Getting ready for President Trump

president-trump

So I got on a plane in Texas feeling optimistic, checked the news once the plane landed in Portland, and… wow. I go offline for five hours and everything goes south.

I really think I’ve had too much faith in the intelligence and good will of Americans.

I really hope that, just as I was radically wrong about who’d win this election, I’ll turn out to be radically wrong about the consequences of President Trump.

I really hope that the people who voted for Trump had more in mind than sticking their middle fingers to the establishment.

I really hope that RBG makes it another four to eight years.

I really hope things don’t go horribly for everyone who’s not straight, not cis, not white, etc.

I really hope I still have health insurance a year from now.

George Takei has some good advice about avoiding despair.

This entry posted in Elections and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 

167 Responses to Getting ready for President Trump

  1. 101
    desipis says:

    Care to defend this?

    From here:

    On Monday night the Trump campaign’s social media director, Daniel Scavino, filled in some details on what he said were the image’s origins.
    “The social media graphic used this weekend was not created by the campaign nor was it sourced from an anti-Semitic site,” Scavino said in a statement separate from Trump’s. “It was lifted from an anti-Hillary Twitter user where countless images appear.”
    “The sheriff’s badge — which is available under Microsoft’s ‘shapes’ — fit with the theme of corrupt Hillary and that is why I selected it,” Scavino added.
    Scavino also said that as the campaign’s social media director, “I would never offend anyone and therefore chose to remove the image.”

  2. 102
    kate says:

    But, the piece at Brietbart (we’re talking about evidence of antisemitism at that site here) doesn’t deny that this image is offensive:

    What if Trump sent out something patently offensive to a couple hundred journalists who are Verified on Twitter — so they would blow up its reach to an audience that might not take such great offense?

    They celebrate that it could be used to reach out to people who don’t find that imagery offensive.

  3. 103
    Jake Squid says:

    Hey if folks want to defend White Supremacy and anti-Semitism, who am I to stop you? And here I always thought the Nazis were the bad guys. I guess opinions differ.

  4. 104
    Ampersand says:

    I share your frustration, Jake, but please dial it down a few notches. Thanks.

  5. 105
    Elusis says:

    Jake @95 – remember, we live in a world where nothing is racist (etc.) unless you explicitly say you intend it to.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/post-trump-how-people-explain-bias-based-attacks.html (See the “John Sousa” story.)

    I really wish I could ask Mr. Sousa “what was the intention of your comment, then? Help me understand what you meant by it.”

  6. 106
    desipis says:

    They celebrate that it could be used to reach out to people who don’t find that imagery offensive.

    Brietbart has been explicitly anti-political correctness, and openly not concerned about offence. The point is to use people’s offence to political effect, which is something left leaning protesters do all the time. Which is quite different from being actively supporting antisemitism.

    And here I always thought the Nazis were the bad guys.

    There’s a substantial difference between defending Nazis and defending people against accusations of being Nazis.

    remember, we live in a world where nothing is racist (etc.) unless you explicitly say you intend it to.

    Yet simultaneously we live in a world where everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.

    It seems such words are now so malleable to perspective and political intent that they are no longer useful in forming political consensus. I wonder how that happened

  7. 107
    Jake Squid says:

    Plausible deniability is a helluva drug.

  8. 108
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis, in the Anita Sarkeesian quote you refer to, she 1) explicitly sets it up as something she says jokingly, and 2) makes it clear that she’s describing a phase she went through, not a way she’s advocating people act all the time. Here’s what she said:

    I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that ever happen to me and also the most frustrating for everyone around me, because like when you start learning about systems everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time, so there is a good year of my life. There is a good year in my life where it was just most obnoxious person to be around. And then you settle into it, you start to understand like oh people they can living within the systems and it was just sort of liberating movement for me and you learn how to pick and choose your battles and that sort of thing. But I think that that’s the critical piece here is that we have to understand this is systems and I really like what you’re saying cause that’s fundamentally challenging power dynamics.

    Your gloss on that quote seems, to me, an indefensible distortion.

    As for the Slate Star Codex article, which is a marvel of cherry-picking, I’ve been told that Scott’s rewritten it a bit since he first posted it, and I don’t have the energy/interest to reread it to see if it’s changed much. But in the original iteration, Scott took a fair point – Trump is not “openly” white supremacist, in the sense that he has not been literally saying “I am a white supremacist” – and stretched it to, as Jamelle Bouie put it:

    This is several 1000 words essentially devoted to the idea that it is not racism if someone didn’t say “nigger.”

    More importantly, this time quoting Joel Anderson (who wasn’t commenting on Scott’s article in particular, but it’s applicable):

    People want to focus on who’s a racist and who isn’t. That’s not what’s at issue: It’s that you’re fine with racism in service of your goals. It doesn’t matter if I can or can’t identify you as a racist. But it does matter if you support things that aid and abet racism.

  9. 109
    desipis says:

    Plausible deniability is a helluva drug.

    So is confirmation bias.

  10. 110
    desipis says:

    makes it clear that she’s describing a phase she went through,

    The point being, that whether or not Sarkeesian is still in that phase, it’s a phase that far too many people are spending far too long in.

    Trump is not “openly” white supremacist

    I’m curious, what do people who think Trump is “secretly” a white supremacist use to evidence their opinions?

    But it does matter if you support things that aid and abet racism.

    So who gets to decide what things “aid and abet racism”?

