’ll need a place to put them first. 

Despite Trump’s hatred for “catch-and-release”— the fishing term he uses to describe the policy of releasing immigrants from custody as their legal cases proceed — the simple fact is there was, and is, nowhere near enough detention space available to incarcerate everyone Trump wants to deport.

Immigration officials struggled to keep up with the Trump White House’s demand for space to detain immigrants in deportation proceedings, according to records obtained by NPR. Trump increased the number of proceedings initiated against undocumented immigrants each year — but that didn’t mean that all of those immigrants were actually forced to leave the country. Instead, it just left behind a huge backlog of cases for his successor.

Over the course of his first term, U.S. migrant detention expanded to new heights, part of a decades-long trend of putting more and more people behind bars. 

Miller was perhaps the most influential voice in Trump’s ear on immigration, including on Trump’s infamous family separation policy and his ban on immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries. 

And he has been clear about his plans for Trump’s next term in office.

Rather than simply trying to block immigrants and asylum seekers from entering the country in the first place, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is trying to do with his militarized “Operation Lone Star,” Miller envisions a “detain-and-remove strategy,” as he told Charlie Kirk last September. Such a strategy would involve local, state and federal law enforcement, as well as the U.S. military, he said, including “deputized” National Guard soldiers.

“You would need to switch to indiscriminate, or large-scale, enforcement activities ― involving, basically, going into any place where there’s known congregations of illegals and holding everybody on sight, determining who’s there illegally, and then taking people who are there illegally into federal detention,” he said on “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” in November.

The detention facilities Miller envisions would be massive. He’s described them as “large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,” and “an extremely large holding area” that “could hold upwards of 50, 60, 70 thousand illegal aliens.” 

The camps would have “constantly” operating runways, Miller said separately in November, with a packed schedule of lights — “probably military aircraft, some existing DHS assets” — shipping deportees around the world.

Miller isn’t the only one thinking about this. Former Trump officials told NBC News in July that the mass deportation effort would likely involve the Pentagon, which “would be asked to participate in either setting up detention camps or relocating migrants to foreign military bases.”

The Interior Department would be asked to provide federal land for deportation sites, the report added, describing interviews with the former officials. The Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services would also be involved, according to the report — the latter because it’s the government agency that currently deals with unaccompanied children. 

‘Like Watching “Schindler’s List”’

Trump has not denied or distanced himself from any of this. Shortly after he praised Eisenhower’s “massive deportation” operation to Time, Trump said he would use the National Guard to round up people — and “if they weren’t able to, then I’d use the military.”

Without naming him, Trump also embraced Miller’s theory that undocumented people are actually enemy invaders, and therefore fair game to be deported by the military. And, pressed by his interviewer on the need to build new migrant detention camps, the former president dodged the question before saying, “I would not rule out anything.” 

“It’s possible that we’ll do it to an extent but we shouldn’t have to do very much of it, because we’re going to be moving them out as soon as we get to it,” Trump said. 

On this point — that massive camps won’t be necessary, because the deportations will happen very quickly — Miller and others with experience in the Department of Homeland Security disagree. 

“If a deportation team goes to a particular house and arrests an illegal alien family — so, say, a mother, a father, and four children — there’s not just a plane on a tarmac that’s 10 minutes away ready to take them,” Miller told Kirk.  

Rather, Miller said, “you need to then build massive staging facilities” to hold people until they’re shipped out of the country. 

Other Homeland Security veterans agree with that assessment, even if they’re less giddy about it.

“The nightmare becomes obvious,” Thomas Warrick, a former DHS deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy, wrote in The Hill Thursday. “A second Trump administration could detain hundreds of thousands of people, but it does not have the ability or the capacity to move them out of the country as fast as ICE, the National Guard and local law enforcement can bring them in. Expect to see families behind barbed wire in overcrowded camps, desperate U.S.-citizen children looking for missing immigrant parents, and U.S. citizens swept up in immigration raids.”

To get a sense of what future deportees might find in these camps, just look to historic conditions in immigration detention ― particularly at processing centers  near the border, where migrants are sent after being arrested by Border Patrol. 

In 2019, during a period of more frequent migration, the government erected tent cities to detain new arrivals. Conditions were poor. At one point, government lawyers argued that the administration wasn’t required to provide soap to children. Squalid living arrangements and dangerous overcrowding were common.

