ewen21

First I heard of Biden was he had to bow out of the 1988 or 1992 race because he'd plagerized from Kennedy speeches. If he got the nomination Trump would mop the floor with him.

I cherry picked the news to make sure it either came from long standing liberal outposts or from the source itself! LOL If you won't read the information provided by Homeland Security or left of center publications like the Atlantic and the NY Times then where are you getting your information?

Are the facts essential to you? Did you bother to read any of the 3 links I posted on immigration at the border? All links are under two weeks old. One is a report from Homeland Security released last week. The other two were published by two well-establish left of center publications that are highly critical of Trump. Take Trump out of the discussion for just a minute. Read what the Homeland Security tells us. They are the same people you said Trump took a dump on. Then read the Freidman article in the Times. The dude has written for the Times FOREVER. He went on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and said he was, "as radically pro-immigration as they come". Yet because he actually went down there to see the situation he's come to another conclusion Get off Trump for a minute, people.

Longtime NY Times columnist Thomas Freidman" "The whole day left me more certain than ever that we have a real immigration crisis and that the solution is a high wall with a big gate — but a smart gate." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/opinion/trump-immigration-border-wall.html He also cites a brilliant essay published in the April issue of Atlantic, by David Frum: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/ The title of the essay is "If Liberals Won't enforce Border, Fascists Will" More than a few people here insisted there wasn't a crisis and it was more a product of Donald Trump's fertile imagination and racist tendencies, but the Homeland Security report released last week tells a different story. Denying there is an issue at this point is irresponsible. "Central American asylum seekers say they are fleeing crime in their home countries. Yet asylum-seeking has surged even as crime in Central America has subsided. El Salvador’s homicide rate has dropped by half since 2015; Honduras’s has plunged by 75 percent since 2013. As these asylum seekers have settled in the United States, they have beckoned their families to follow. U.S. adjudicators have rejected the vast majority of Central American asylum applications. But that has not diminished the flow from Central America. The process is slow, and a rejected application can be appealed. As the proceedings grind on, asylum seekers can vanish into diaspora communities where they can find housing, work, and welcome. The asylum seekers are advancing their interests and those of their families as best they can. Americans have the same responsibility to do what is best for Americans. A smaller immigration intake would dramatically slow the growth in the foreign-born share of the population, better shielding democratic political systems from extremist authoritarian reactions." The takeaway from these two pieces I've posted here is that intelligent liberal columnists and essay writers are no starting to implore registered democrats to cut the crap and wake up. Get more informed on this issue and don't be governed by your hatred of Trump--which assumes everything he says is garbage and completely devoid of facts. Some aspects of what he's said on immigration is money. I thought his tone and approach to immigration on the campaign trail was off-putting. It was enough to keep me from voting for him. I sincerely hope some here who said there was no crisis have woken up. It isn't too late

Wrong Leviathan. Gunnathor didn't specifically answer whether or not it involved more coverage in the media.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0416_hsac-emergency-interim-report.pdf As the findings in our report reflect, the large-scale influx of FMUs is new, having increased dramatically in the last year by 600%. Over 53,000 FMU were apprehended last month alone by the Border Patrol, and at the current trajectory, that number of FMU apprehensions is likely to exceed 500,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. After being held for several days at inadequate and overcrowded holding areas at USBP stations, most of the adults -- provided they have a child with them and have stated that they fear returning to their country of origin -- are issued Notices to Appear (NTA) at a later time before an immigration judge somewhere in the U.S. and then dropped at a local bus station or delivered to already overwhelmed non-profit shelters. The NTA, combined with long delays in the adjudication of asylum claims, means that these migrants are guaranteed several years of living (and in most cases working) in the U.S. Even if the asylum hearing and appeals ultimately go against the migrant, he or she still has the practical option of simply remaining in the U.S. illegally, where the odds of being caught and removed remain very low. A consequence of this broken system, driven by grossly inadequate detention space for family units and a shortage of transportation resources, is a massive increase in illegal crossings of our borders, almost entirely driven by the increase in FMU migration from Central America. Please try to stay current. Your claims above explicitly state that the reason why there are more illegals now is "due to the administration's policy of not allowing asylum seekers into the US" You are a smart guy, but Homeland Security doesn't see it the way you do. I think problem is you are slow to acknowledge what's been happening these last six months or so. I did not see this as an issue a year ago. It is now. Unless you think the Homeland Security reported I linked as complete nonsense.