  11. 111
    Jake Squid says:

    Confirmation bias would be a valid point if I habitually called people Nazis. To the best I my knowledge, I’ve never called anybody a Nazi (or a fascist) in my life before now.

    But you may want to reevaluate your position in the face of celebrations by the KKK and the Nazis for the Trump EC victory.

  12. 112
    kate says:

    I’m curious, what do people who think Trump is “secretly” a white supremacist use to evidence their opinions?

    I can’t speak for Amp, but I don’t think that he’s “secretly” racist. I just think he avoids a few, key slurs. This is a good place to start for evidence of his racism.

  13. 113
    kate says:

    Depicting a person on a pile of money with a Star of David* is antisemitic. Working to politically galvanize people who don’t find that imagery offensive, is working to get antisemites involved in the political process. That this has, in fact happened is apparent in the celebration of racist, antisemitic groups like the KKK since Trumps win, as well as the wave of swastika graffiti – much of it connected to Trump’s name.

    *I do not buy that BS about the sheriff’s badge. Anyone who studied World War II in high school ought to know what that symbol means.

  14. 114
    Jake Squid says:

    I can’t speak for Amp, but I don’t think that he’s “secretly” racist.

    Yup to that and everything kate said. His two settlements with DOJ for housing discrimination against POC makes him an open racist.

  15. 115
    Jake Squid says:

    This piece from a former White Nationalist (aka Nazi) is a good read.

  16. 116
    RonF says:

    The majority of people on the left (I’m thinking specifically of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders) focus on the banks and corporate mainstream media as structures which need to be changed, and on the need to hold specific individuals accountable for their unethical and illegal actions according to the rule of law.

    Apparently the majority in favor of the second set of actions didn’t include President Obama and the two Attorney Generals he appointed. I didn’t see the 2016 Democratic candidate for President represented among them, either. If they had been she would probably have won the election in a walk.

  17. 117
    Kate says:

    RonF @ 116, re part of my comment @ 98 taken out of context

    I was responding to the idea that people on the left are hypocrites for calling out antisemitic right-wing propaganda because we want to hold bankers who break the law accountable and sometimes complain about the media.

    I am well aware that Obama and Clinton are against holding bankers accountable. I wasn’t thinking of them because I consider them to be centrists who lean left (sort of the mirror image of Mitt Romney, a centrist who leans right), not “on the left”.

    I considered Obama and Clinton’s support for sensible regulations, like Dodd Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be better than the full capitulation to Wall Street that is now inevitable under full Republican leadership. Most Americans agreed with me, they were just distributed in the wrong states geographically.

    I think the Democrats and the left are handling our loss much better than Republicans and the right handled Obama’s win – and he also won the popular vote. I also think Obama and the Democrats were a lot more conciliatory than the Republicans are being. Frankly, your gloating is getting old fast, and the claim that Republicans have a mandate with the small margins by which they won is infuriating.

    I hope that I am wrong about just how disastrous a Trump presidency will be. I fear internment camps for Muslims, like those set up for Japanese Americans during World War 2. I fear thousands of U.S. citizens accidentally deported, without enough judges to adequately review cases. I fear thousands will die as both internment camps and detention centers are too inadequately funded to hold people humanely. If I’m right, people who failed to support the only viable alternative to Trump will regret your choice. I really hope I’m wrong.

  18. 118
    RonF says:

    and he also won the popular vote.

    The popular vote is immaterial in an election that is not decided by the popular vote. How many Republicans failed to vote in California or Illinois because they knew the effect of their vote stopped at the border of a State that was certainly going to go dark blue? And yes, the same argument can be made for Democrats in red States. But the point is that we will never know what the popular vote would have been if it had actually counted – so since it didn’t count, it doesn’t count.

    wasn’t thinking of them because I consider them to be centrists who lean left (sort of the mirror image of Mitt Romney, a centrist who leans right), not “on the left”.

    You had a whole movement of people on the right who wanted to hold the bankers accountable. It was called the Tea Party Movement. But the left apparently found it more important to distort their message, claim they were racist and do their best (with a little help from the IRS) to destroy them instead of supporting that goal with them. Ideology was placed over principles.

    I also think Obama and the Democrats were a lot more conciliatory than the Republicans are being. Frankly, your gloating is getting old fast,

    The way I remember the election of 2008, the Democrats declared that the GOP was lying completely dead in it’s grave and then spent the next few weeks filling said grave full of dirt and holding a dance party on it. Meanwhile they loudly proclaimed that anyone who opposed Pres. Obama’s policies was motivated by racism and was lying if they claimed any other motive. And when GOP leaders wanted to negotiate with Pres. Obama, he told them “Elections have consequences”.

    and the claim that Republicans have a mandate with the small margins by which they won is infuriating.

    I’ve made no such claim. And I’ll agree that they won by a thin margin. I wouldn’t use the word “mandate” either. But they did win, and the fact that they intend to use the advantage they have should come as no shock, since that’s exactly what the Democrats did when they had the whip hand.

    I fear internment camps for Muslims, like those set up for Japanese Americans during World War. I fear thousands of U.S. citizens accidentally deported, without enough judges to adequately review cases.

    In my opinion, you have spent too much time listening to desperate Democratic partisans spinning fearful myths in order to scare you into voting for Mrs. Clinton. I think fearing any such thing is ridiculous.

  19. 119
    Jake Squid says:

    Given that it’s a Trump admin surrogate who first brought up internment camps as having precedent, I don’t think that fear comes from Democratic partisans.