At an El Paso Border Patrol facility, border agents told government investigators that “some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks.” Separately, investigators observed detainees standing on toilets “to make room and gain breathing space.” Multiple children died after being detained while entering the United States, including several who died from the flu.

“The way they were treated in the facilities was horrific, horrific. Total medical neglect,” the medical director of a non-governmental migrant shelter near the border told HuffPost recently, recounting people they treated who’d passed through the processing centers in late 2018 and 2019. “It was like watching ‘Schindler’s List.’”

America Moves Right

Perhaps most troubling to activists and advocates concerned with migrants’ rights is the rightward shift both parties have taken on the border in recent years. 

After all, former President Barack Obama removed more people from the country in each of his two terms than Trump did in his one term, earning himself the nickname “deporter-in-chief.” 

There are some caveats to that statistic, though. For one thing, Trump dramatically reduced legal immigration. For another, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of people arriving at the border, both because fewer people made the trip to the United States and because Trump cited the pandemic to invoke a rule called Title 42, which allowed Border Patrol agents to turn away even those seeking asylum.

The Trump administration also created the so-called “Remain in Mexico” policy — formally called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” — to force certain migrants seeking asylum to await their court dates south of the border, frequently in dangerous and unsanitary conditions. Trump has said he would pursue this policy again as president. 

President Joe Biden has opened legal pathways for migrants seeking to enter the United States, and the overall number of border crossings during this presidency has been much higher than during the Trump administration — though Biden has also removed far more people from the country than Trump did.

Biden has also recently dramatically limited asylum rights at the border — echoing some of the Trump administration’s legal strategies — by placing new restrictions on the ability to pursue asylum that are triggered on the number of unauthorized crossings per day. The policy prevents “countless” asylum seekers from exercising their right to seek safe haven in the United States, an ongoing lawsuit from immigrant rights groups alleges. 

Since Biden implemented that asylum cap, the Kino Border Initiative, a migrant aid program with locations in the United States and Mexico, has received hundreds of would-be asylum seekers at its Mexican clinic who were turned around and expelled back into Mexico at the U.S. border.

“For the last eight years or so, we have been consistently — with different policies — blocking people’s access to asylum,” Pedro De Velasco, the group’s director of education and advocacy, said of U.S. authorities.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, has played up her experience as a “border state prosecutor” in campaign ads, a sign she’s likely to continue Biden’s more restrictive border stances. And, like Biden, she supported a bipartisan border bill that would have expanded some legal immigration pathways while also limiting asylum rights. 

Still, there’s little doubt that a return to Trump would shift U.S. immigration and border policy even further to the right. Project 2025, an ideological handbook for a second Trump term authored by scores of former Trump administration officials ― though technically not part of the GOP candidate’s campaign platform ― offers hints at what could be to come. 

On top of laying out plans to severely limit legal migration, the Project 2025 playbook offers several steps to weaken the protections offered by “sanctuary cities,” which, broadly defined, limit local police departments’ ability to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Those sanctuary policies are a major reason Trump wasn’t able to deport as many people as Obama.Project 2025 calls for a nationwide detention standard that “allow the flexibility to use large numbers of temporary facilities such as tents.” It also reiterates a goal of Trump’s first term — ending the Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 consent decree that places limitations on the detention of migrant children. 

Put together, the overlapping arrest, imprisonment and deportation operation imagined for a second Trump term would, like Miller has said, be a historic feat of logistics — and, potentially, a new frontier in cruelty. And there appears to be plenty of other plans being developed behind the scenes.  

Russ Vought, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s presidency, was a key co-author of Project 2025. He was also policy director of the Republican National Convention’s platform committee. And he’s in line for a high-ranking post if Trump wins a second term.

He recently told undercover reporters that he was working on about “350 different documents” full of plans for the next administration — including on mass deportations. 

“You may say, ‘OK, all right, DHS, we want to have the largest deportation,’” Vought said in a secretly recorded meeting. “What are your actual memos that a secretary sends out to do it? Like, there’s an executive order, regulations, secretarial memos. Those are the types of things that need to be thought through so you’re not having to scramble or do that later on.” 

The plans won’t be public, Vought said — but rather, “very, very close hold.” 