I bet you don't even see the irony in that parenthetical thought.

I can respect that, but I have asked for clarification on what "shine a light on it" actually entails and have yet to get an answer.

How else do we know there is evidence more is done without reporting on it getting published for public consumption? If you are calling for some kind of reform to address this issue should people be able to understand what's happening? Not sure how you can wNt more light shed on the issue, but not want greater media coverage. Maybe SABR has that answer

I think you were looking for the opportunity to use the world "conflating". LOL. Back off a second and let gunnathor clarify what he means by "shed more light on" this issue. Let him define what he said. It reads as if it includes more media reporting on this and he hasn't spoken on whether or not this falls under the "shed more light" statement he made.

First of all, I apologize for my initial response to you. I had no idea what you did for a living and that made me think you (as an individual) sued the police on several occasions. That was silly of me. I am actually a little embarrassed so....I apologize. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the underlined. No way in the world you can convince me people ignore corruption or "systemic bias" in law enforcement. Tell that to Darren Wilson. He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, lost his job (and any chance of returning to law enforcement) and now lives in isolation. The whole thing was a false narrative and it gave way to a movement where athletes and entertainers used "hands up don't shoot" as a rallying cry and gave birth to a militant anti-police movement. Police are falsely accused for things all the time. Michael Bennett wrote a Twitter manifesto about he was arrested for simply being black and then the video came out. Kaepernick talked about "bodies in the streets and cops on paid leave" and that give birth to a movement where NFL players kneeled during the national anthem to "bring attention to police violence". That has been part of the ethos in sports for the last several years and it has not been a fair discussion because we cannot have an actual discussion about black crime and black on black violence. We shouldn't talk about one without talking about the other, in my opinion. Over and over again, I hear from people who have beefs with law enforcement and there are clear cut examples of BS in those accusations. I am not saying that about you, but I am saying I am tired of hearing this stuff we "need to have more attention" on this. What does that even mean? There has been an over-emphasis on this stuff since Ferguson, in my opinion. This does not mean I don't think it exists or that police should have 100% immunity like Mr. Brooks suggested. It's just I am not sure what a sweeping campaign to bring examples of police misconduct to the general public through the media is going to accomplish. Maybe you can enlighten me? I also cannot agree with the last part underlined. If a young woman is sexually harassed by a LEO then the family and the girl ought to dictate whether or not this is something that goes public (through the media). In the hypothetical example you present that goes straight to the public for immediate consumption. I don't agree with that at all. Now the girl has gain notoriety as a victim. When I said "unmask cops" that was in response to the USA Today article that came out yesterday which I posted: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/ Just so we are clear on what I mean about "unmasked" I am talking about circulated in the media. Victims have the right privacy and haphazard reporting has in some cases falsely accused law enforcement. I think what you do is important, but when you "more light on the subject" you are going to have to clarify that statement. You have not to this point.

. The statement underlined. In another thread where immigration was discussed I was taken to task for referring to those who cross the border illegally as "illegals" and this went on for a couple of pages. Even though, what I said was entirely true because literally thousands of asylum seekers are now detained at the border for illegal entry every week. I can't say "illegals" without major blowback but you can characterize cops as criminals and be safe from blowback. I find that kind of telling about the way the wind blows here.