  20. 120
    kate says:

    Ron, it’s not the words of Democrats that has me worried – its the words of Trump, his supporters and surrogates. The link Jake provided @ 119 is one example.
    Whatever’s in the hearts of most of his supporters, Trump is a racist. I provided a link supporting this up @119. Voting for a racist, who appoints a racist to be AG, and has racists as some of his closest advisors (eg. Steve Bannon), is a racist act, whatever might be in their hearts.
    When white nationalist held a rally in DC and called out “hail Trump”, and used the straight-armed salute and made other such thinly (or not at all) veiled Nazi references, Trump spent his weekend tweeting about how unfair SNL and the cast of Hamilton are to him and Mike Pence. When pressed, he gave a half hearted – don’t do that (or something to that effect).
    I think the U.S. is playing with fire.

  21. 121
    kate says:

    The way I remember the election of 2008, the Democrats declared that the GOP was lying completely dead in it’s grave and then spent the next few weeks filling said grave full of dirt and holding a dance party on it.

    I remember the pundits doing that – the same way they’re declaring the Democrats dead now. I don’t remember Democrats doing that.

    Meanwhile they loudly proclaimed that anyone who opposed Pres. Obama’s policies was motivated by racism and was lying if they claimed any other motive.

    Who? I’ve heard a lot of people claim this. What public figure (I’m not talking blogs and internet commenters) said that?

    “And when GOP leaders wanted to negotiate with Pres. Obama, he told them “Elections have consequences”.”

    Republicans did not want to negotiate with Obama. They said themselves that their goal was to make him a one term president. They stonewalled him every step of the way. They ran away from legislation they themselves had proposed. The ACA was based on Republican healthcare reform ideas – the Dole plan from the 1990’s and Romneycare in MA. And I remember the tea party being primarily focused on fighting healthcare reform because they’d been fed lies about death panels and the end of Medicare. I also remember them shutting down town halls. They didn’t come to have their concerns addressed, they came to shut up Democratic politicians.

  22. 122
    Nancy Lebovitz says:

    Amp, my chrome browser doesn’t think the httpps here is secure.

  23. 123
    RonF says:

    Me @ 118:

    “I think fearing [internment camps] is ridiculous.”

    Jake @ 119:

    “Given that it’s a Trump admin surrogate who first brought up internment camps as having precedent, I don’t think that fear comes from Democratic partisans.”

    First, the title of the link is “Trump Camp’s Talk of Registry and Japanese Internment Raises Muslims’ Fears” Then we read the link and find out that the man is not a member of “Trump’s camp” at all.

    Second, what he was noting was that a registry would likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, since there was precedent for them upholding not only a registry but things that are even more extreme – but explicitly stated that he opposed internment camps.

    Finally, Trump himself said that he opposed both internment camps and registries on the basis of religion, but thought that continuing the existing registries tracking aliens from countries with high terrorism activities was a good idea, while adding some more thorough vetting of such aliens.

    So how that all gets spun up into a fear that the Trump administration will impose internment camps for Muslims seems to be a clear example of a phobia, not an actual rational reaction.

  24. 124
    Ampersand says:

    Nancy – thanks! I just ran a complete scan for malicious software on “Alas” by using the gotmls.net security plug-in, without finding any problems. Google currently rates this site as “safe,” so I think we’re all right for now. But please let me know if you see anything more – it’s important that I keep on checking, since there have been problems in the past.

    As far as I know, https is mainly necessary to protect private communications (like emails and credit card info) from being read by third parties, and so isn’t that relevant to a blog site. But maybe I’m missing something – I’m far from an expert on this stuff.

  25. 125
    Jake Squid says:

    RonF:

    Then we read the link and find out that the man is not a member of “Trump’s camp” at all.

    I disagree with you on this assertion. From that article:

    He was referring to a suggestion by Kris Kobach, a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team, that the new administration could reinstate a national registry for immigrants from countries where terrorist groups were active.

    RonF:

    Second, what he was noting was that a registry would likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, since there was precedent for them upholding not only a registry but things that are even more extreme – but explicitly stated that he opposed internment camps.

    Yes, he did say that he “fundamentally disagreed with the internment camp mantra and doing it at all,” after:

    “You’re not proposing that we go back to the days of internment camps, I hope,” said Megyn Kelly, the show’s host.

    Mr. Higbie, a former Navy SEAL who served two tours in Iraq, denied that, but said, “We need to protect America first.”

    Do we need to protect America first or do we not do internment camps? Funny how he said both things. But saying both doesn’t erase the fact that “America First” will clearly – and obviously – be seen as saying we do internment camps by both supporters and potential victims of internment camps.

  26. 126
    nobody.really says:

    “And when GOP leaders wanted to negotiate with Pres. Obama, he told them “Elections have consequences”.”

    Republicans did not want to negotiate with Obama. They said themselves that their goal was to make him a one term president. They stonewalled him every step of the way. They ran away from legislation they themselves had proposed.

    Footnote.

  27. 127
    RonF says:

    He was referring to a suggestion by Kris Kobach, a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team, that the new administration could reinstate a national registry for immigrants from countries where terrorist groups were active.

    That’s a suggestion that we should reinstate registration of aliens from countries where terrorist groups were active, not a call to establish internment camps. My observation that the article in fact shows no link between Trump’s camp and a proposition to establish internment camp stands.