Inside Team Trump’s Plans For Mass Deportation Camps (msn.com)

Det amerikanske folket vil bli medskyldig i forbrytelser mot menneskeheten ved å velge Trump, som med den føderale høyesterettens galskapskunngjørelsen om at en president har absolutt immunitet kan nå fritt gjøre som han vil og forbryte seg mot amerikansk lov - noe som en fjerdedel av det amerikanske folket ønsker, de vil forkaste republikkstyret til fordel for et sivildiktaturstyre. Som sett med vanviddet omkring identitetskravene for valgstemning fremmet av republikanerne, er USA et tredje verden-land i sammenligning med mer utviklede land fordi meget store deler av befolkningen har manglende identitetsbevis og dårlig identitetsdokument - som koster mye - slik at meget mange amerikanske statsborgere av latinos (mange ønsker å kaste ut de "illegale", men de evnet ikke å se at de på utsiden er ikke forskjellig fra dem!!!) og fargede kan risikere å bli utsatt for massearrestasjon. Mange latinos og minoritetsamerikanerne ser ikke faresignalet. 

Ingen vet presist hvor mange illegale migranter det er i USA, bare et anslag på mellom 10 og 15 mill., og det finnes langt flere som er legale migranter og nylige statsborgere, som ikke har identitetspapirene i orden. USA har ikke infrastruktur eller kapasitet for å anholde flere millioner, langt mindre hundretusener, av alminnelige sivilister som må sjekkes ut og deporteres, slik at man risikere å skape dødelige interneringsleirer. Det vil koste veldig mye å opprettholde dette, arbeidsmarkedet vil rett og slett kollapse i flere delstater - Springfield i Ohio som i det siste var omtalt, var nemlig en døende forgubbet by som gjenopplives av yngre migranter - og det kan utløse meget stor politisk og sosial uro. 

Dessuten glemte disse galninger som vil ha massedeportasjon noe essensielt; hvem skal motta dem? Mexico vil ikke, likedan alle latinamerikanske stater og flere stater verden rundt kan nekte å akseptere uønskede folk som hadde flyktet fra regimer i disse landene, som vil ikke vite av dem. Eisenhower og Mexico SAMARBEIDET i 1950-tallet, da meksikanerne vil ha utdannede arbeidere tilbake i sitt land. Mexico kommer aldri til å samarbeide med Trump. Da risikert man at flere millioner vil bli sittende i humanitære katastrofeområder som kan utløse sult, sykdom, overgrep - kvinner risikere voldtekt - og massedød. I Danmark er det meget mange dansker som har vondt med å fatte at disses foreldrene var svært ondsinnet i sommeren 1945, da var flere titusener flyktninger fra Tyskland kastet inn i fangeleirer som de ikke klarer å drive, slik at flere tusen småbarn dør som et minimum! Hver gang man kastet et stort antall mennesker inn i interneringsleirer, vil det få meget alvorlige konsekvenser når man ikke evnet å ivareta de anholdtes helse og rett. 

Hvis Trump skulle se for seg at om Mexico skulle nekte, så kan han gjøre bruk av militærmakt a la Erdogan med Nordre Syria, der hadde tyrkeren tvunget hundretusener av krigsflyktninger inn i opprinnelige kurdiskbefolkede regioner ut av hans land, blant annet i åpen strid med Assad-regimet, kurderne og syriske islamister. Det vil da lede til en amerikansk-meksikansk krig som kan utløse en økonomisk ragnarok. 

Så når store menneskelige lidelser skjer, kommer mange amerikanerne til å våkne, men da er det for sent. Fornedrelsen vil bli værende i den amerikanske folkesjela. 

Hva FAEN er det som skje med det amerikanske folket? Den hvite andelen av den mannlige befolkningen er i ferd med å bli monstre. 

Endret 15. september av JK22

[Tussi]

JK22 skrev (2 minutter siden):

Processing towns

Five years ago, Kris Kobach, Kansas’ former secretary of state, announced on Fox Business Network that, in order to quickly deport undocumented immigrants seeking asylum in the United States, the Trump administration would need “camps.” 

Or, as he also put it, “processing towns.”

The U.S. government owns “thousands of empty mobile home trailers,” Kobach told host Lou Dobbs, and it should “deploy them to border cities and create processing towns that are confined.” People who cross the border seeking refuge in the United States, he said, should be detained there until their claims are rejected, then promptly expelled from the country. 

Kobach, then the general counsel of a private border wall-building effort — two former leaders of which later went to prison for defrauding donors – was a lonely voice at the time. But in the years since, the Trump wing of the Republican Party has come around to his point of view. 

Key allies and advisers aren’t mincing their words: In order to carry out Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the United States will need enormous prison camps for immigrant families, part of an effort to deport millions of people at a record pace.