I guess I don't like this statement: "More light on the subject of police misconduct is strongly needed" What does that even mean? That there needs to be EVEN MORE transparency on this? Is he saying every instance where police misconduct is evident it should be reported in the media for the public to digest? Is he saying more articles need to written on this? That we need to perseverate more on this than we already do as a society? WHY??? Why do we need to put "more light on the subject of police misconduct"?? There isn't enough light shed on it now? Didn't Colin Kaepernick and al those woke dudes shed enough light on it? Didn't the BS "hands up don't shoot" narrative and BLM speak out against the police enough? We need to unmask cops and report cops guilty of misconduct to the public? https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/ This needs to be front and center news? On the list of topics to discuss I do not see this as being something that needs to be emphasized. PLENTY of attention is given in this area already and I do not see what this discussion seeks to accomplish. I am not saying it should be ignored, nor am I saying the police deserve 100% immunity for their actions. My issue is that this is suddenly now a conversation. Where is the evidence that shining a spotlight on this and opening up records to the public (like USA Today did in the link I provided) does us any good? It is bad enough distrust between people living in high crime areas and police exists on a very high level. It is almost is bad with the woke white university brats who want to pretend it's the 1960s. What is this thread accomplishing? This feels like a mock trial of the profession and I don't like that In sum, I feel this thread seeks to tell us that whatever "we" think of cops it is actually worse than the perception. I happen to think the perception of police is probably more negative than it needs to be because a lot of focus is ALREADY put on instances where cops demonstrate misconduct.

Are you actually serious with those questions? I mean this with all sincerity

Now it makes sense! LOL

And Brooks, I am demonstrating empathy right now--just not for the preferred group

If I witnessed something, have something happened to a loved one or friend, things of that nature; I will certainly feel empathy. I don't right now. But for anyone here in this thread with regard to the police.

Mr. Brooks He said he sued the police several times Did you not get that part? And you talk about paranoia

I've already explained why I felt the need to take a side. The OP obviously comes at this from a different angle than someone who is pro-police. Since I have not had an experience with the police that was negative (I've been carted in a couple of times, but I own it) I feel compelled to challenge the tone set by someone who has sued the police on several occasions. I am very VERY suspicious of that claim. Sounds like someone with and axe to grind with the police and I don't like it

Uh, no. This thread is all about taking an accusatory stance toward police in general.

Cops are imperfect like the rest of us and they are held to a very high standard. I know several police officers and I have the utmost respect for them. If you're going to start a thread on cops which centers on the negative aspects I'm going to feel compelled to take the other side. There has been entirely too much anti-police talk. Several posters here insisted on telling me BLM was a valid organization. OK, fine. In Minneapolis they started the "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!" chant. Might as well say KILL THE POLICE. That is pure hate

Don't be obtuse.When it comes to certain issues, YES. And this is true for supporters of anyone. In this case, I'd like to see a Bernie supporter denounce his call for extending a voting privilege to incarcerated felons amongst this anti-police rhetoric. If a Bernie supporter speaks negatively about the police AND doubles down on his voting policy it says A LOT. Just as it would if a Trump supporter weighing in on a race issue gets asked about Charlottesville.

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light. If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections. I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

I'm waiting to hear... "Just download the app. This program will live your life for you!" Computers crash, get viruses and freeze...traffic lights go out, etc. etc This idea scares me. We are too busy with other things to pilot an automobile? Nonsense. One of the very few "advancements" I oppose.

Could you please bother to read what I said so you can understand me? In the very post I asked for data I was trying to make it clear that my discussion is about the southern border and that this is entirely different discussion: Do you now see that I am speaking primarily about the three Central American nations? I figured this was clear from the outset, but by now I would hope you will concede that. People who enter legally and overstay their Visa is another issue altogether. It is equally worthy of a discussion, but it shouldn't be used to sabotoge another discussion I understand and know the data with people outstaying their Visa, but I have made it painfully clear that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. That is another discussion. Please stop for a second and acknowledge the massive numbers of detained illegals coming across from Central America. I have posted the numbers again and again. I guess you aren't going to see what you don't want to see but this comes from the freakin source. It is real. It isn't a fabrication in my mind: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration Some facts imbedded in this data: In March, 92,607 people were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, compared with 66,884 in the month of February and 47,984 in January. More information from US Customs and Border Protection. Not some media outlet. THe actual source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics We are six months through their fiscal year of 2019 and already they have reported almost 365,000 apprehensions at the border. This is just halfway through the fiscal year. Add that with the number of inadmissibles and it is 504,864 in six months. How in the world is that manageable or acceptable in your estimation? We are just supposed to open the border while these people traipse through Mexico (infuriating scores of Mexicans)? I have brought up the numbers a whole lot of times and you keep running to something else. Forget about humanitarian aid, your ideas about racism and people overstaying their Visas. Chew on the numbers I posted for a minute.