    What is “Trump’s camp”, anyway? It seems to me that there would have to be some formal connection between President-elect Trump, his advisors or the higher level of his campaign staff or transition team and the person involved to count as his “camp”. Mr. Kobach would qualify but I don’t see where Mr. Higbee would (and again, he made no suggestion that internment camps should be established).

    I don’t see why the concept that registration of aliens from countries where terrorist groups are active is controversial. As it stands all aliens in the U.S. are required to register their residence and employment and/or student status, and to inform the INS of any changes to such. I think the information should be regularly confirmed, regardless of where they come from, but perhaps Trump wants to limit that to a subset of people who come from countries where terrorism is active. I see no reason why we should depend on a voluntary system for this.

    Mr. Higbie, a former Navy SEAL who served two tours in Iraq, denied that, but said, “We need to protect America first.”

    The context of any connection between his denial that he had any intent towards establishing camps and his statement of “We need to protect America first.” is not given here. It may well be (and I suspect is) an invention of the interviewer or the author of the article.

    “Do we need to protect America first or do we not do internment camps?”

    Both. There is no demonstration that anyone affiliated with Trump sees a conflict between the two.

  28. 128
    kate says:

    First of all, Trump started out saying that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S., full stop. He only moderated when he got blow-back. He has also called for racial profiling, investigating mosques and held that the whole Muslim community is complicit in attacks.

    “We have to be extremely strong,” the presumptive GOP nominee said. “We have to be very strong in terms of looking at the mosques. You know, which a lot of people say oh, we don’t want to do that, we’re beyond that. Brian, that man yesterday was sick with hate. There are many, many people, thousands of people already in our country that are sick with hate. And people that are around him, Muslims know who they are, largely. They know who they are. They have to turn them in. They know who they are. They see them.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-charges-american-muslims-know-who-potential-terrorists-are
    In the context of this inflammatory rhetoric, with insinuations of group guilt, it is perfectly reasonable to worry that the legality of Japanese internment camps is being raised as a way to push the borders of acceptable discourse.
    My most immediate fear, however, involves no premeditation, just incompetence. According to the Wall Street Journal, deporting all 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. would require “at least $400 billion in new federal spending”. I don’t think congress will appropriate anywhere near enough funding to carry out this task humanely. I fear that law enforcement, faced with impossible to fill orders from the Trump administration, will accidentally commit atrocities.
    I believe that Trump is a white supremacist, based on his history of racism and his failure to repudiate avowed white supremacists who form a significant minority of his followers. If we don’t protest, I believe Trump will keep moving further and further to the right.

  29. 129
    desipis says:

    Liberals fearing Trump will institute interment camps seems as silly as when Conservatives believed Obama would take away their guns.

    I believe that Trump is a white supremacist, based on his history of racism and his failure to repudiate avowed white supremacists who form a significant minority of his followers.

    And this makes as much sense as the “Obama is really a Muslim” claims.

  30. 130
    kate says:

    Depisis –
    1.) It’s been nearly eight years, and Obama didn’t take away anyone’s guns. I hope that you’re right about Trump and interment camps. But the fact that he’s pledging mass deportations, without the additional funding to do it humanely and has already got supporters talking about the legality of Japanese internment camps has people rightfully worried. What did Obama or his supporters say that gave people reason to fear that law-abiding citizens would lose their guns?
    2.) Do you see no moral distinction between being a white supremacist and being a Muslim? There would be nothing inherently wrong with Obama being Muslim. He’s just not. His father was Muslim and he spent a lot of his youth in a Muslim country. He was never trying to hide any of that. I linked to a piece @112 which lists 13 reasons to believe Trump is a racist.
    I’ve linked to evidence for my point of view. What do you have?

  31. 131
    Chris says:

    RonF:

    You had a whole movement of people on the right who wanted to hold the bankers accountable. It was called the Tea Party Movement. But the left apparently found it more important to distort their message, claim they were racist and do their best (with a little help from the IRS) to destroy them instead of supporting that goal with them. Ideology was placed over principles.

    Tea Party politicians scored huge victories in 2010. What did they do to “hold bankers accountable?” What legislation did they even propose that would do that?

  32. 132
    RonF says:

    Turns out that quite a number of them tried to do just that only to watch establishment GOP leaders bury their attempts by never letting their bills get out of subcommittees. Some of them have even quit Congress because they couldn’t get anything done. There’s a reason why the establishment GOP candidates (e.g., Jeb Bush) failed miserably in the GOP primary season – they are seen to be almost as bad as the Democrats in favoring the established order.

  33. 133
    RonF says:

    Kate @ 128:

    … deporting all 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. would require “at least $400 billion in new federal spending”.

    That’s behind a paywall, so I can’t read the article to see what that number is based on. If you’re talking about doing armed sweeps through various urban centers to round people up I can see where it might cost that much. OTOH, there’s other methods that perhaps the WSJ hasn’t considered. For example, suppose the following legislation was passed:

    1) The CEO/President, CFO and COO of any company found to have hired an illegal alien get convicted of a felony. They serve at least 1 year in jail on each count and they and their company forfeit any ability to contract with any Federal agency.
    2) The CEO/President, CFO and COO of any financial institution granting any sort of financial account to an illegal alien get convicted of a felony. That would include savings account, checking account, credit card, business loan, consumer loan, mortgage, etc. They serve at least 1 year in jail on each count and they and their financial institution forfeit any ability to participate in any Federal program (deposit insurance, sale/purchase of government bonds, loans used by anyone to participate in a Federal project, etc.).
    3) No State-issued ID that can be issued to an illegal alien can be used as identification for any Federal purpose (e.g., getting on an airplane, getting employed by the Federal government or by a contractor working on a Federal project, getting a student loan, obtaining Federal or Federally-funded benefits).