The mass deportation operation will be a “bloody story,” Trump said last weekend. And key advisers have promised a historic infrastructure project to churn people out of the country. 

The camps will be built “on open land in Texas near the border” and should have the capacity to house as many as 70,000 people, which would double the United States’ current immigrant detention capacity, Stephen Miller, the main point man on immigration in Trump’s White House, said last year. In multiple interviews, Miller has gleefully described daily flights out of the camps to all corners of the world, an undertaking he said would be “greater than any national infrastructure project” in American history. 

“Trump comes back in January — I’ll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen,” Thomas Homan, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration, said in July at a conference for Trump-aligned conservatives.

“They ain’t seen shit yet,” Homan said.“Wait until 2025.”

Eisenhower 2.0

Trump himself, as usual, has stayed away from the details of his plan to deport more than 10 million people, and his campaign didn’t respond to HuffPost’s questions about specific policies.

Instead, the campaign’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement: “President Trump will restore his effective immigration policies, implement brand new crackdowns that will send shockwaves to all the world’s criminal smugglers, and marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history.”

Trump has frequently invoked former President Dwight D. Eisenhower ― whose administration infamously oversaw a massive, deadly deportation program named after a slur, “Operation Wetback” — as a model.

That program, launched in 1954 to push undocumented migrants into Mexico, has been a Trump hobbyhorse for years. In 2016, CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Trump to respond to critics who called it a “shameful chapter in American history”; Trump countered by saying, “Some people think it was a very effective chapter.” 

Eisenhower “did a massive deportation of people,” Trump told Time in April this year. “He got very proficient at it.” 

I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen ... They ain’t seen shit yet. Wait until 2025. Thomas Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration

Eisenhower’s deportation effort resulted in the expulsion of more than 1 million people, according to a government report. That tally is likely exaggerated, though, and includes a significant number of people who today might be said to have “self-deported” ― that is, they left the country on their own rather than face arrest or deal with court proceedings.  

Government records detail a militaristic operation using trucks, jeeps and planes. The government conducted naval deportations on cargo ships that a congressional investigation later compared to cramped slave ships — and which led to highly publicized drownings. Law enforcement agencies, from local police up to the federal Border Patrol, pitched in on mass sweeps of industrial areas and immigrant-dense neighborhoods.

Press clippings from the time noted numerous camps were used to house people awaiting deportation. The Los Angeles Times described one such “concentration camp” as “a wire-fenced security camp” capable of holding 1,000 people in Elysian Park. Within a few years, the same area would host Dodger Stadium. Subsequent coverage included a photo of a 10-month-old in her mother’s arms — “youngest internee,” the caption reads — and a 1-year-old American citizen being deported along with his family. Other stories referred to “human freight” being shipped back to Mexico.

“I have seen mothers deport[ed] and leave on this side their nursing babies,” one South Texas resident reportedly wrote to the attorney general. “What is wrong with this country any way?”

The nature of immigration, and immigration law, was much different in the ’50s, when the U.S.-Mexico border was more porous and seasonal migration was common. But Trump and the modern Republican Party have embraced the Eisenhower operation’s purge of immigrants: At the Republican National Convention, scores of people held up “Mass Deportation Now!” signs distributed by organizers, and this year’s GOP platform promises “the largest deportation operation in American history.” 

Aspects of Trump’s plan would almost certainly be challenged in court. But the scope of Republicans’ ambitions is nonetheless startling.

The GOP platform calls for immigration arrests executed in cooperation with local police and “massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement” who’ve been shifted from their normal work over to immigration enforcement, alongside “thousands of Troops” who would be transferred to the border. The platform also calls for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that gives the president broad powers to deport people from hostile nations. Trump has reportedly considered using the law as a pretext to deport people whose countries of origins contain drug cartels and gangs, accusing them of invading the United States. 

‘Large-Scale Staging Grounds’

If Trump and his team are serious about deporting every undocumented person in America, they’ll need a place to put them first. 

Despite Trump’s hatred for “catch-and-release”— the fishing term he uses to describe the policy of releasing immigrants from custody as their legal cases proceed — the simple fact is there was, and is, nowhere near enough detention space available to incarcerate everyone Trump wants to deport.

Immigration officials struggled to keep up with the Trump White House’s demand for space to detain immigrants in deportation proceedings, according to records obtained by NPR. Trump increased the number of proceedings initiated against undocumented immigrants each year — but that didn’t mean that all of those immigrants were actually forced to leave the country. Instead, it just left behind a huge backlog of cases for his successor.