    In all cases use of E-Verify would be an affirmative defense. My company uses E-Verify on every person hired.

    Can’t get a job, can’t get any kind of banking account, can’t get a drivers’ license or other ID. Tough to stay in the U.S. that way, and a lot cheaper than $400 billion.

    And while I’m at it, my suggestions for immigration reform:

    No one having entered the United States illegally as an adult is ever permitted citizenship. If they have a clean criminal record and (outside of circumstances due to injury, etc.) have not lived dependent on government benefits, they may become eligible for permanent resident alien status after satisfying various to-be-named criteria – but it is a privilege they can possibly earn, it is not a right. People brought into the U.S. by an adult while themselves having been a minor at the time would (absent criminal record) become eligible to rapidly become a permanent resident alien and would have a path to citizenship based on to-be-determined criteria demonstrating acclimation and acceptance of American culture and laws. Satisfactory service in the U.S. military would be a fast track for the latter.

  34. 134
    kate says:

    I’m all for holding businesses accountable for hiring workers illegally. I’m not sure why you think Trump is planning to do that. He’s been pretty clear that he envisions a deportation force.
    I think the Wall Street Jouranl figures are based on this report Only $43.5 billion of the $400 billion was allocated for apprehension. Nearly a quarter of the cost is for detention, legal processing and transportation, which would still be required with the means you suggest. That’s the infrastructure that I’m concerned will be inadequate, leading to citizens and legal residents being mistakenly detained (already thousands are annually), and possibly accidentally deported (over two hundred already have been over the past twenty years). I’m concerned that crowded conditions (already a problem in some facilities) could lead to unhygenic living conditions and the spread of disease. I also worry that there won’t be funding for adequate food for singificantly larger numbers of inmates. As I said, I don’t think that this is anyone’s plan. But, if many more people are pumped into our already inadequate deportation infrastructure, I think such human rights violations are almost inevitable.

  35. 135
    RonF says:

    I’m all for holding businesses accountable for hiring workers illegally. I’m not sure why you think Trump is planning to do that.

    I don’t know that he is. I hope someone in his circle of advisers suggests it.

    Only $43.5 billion of the $400 billion was allocated for apprehension. Nearly a quarter of the cost is for detention, legal processing and transportation, which would still be required with the means you suggest.

    The only people I’m proposing to detain, process and transport are the corporate officers of companies and financial institutions who break the laws I suggest. The actual illegal aliens who can’t get jobs, etc. would be on their own. I don’t propose to get rid of the alligators by catching them, I propose to get rid of them by draining the swamp.

  36. 136
    Ruchama says:

    I’d assume that the first consequence of that would be a huge increase in identity theft.

  37. 137
    Ruchama says:

    Now that I think about it, my work history really should have pinged whatever algorithm they use on e-Verify, but it didn’t. In the past 15 years, I’ve worked in nine different states, with at least five different addresses in three different states listed as “home address” on my I-9s (one of those was a mistake), and there have been several times when I’ve been officially working at two different jobs, in two different states, with two different home addresses, at the same time. I think there were a few months when I was working at three jobs in three different states at the same time. I’m also listed as an active registered voter in three states. Really, I should be setting off all sorts of electronic alarm bells.

  38. 138
    Ampersand says:

    Ron:

    Turns out that quite a number of them tried to do just that only to watch establishment GOP leaders bury their attempts by never letting their bills get out of subcommittees.

    Do you have a link with information about the proposed bills? I’m interested in reading what the specific policies proposed were.

  39. 139
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis:

    As I was coincidentally reminded reading in Conor F’s column, what “white supremacy” means has a bunch of definitions. (Which is pretty common for English.) Here’s one definition – possibly the original definition, but nowadays used more by scholars:

    He concluded that “the term ‘white supremacy’ was for the first century of its existence used exclusively to refer to political subordination. It’s recently come to be used more loosely, but—particularly in scholarly contexts—retains the original meaning as a core component. In understanding contemporary American racism, ‘white supremacy,’ understood as an ideology of legal racial subordination, remains crucial. And of course one cannot understand contemporary GOP electoral strategy without addressing systematic disenfranchisement of people of color. Given that, naming elements of the contemporary American right as white supremacist isn’t just appropriate, it’s essential.

    Do I think that Trump, when he’s alone in his office, secretly straight-arm-salutes a portrait of Hitler hidden behind a panel? No.

    Do I think that he’s going to pursue “systematic disenfranchisement of people of color”? Is he going to support laws that are designed to make it less likely that people of color will be able to vote? Is he going to appoint judges who will rubber-stamp such laws? Yes, I think it’s very likely he will. So in that sense, yes, he’s a white supremacist. And while that may not be how you use the term, it’s how a great many people, including people who have written extensively about white supremacy, use the term.

    In contrast, I don’t think there’s any reasonable sense of the word “Muslim” in which Obama can be said to be a Muslim.

    (P.S. The quote I just quoted comes in the context of a lefty scholar acting like a jerk. But that context doesn’t undermine my point.)

  40. 140
    Ampersand says:

    Ron: I’m made leery by comparisons of undocumented immigrants to animals.