Over the course of his first term, U.S. migrant detention expanded to new heights, part of a decades-long trend of putting more and more people behind bars. 

Miller was perhaps the most influential voice in Trump’s ear on immigration, including on Trump’s infamous family separation policy and his ban on immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries. 

And he has been clear about his plans for Trump’s next term in office.

Rather than simply trying to block immigrants and asylum seekers from entering the country in the first place, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is trying to do with his militarized “Operation Lone Star,” Miller envisions a “detain-and-remove strategy,” as he told Charlie Kirk last September. Such a strategy would involve local, state and federal law enforcement, as well as the U.S. military, he said, including “deputized” National Guard soldiers.

“You would need to switch to indiscriminate, or large-scale, enforcement activities ― involving, basically, going into any place where there’s known congregations of illegals and holding everybody on sight, determining who’s there illegally, and then taking people who are there illegally into federal detention,” he said on “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” in November.

The detention facilities Miller envisions would be massive. He’s described them as “large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,” and “an extremely large holding area” that “could hold upwards of 50, 60, 70 thousand illegal aliens.” 

The camps would have “constantly” operating runways, Miller said separately in November, with a packed schedule of lights — “probably military aircraft, some existing DHS assets” — shipping deportees around the world.

Miller isn’t the only one thinking about this. Former Trump officials told NBC News in July that the mass deportation effort would likely involve the Pentagon, which “would be asked to participate in either setting up detention camps or relocating migrants to foreign military bases.”

The Interior Department would be asked to provide federal land for deportation sites, the report added, describing interviews with the former officials. The Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services would also be involved, according to the report — the latter because it’s the government agency that currently deals with unaccompanied children. 

‘Like Watching “Schindler’s List”’

Trump has not denied or distanced himself from any of this. Shortly after he praised Eisenhower’s “massive deportation” operation to Time, Trump said he would use the National Guard to round up people — and “if they weren’t able to, then I’d use the military.”

Without naming him, Trump also embraced Miller’s theory that undocumented people are actually enemy invaders, and therefore fair game to be deported by the military. And, pressed by his interviewer on the need to build new migrant detention camps, the former president dodged the question before saying, “I would not rule out anything.” 

“It’s possible that we’ll do it to an extent but we shouldn’t have to do very much of it, because we’re going to be moving them out as soon as we get to it,” Trump said. 

On this point — that massive camps won’t be necessary, because the deportations will happen very quickly — Miller and others with experience in the Department of Homeland Security disagree. 

“If a deportation team goes to a particular house and arrests an illegal alien family — so, say, a mother, a father, and four children — there’s not just a plane on a tarmac that’s 10 minutes away ready to take them,” Miller told Kirk.  

Rather, Miller said, “you need to then build massive staging facilities” to hold people until they’re shipped out of the country. 

Other Homeland Security veterans agree with that assessment, even if they’re less giddy about it.

“The nightmare becomes obvious,” Thomas Warrick, a former DHS deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy, wrote in The Hill Thursday. “A second Trump administration could detain hundreds of thousands of people, but it does not have the ability or the capacity to move them out of the country as fast as ICE, the National Guard and local law enforcement can bring them in. Expect to see families behind barbed wire in overcrowded camps, desperate U.S.-citizen children looking for missing immigrant parents, and U.S. citizens swept up in immigration raids.”

To get a sense of what future deportees might find in these camps, just look to historic conditions in immigration detention ― particularly at processing centers  near the border, where migrants are sent after being arrested by Border Patrol. 

In 2019, during a period of more frequent migration, the government erected tent cities to detain new arrivals. Conditions were poor. At one point, government lawyers argued that the administration wasn’t required to provide soap to children. Squalid living arrangements and dangerous overcrowding were common.

At an El Paso Border Patrol facility, border agents told government investigators that “some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks.” Separately, investigators observed detainees standing on toilets “to make room and gain breathing space.” Multiple children died after being detained while entering the United States, including several who died from the flu.

“The way they were treated in the facilities was horrific, horrific. Total medical neglect,” the medical director of a non-governmental migrant shelter near the border told HuffPost recently, recounting people they treated who’d passed through the processing centers in late 2018 and 2019. “It was like watching ‘Schindler’s List.’”

America Moves Right

Perhaps most troubling to activists and advocates concerned with migrants’ rights is the rightward shift both parties have taken on the border in recent years. 

After all, former President Barack Obama removed more people from the country in each of his two terms than Trump did in his one term, earning himself the nickname “deporter-in-chief.” 

There are some caveats to that statistic, though. For one thing, Trump dramatically reduced legal immigration. For another, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of people arriving at the border, both because fewer people made the trip to the United States and because Trump cited the pandemic to invoke a rule called Title 42, which allowed Border Patrol agents to turn away even those seeking asylum.

The Trump administration also created the so-called “Remain in Mexico” policy — formally called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” — to force certain migrants seeking asylum to await their court dates south of the border, frequently in dangerous and unsanitary conditions. Trump has said he would pursue this policy again as president. 

President Joe Biden has opened legal pathways for migrants seeking to enter the United States, and the overall number of border crossings during this presidency has been much higher than during the Trump administration — though Biden has also removed far more people from the country than Trump did.

Biden has also recently dramatically limited asylum rights at the border — echoing some of the Trump administration’s legal strategies — by placing new restrictions on the ability to pursue asylum that are triggered on the number of unauthorized crossings per day. The policy prevents “countless” asylum seekers from exercising their right to seek safe haven in the United States, an ongoing lawsuit from immigrant rights groups alleges. 

Since Biden implemented that asylum cap, the Kino Border Initiative, a migrant aid program with locations in the United States and Mexico, has received hundreds of would-be asylum seekers at its Mexican clinic who were turned around and expelled back into Mexico at the U.S. border.

“For the last eight years or so, we have been consistently — with different policies — blocking people’s access to asylum,” Pedro De Velasco, the group’s director of education and advocacy, said of U.S. authorities.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, has played up her experience as a “border state prosecutor” in campaign ads, a sign she’s likely to continue Biden’s more restrictive border stances. And, like Biden, she supported a bipartisan border bill that would have expanded some legal immigration pathways while also limiting asylum rights. 

Still, there’s little doubt that a return to Trump would shift U.S. immigration and border policy even further to the right. Project 2025, an ideological handbook for a second Trump term authored by scores of former Trump administration officials ― though technically not part of the GOP candidate’s campaign platform ― offers hints at what could be to come. 

On top of laying out plans to severely limit legal migration, the Project 2025 playbook offers several steps to weaken the protections offered by “sanctuary cities,” which, broadly defined, limit local police departments’ ability to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Those sanctuary policies are a major reason Trump wasn’t able to deport as many people as Obama.

Project 2025 calls for a nationwide detention standard that “allow the flexibility to use large numbers of temporary facilities such as tents.” It also reiterates a goal of Trump’s first term — ending the Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 consent decree that places limitations on the detention of migrant children. 

Put together, the overlapping arrest, imprisonment and deportation operation imagined for a second Trump term would, like Miller has said, be a historic feat of logistics — and, potentially, a new frontier in cruelty. And there appears to be plenty of other plans being developed behind the scenes.  

Russ Vought, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s presidency, was a key co-author of Project 2025. He was also policy director of the Republican National Convention’s platform committee. And he’s in line for a high-ranking post if Trump wins a second term.

He recently told undercover reporters that he was working on about “350 different documents” full of plans for the next administration — including on mass deportations. 

“You may say, ‘OK, all right, DHS, we want to have the largest deportation,’” Vought said in a secretly recorded meeting. “What are your actual memos that a secretary sends out to do it? Like, there’s an executive order, regulations, secretarial memos. Those are the types of things that need to be thought through so you’re not having to scramble or do that later on.” 

The plans won’t be public, Vought said — but rather, “very, very close hold.” 

Inside Team Trump’s Plans For Mass Deportation Camps (msn.com)

Det amerikanske folket vil bli medskyldig i forbrytelser mot menneskeheten ved å velge Trump, som med den føderale høyesterettens galskapskunngjørelsen om at en president har absolutt immunitet kan nå fritt gjøre som han vil og forbryte seg mot amerikansk lov - noe som en fjerdedel av det amerikanske folket ønsker, de vil forkaste republikkstyret til fordel for et sivildiktaturstyre. Som sett med vanviddet omkring identitetskravene for valgstemning fremmet av republikanerne, er USA et tredje verden-land i sammenligning med mer utviklede land fordi meget store deler av befolkningen har manglende identitetsbevis og dårlig identitetsdokument - som koster mye - slik at meget mange amerikanske statsborgere av latinos (mange ønsker å kaste ut de "illegale", men de evnet ikke å se at de på utsiden er ikke forskjellig fra dem!!!) og fargede kan risikere å bli utsatt for massearrestasjon. Mange latinos og minoritetsamerikanerne ser ikke faresignalet. 