    Another way of putting it is that you want to reduce undocumented immigration by reducing the demand for undocumented workers, rather than trying to reduce supply.

    I don’t think I agree with your approach – but I do think it would be better than the current, supply-side approach.

    Personally, I’d like to see the US gradually move closer to having open borders. As far as evidence shows, that would be a good thing for the US economy, as well as for immigrant workers.

  41. 141
    Jake Squid says:

    Just throwing this illegal immigration history out there again:

    In the 1930’s, Jews (including my grandfather from Hungary) snuck into NAZI FUCKING GERMANY for work.

  42. 142
    Ampersand says:

    BTW, Ron, it’s not currently illegal for undocumented immigrants to open bank accounts, or to take planes. Are you proposing these activities should be illegal for undocumented immigrants?

    And how about hospitals and hotels? A lot of Republicans have said hospitals be legally required to report undocumented immigrants who get treated – is this your view?

    Are you saying that IDs that can be issued to undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be acceptable at all for federal purposes, or just shouldn’t be acceptable as proof of citizenship? If the latter, that makes sense; if the former, that seems needlessly punitive.

    No one having entered the United States illegally as an adult is ever permitted citizenship.

    What about people who enter legally but remain in the US after their visas expire?

    That aside, this also seems needlessly punitive to me. A lot of undocumented immigrants come to the US out of economic necessity; if someone works a year in their 20s because they needed to support their family, but in their 50s is in a better place and wants to apply for citizenship, it seems unjust to have a blanket ban.

  43. 143
    Harlequin says:

    RonF, I would add that your proposed solution works by effectively cutting off undocumented immigrants from large portions of our social infrastructure. Given the fact that undocumented immigrants are more likely to live in poverty than other groups, and are in some cases already unlikely to report crimes committed against them, I don’t think your proposed solution is free of humanitarian concerns.

    Also, not everyone is here based on economic opportunity. Some were fleeing, e.g., drug-money-fueled violence in their home countries. Simply making it harder and/or more expensive to work would likely not be enough incentive for those people to leave. Same, probably, for those undocumented immigrants with US citizen children: the benefit to their children of being here is probably greater than the hardship your policies would impose.

  44. 144
    desipis says:

    Ampersand:

    If the latter, that makes sense; if the former, that seems needlessly punitive.

    My understanding of Ron’s comment is that the punitive nature is the entire point. I presume the intent is to make being an illegal immigrant so unpleasant that people no longer try to illegally enter the country, and those that have will leave of their own volition.

    I suspect the outcome of such policies would be a serious case of unintended consequences, resulting in an explosion of both crime and the black market.

  45. 145
    Jake Squid says:

    I presume the intent is to make being an illegal immigrant so unpleasant that people no longer try to illegally enter the country, and those that have will leave of their own volition.

    Short of destroying our economy, I don’t believe that’s an achievable goal.

  46. 146
    Sebastian H says:

    “What about people who enter legally but remain in the US after their visas expire?”

    I just want to highlight this objection and ones related to it. Being unable to successfully navigate one of the most complicated bureaucratic systems that the average person will ever have to deal with on the first try shouldn’t be cause to bar someone forever.

    You should be willing to extend a bit of charity with the well understood and correct conservative insight that a lot of government entities are not well run and often crush people up in their gears for no good reason.

  47. 147
    RonF says:

    despis @144:

    My understanding of Ron’s comment is that the punitive nature is the entire point. I presume the intent is to make being an illegal immigrant so unpleasant that people no longer try to illegally enter the country, and those that have will leave of their own volition.

    That’s a fair summary.

    Harlequin @143:

    Also, not everyone is here based on economic opportunity. Some were fleeing, e.g., drug-money-fueled violence in their home countries.

    We have a refugee/asylum program. Enter it.

    Amp, @142:

    BTW, Ron, it’s not currently illegal for undocumented immigrants to open bank accounts, or to take planes. Are you proposing these activities should be illegal for undocumented immigrants?

    Yes.

    And how about hospitals and hotels? A lot of Republicans have said hospitals be legally required to report undocumented immigrants who get treated – is this your view?

    Hospitals should be required to treat anyone who walks in the door who needs immediate treatment regardless of immigration status. I would not ask them to report the immigration status of anyone. Hotels generally require you to have a credit card to book a room – that would make it difficult for someone without a credit card to do so. I can remember a time when that was not so. If hotels again decide to book rooms on a cash basis it is none of my concern.

    Are you saying that IDs that can be issued to undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be acceptable at all for federal purposes, or just shouldn’t be acceptable as proof of citizenship? If the latter, that makes sense; if the former, that seems needlessly punitive.

    The former. I intend to be punitive.

    What about people who enter legally but remain in the US after their visas expire?

    If someone has overstayed their visa but has filed for an extension that there’s a reasonable expectation to have been approved but was not because of bureaucratic inertia/f**kup, no penalty of that nature should be assessed (Re: Sebastian @146). If they did not file for an extension or issued a frivolous extension, then they would be banned from citizenship. I’m willing that the distinction between reasonable and frivolous be flexible as long as the person involved has not attempted to evade the authorities, does not otherwise break American law and leaves the country expeditiously if their visa extension is denied.

    When I have spoken on this before I have also called for putting some $ and effort into getting the State Department/INS to work more quickly and efficiently. Let me reiterate that. Proper and effective immigration processes are in the best interests of the United States. Aliens have no right to such. The purpose of the United States’ immigration policy is to regulate immigration in the best interests of the United States, not in the best interests of aliens. That purpose is best accomplished when it is executed in an efficient manner.