Ingen vet presist hvor mange illegale migranter det er i USA, bare et anslag på mellom 10 og 15 mill., og det finnes langt flere som er legale migranter og nylige statsborgere, som ikke har identitetspapirene i orden. USA har ikke infrastruktur eller kapasitet for å anholde flere millioner, langt mindre hundretusener, av alminnelige sivilister som må sjekkes ut og deporteres, slik at man risikere å skape dødelige interneringsleirer. Det vil koste veldig mye å opprettholde dette, arbeidsmarkedet vil rett og slett kollapse i flere delstater - Springfield i Ohio som i det siste var omtalt, var nemlig en døende forgubbet by som gjenopplives av yngre migranter - og det kan utløse meget stor politisk og sosial uro. 

Dessuten glemte disse galninger som vil ha massedeportasjon noe essensielt; hvem skal motta dem? Mexico vil ikke, likedan alle latinamerikanske stater og flere stater verden rundt kan nekte å akseptere uønskede folk som hadde flyktet fra regimer i disse landene, som vil ikke vite av dem. Eisenhower og Mexico SAMARBEIDET i 1950-tallet, da meksikanerne vil ha utdannede arbeidere tilbake i sitt land. Mexico kommer aldri til å samarbeide med Trump. Da risikert man at flere millioner vil bli sittende i humanitære katastrofeområder som kan utløse sult, sykdom, overgrep - kvinner risikere voldtekt - og massedød. I Danmark er det meget mange dansker som har vondt med å fatte at disses foreldrene var svært ondsinnet i sommeren 1945, da var flere titusener flyktninger fra Tyskland kastet inn i fangeleirer som de ikke klarer å drive, slik at flere tusen småbarn dør som et minimum! Hver gang man kastet et stort antall mennesker inn i interneringsleirer, vil det få meget alvorlige konsekvenser når man ikke evnet å ivareta de anholdtes helse og rett. 

Hvis Trump skulle se for seg at om Mexico skulle nekte, så kan han gjøre bruk av militærmakt a la Erdogan med Nordre Syria, der hadde tyrkeren tvunget hundretusener av krigsflyktninger inn i opprinnelige kurdiskbefolkede regioner ut av hans land, blant annet i åpen strid med Assad-regimet, kurderne og syriske islamister. Det vil da lede til en amerikansk-meksikansk krig som kan utløse en økonomisk ragnarok. 

Så når store menneskelige lidelser skjer, kommer mange amerikanerne til å våkne, men da er det for sent. Fornedrelsen vil bli værende i den amerikanske folkesjela. 

Hva FAEN er det som skje med det amerikanske folket? Den hvite andelen av den mannlige befolkningen er i ferd med å bli monstre. 

Hvis forholdene i en eventuell interneringsleir er gode, ser jeg egentlig ikke problemet. Asyl er en rettighet, ulovlig immigrasjon er ikke det. Det sier seg selv at en vil ha kontroll på folk som kommer ulovlig, det vil vi i Europa også. 

Forutsatt at forholdene er gode og søknader blir reelt behandlet.

[Red Frostraven]

Selfuniverse skrev (1 time siden):

er det du selv som forsøker deg på krumspring for å manipulere meg og andre her for å drive med skadehåndtering av at Kamala lyver og manipulerer?

Kamala fikk Trump til å respondere totalt rabiat med sannheten.

[JK22]

Tussi skrev (10 minutter siden):

Hvis forholdene i en eventuell interneringsleir er gode, ser jeg egentlig ikke problemet. Asyl er en rettighet, ulovlig immigrasjon er ikke det. Det sier seg selv at en vil ha kontroll på folk som kommer ulovlig, det vil vi i Europa også. 

Forutsatt at forholdene er gode og søknader blir reelt behandlet.

Historien gir deg ikke denne retten til å anta at interneringsleirer er å foretrekke. For hver gang et stort antall mennesker interneres skjer det humanitære konsekvenser, spesielt hvis man ikke har betydelige ressurser til oven, og det er svært sjeldent at dette skje, for det koster mer enn hva mange realisere. Mye mer. Det er snakk om flere millioner mennesker - det nærmeste man kom i dag, er det kinesiske straffleirsystemet blant annet i Xinjiang, som ikke rommet så mange som Trump ønsket å internere. 

Som jeg sa, hva med mottagerlandene? De kan NEKTE. Mange av migrantene i USA kom fra land som ikke vil ha dem, både latinamerikanske, afrikanske, asiatiske og muslimske land. Den meksikanske regjeringsmakten støttes av flere andre regjeringer om at de ikke vil motta tvangsdeporterte folk fra USA uten videre, og på dette punktet støttes disse av sine egne befolkninger. De har ikke kapasitet, spesielt ikke fattige land hvor det kan få meget store politiske og sosiale konsekvenser med uante følger. 

Og; hva med dem som aktuelt er legale migranter? Det er tegn på at Trump og MAGA også vil kaste dem ut, da blir det langt flere - og det finnes flere titalls millioner med statsborgerskap som ikke har legitim ID eller identitetspapir som betyr at de kan bli ulovlig anholdt og deportert som kriminelle, mistenkte kriminelle og uønskede elementer. Dette kan ramme minoritetsamerikanerne, spesielt latinos som ser ut til å ha glemt hva som hendt for flere tiår siden da en bølge av deportering av illegale migranter hendt, da opplevd disse forfølgelse, legale komplikasjoner og flere titusener var arrestert og deportert. 

Og, mest viktig; det ser ut at du ikke evnet å skille mellom de illegale som er bosatt i USA og de illegale som anholdes på grensen. Det finnes et mottagerapparat på plass for migrasjon inn i USA, det blir helt annerledes når man skal deportere folk UT av USA. Her finnes det ikke kapasitet som artikkelen som jeg har reist opp her, gjør meget klart. 

[Tussi]

JK22 skrev (13 minutter siden):

Historien gir deg ikke denne retten til å anta at interneringsleirer er å foretrekke. For hver gang et stort antall mennesker interneres skjer det humanitære konsekvenser, spesielt hvis man ikke har betydelige ressurser til oven, og det er svært sjeldent at dette skje, for det koster mer enn hva mange realisere. Mye mer. Det er snakk om flere millioner mennesker - det nærmeste man kom i dag, er det kinesiske straffleirsystemet blant annet i Xinjiang, som ikke rommet så mange som Trump ønsket å internere. 

Som jeg sa, hva med mottagerlandene? De kan NEKTE. Mange av migrantene i USA kom fra land som ikke vil ha dem, både latinamerikanske, afrikanske, asiatiske og muslimske land. Den meksikanske regjeringsmakten støttes av flere andre regjeringer om at de ikke vil motta tvangsdeporterte folk fra USA uten videre, og på dette punktet støttes disse av sine egne befolkninger. De har ikke kapasitet, spesielt ikke fattige land hvor det kan få meget store politiske og sosiale konsekvenser med uante følger. 

Og; hva med dem som aktuelt er legale migranter? Det er tegn på at Trump og MAGA også vil kaste dem ut, da blir det langt flere - og det finnes flere titalls millioner med statsborgerskap som ikke har legitim ID eller identitetspapir som betyr at de kan bli ulovlig anholdt og deportert som kriminelle, mistenkte kriminelle og uønskede elementer. Dette kan ramme minoritetsamerikanerne, spesielt latinos som ser ut til å ha glemt hva som hendt for flere tiår siden da en bølge av deportering av illegale migranter hendt, da opplevd disse forfølgelse, legale komplikasjoner og flere titusener var arrestert og deportert. 

Og, mest viktig; det ser ut at du ikke evnet å skille mellom de illegale som er bosatt i USA og de illegale som anholdes på grensen. Det finnes et mottagerapparat på plass for migrasjon inn i USA, det blir helt annerledes når man skal deportere folk UT av USA. Her finnes det ikke kapasitet som artikkelen som jeg har reist opp her, gjør meget klart. 

Men hele poenget med internering er vel at de ikke skal reise og bosette seg i USA? Jeg sier ikke at det finnes en god løsning på dette, men en burde kunne være enig i at migrasjon bør være lovlig, og at illegal migrasjon ikke er en rett

Og at lovlig migrasjon, med unntak av en krigssituasjon i et naboland, inkludert asyl, bør holdes på et nivå samfu minnet med god vilje kan klare å integrere. 

Jeg er ikke imot innvandring, men for alles beste bør denne være lovlig og håndterbar 

Endret 15. september av Tussi