  48. 148
    kate says:

    RonF, @118 you quoted me:

    I fear internment camps for Muslims, like those set up for Japanese Americans during World War. I fear thousands of U.S. citizens accidentally deported, without enough judges to adequately review cases.

    and replied:

    In my opinion, you have spent too much time listening to desperate Democratic partisans spinning fearful myths in order to scare you into voting for Mrs. Clinton. I think fearing any such thing is ridiculous.

    Then, when I further explained the basis for my fears in various posts, you switched the topic to your immigration policy. Frankly, I don’t care what your immigration policy is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump’s likely immigration policy. Donald Trump is proposing to deport millions of people without any plan to increase funding for the immigration courts, detention facilities and transportation systems required to do it humanely. I think the chances of congress providing the necessary funding to carry out deportations humanely is virtually nil. The two, I think equally likely possibilities are:
    1.) Trump is lying, and he won’t increase deportations at all (while loudly proclaiming that he’s increasing deportations).
    2.) Trump will try to increase deportations on the cheap, and my fears about accidentally detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and inhumane conditions in detention facilities are well founded.

  49. 149
    Harlequin says:

    RonF:

    We have a refugee/asylum program. Enter it.

    You seem to have missed the point I was making, which is that your immigration program of “just cut them off from society and they’ll leave on their own” will not be sufficient to get all undocumented immigrants to leave because of the harsh conditions some of them came from–whether or not those conditions rise to the level of being likely to get asylum. I was not making a moral argument (“those people deserve to be here”) but a practical one (your solution wouldn’t work).

    Kate@148, also excellent points.

  50. 150
    Pete Patriot says:

    .

  51. 151
    kate says:

    All excellent points, Kelly @151

  52. 152
    Harlequin says:

    Er, Kelly @151/152–did you mean to use that as your name? I think you usually use a different one here.

  53. 153
    KellyK says:

    No, I didn’t. Thanks very much for catching that. Amp, would it be possible to either change my display name on those to KellyK or to delete them? (I have them copied & can restore them under KellyK.)

    [–I see you’ve already posted the new versions under KellyK, so I deleted the old versions. –Amp]

  54. 154
    KellyK says:

    Donald Trump is proposing to deport millions of people without any plan to increase funding for the immigration courts, detention facilities and transportation systems required to do it humanely. I think the chances of congress providing the necessary funding to carry out deportations humanely is virtually nil. The two, I think equally likely possibilities are:
    1.) Trump is lying, and he won’t increase deportations at all (while loudly proclaiming that he’s increasing deportations).
    2.) Trump will try to increase deportations on the cheap, and my fears about accidentally detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and inhumane conditions in detention facilities are well founded.

    Even more than that. We already *have* inhumane conditions in INS detainment camps. We are not *currently* meeting our obligation to provide the basics to people we’re detaining for immigration reasons. Many of those people are in fact refugees. Adding millions of people to that system without adding a huge amount of resources will make those camps worse hell-holes than they already are.

    Donald Trump, an open advocate of torture and a proud inciter of racist violence, wants to deport millions of people immediately, and anyone thinks for a moment that they’ll be housed humanely? Why? Even before you get to the basic logistics of lack of money or giant court backlogs, there’s no indication that humane treatment of “illegals” is anywhere on Trump’s radar as a priority.

  55. 155
    KellyK says:

    Given the fact that undocumented immigrants are more likely to live in poverty than other groups, and are in some cases already unlikely to report crimes committed against them, I don’t think your proposed solution is free of humanitarian concerns.

    I deleted two responses to this because they seem harsher than Ron F than I’d like, so I’ll just make it a question. Ron, it really looks to me like your solution is going to cause massive amounts of human suffering. Undocumented immigrants are already a ripe target for all manner of abuse, and your suggestion is likely to make it more difficult for them to eat or have shelter, as well as more likely that they will be raped, assaulted, or trafficked. Do you have reason to believe that this is unlikely, or do you just not see it as a sufficient drawback to what you’re proposing?

  56. 156
    RonF says:

    Harlequin @ 149, plus others who objected on humanitarian grounds:

    If people who are here illegally are in fact refugees, then they should apply for asylum. Our immigration system grants asylum for people who have a legitimate fear of persecution for various reasons, and in my opinion rightfully so. But it does not grant asylum on economic grounds. Would the policies I proposed put people who have no legal claim for asylum and will face grinding poverty if they go back home between the proverbial rock and hard place? Yes. Their solution under what I have proposed is to apply for permanent resident alien status. Note that I proposed conditions under which someone in the situation you state who has not broken any other laws and has a work history could attain that. No citizenship – but they would then be here legally. Some others who would find conditions livable where they are a citizen but would still face difficult economic conditions if they could not work in the U.S. could apply for a non-immigrant visa that would permit them to work on a seasonal basis.

    If they DO have a criminal record (I’m not talking parking tickets here, I mean a felony or multiple misdemeanors), then too bad. They are in limbo, with all the bad consequences you state. Criminal aliens need to leave this country, and one way to do so is to make it horrible for them to stay.

    I don’t intend that any camps be opened. There’d need to be expansion in the courts and in the INS’s processing capability for the various residency and visa applications they’d see. People who make application can stay until their case is decided and in the meantime get the status they’d have if their application was approved until it’s approved or denied (that’s only for resident alien status or lesser, not for a citizenship application).

    Now, you don’t see Trump with a plan to enact/fund that? Neither do I. The rumor seems to be that he’s going to be willing to grant legal status to a lot of illegal aliens, but no one has anything pinned down as to the extent of that or whether or not citizenship would be in the deal. So, just like anything else, we’ll have to see what he’s actually going to do – and how much discretion he’ll get from Congress and the courts once he strays beyond the Constitutional limits of Executive Orders (note I said “once”, not “if”).

    Sorry about the late response, folks. I had two concerts on the 9th and 11th and work was ridiculous this last week.

  57. 157
    kate says:

    we’ll have to see what he’s actually going to do

    But that is not necessarily a fixed thing. Trump sometimes moderates his rhetoric when people push back, as when he shifted from a total ban on Muslims entering the U.S., to a registry of non-citizens.
    So, we don’t have to wait. We have plenty of reason to protest based on what he’s already promised to do. Every offensive statement he makes needs to be met with protest. Every. single. one.

  58. 158
    RonF says:

    Kate:

    Well, there SHOULD be a registry of aliens. In fact, there IS. All aliens are required to register their place of residence as well as other information (depending on the kind of visa or other legal status they have) and to keep it up to date when it changes. The problem comes when they don’t keep it up to date, either through neglect or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

    And while a ban on entry to the U.S. based on religion would be unconstitutional (well, in my opinion at least, God knows what the Supreme Court would say), a ban on entry to the U.S. based on the incidence of terrorism or the sponsorship thereof in the country that someone comes from is entirely legal. In fact, it already exists, although it’s currently inactive. Do a search on “NSEERS”. Pres. Obama never got rid of it. All Pres. Trump will need is to exercise his pen and his phone to get it back up and running.

    Do you find the existence of such a program offensive? Would you protest if Pres. Trump activates it upon taking office?

  59. 159
    RonF says:

    Correction – NSEERS is a program requiring heightened accountability for the purpose, location, activities, etc. of people from certain countries – and they can be denied entry or deported if they do not comply. It still sounds like a good idea to me.

  60. 160
    Jake Squid says:

    Farewell, NSEERS

    .

  61. 161
    RonF says:

    Fair enough – but what will stop Trump from simply re-creating it once he becomes President? If it was a legislative creation then Pres. Obama doesn’t have the authority to destroy it, and if it was an executive creation then why can’t Trump start a new program just like it?

  62. 162
    Ruchama says:

    I think that Trump will have the authority to re-start it, but this will make it more complicated to do — they’ll have to start from the beginning rather than just picking up where it had left off.

  63. 163
    Ampersand says:

    A registration program based on religion would be unconstitutional, which is why Trump stopped calling for that, I presume.

    But a registration program that’s just a pretext for discriminating against people based on their religion would also be unconstitutional. And it’s possible that if President Trump starts such a program, people will sue on the basis of it being a pretext for discrimination against Muslims. Arguably, Trump himself has said it was:

    Donald Trump said his latest proposal to stop immigration “from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism” is an “expansion” of his blanket ban on Muslims, in an interview aired Sunday.

    “I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion,” Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” “I’m looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m OK with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”

    In the end, though, I think if there was such a lawsuit the Trump administration would prevail, at least in the Supreme Court if not earlier.

  64. 164
    kate says:

    Well, there SHOULD be a registry of aliens.

    FFS Ron, do I really need to spell this out for you.

    Trump sometimes moderates his rhetoric when people push back, as when he shifted from a total ban on Muslims entering the U.S. [unacceptable], to a registry of non-citizens [acceptable].

  65. 165
    kate says:

    a ban on entry to the U.S. based on the incidence of terrorism or the sponsorship thereof in the country that someone comes from is entirely legal.

    Sure it’s legal. Under current case law, Japanese internment camps are legal. This is part of the reason why I am so worried about abuses actually happening. I don’t think it is moral under the current circumstances (which is a perfectly legitimate reason to protest a law or policy). It will hit asylum seekers from minority religious communities in countries with high terrorism rates like Iraq and Syria hardest, without picking up more potential terrorists than our current vetting system (which so far hasn’t let any terrorists from these heavily scrutinized countries through). And, it won’t do anything to prevent radicalized Muslims from the U.K., France, Germany, etc. from coming in.
    But, I think we have the foreign terrorist situation pretty well in hand. The vast majority of people committing terrorist attacks in the U.S. are young men who were raised here and became radicalized in the U.S.. I see Islamic terrorism in the U.S. as a subset of mass shootings as a problem in the U.S.. That being the case, young Muslim-American men should be dealt with the same way as other populations prone to committing mass shootings are (eg. young white Christian men).

  66. 166
    Harlequin says:

    RonF @156–thanks for the clarification. I still think there are many ways this kind of plan could go wrong, and that it’s overly punitive, but I appreciate that you have some mitigation plans.

    Sorry about the late response, folks. I had two concerts on the 9th and 11th and work was ridiculous this last week.

    How dare you have anything in your life apart from posting blog comments! :)

  67. 167
    KellyK says:

    So, we don’t have to wait. We have plenty of reason to protest based on what he’s already promised to do. Every offensive statement he makes needs to be met with protest. Every. single. one.

    Absolutely. Everyone saying “Give him a chance,” has ignored the hundreds of chances he’s already had.