The important thing is Biden has to show a solution to immigration. And then make the case that the Congress won't do anything because Trump told them not to. It's a do nothing congress.
Just wondering: If a rash of tax and budget cuts meant that in your local jurisdiction it would take 4 years from filing your complaint in a civil matter--say breach of contract against the contractor who totally wrecked your house during a remodel and left it undone--4 years before the court even scheduled your case---
Would you think the solution to be saying that people had to be stopped from filing civil suits, or would it perchance be saying that more judges and court staff were needed to deal with the problem? Asking for a friend.
There absolutely should be a massive increase in the number of immigration judges, no question.
But the problem remains that thousands of people who don't qualify for asylum under the definition of international law -- "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" -- are clogging our asylum system because border personnel aren't permitted to deny entry to anyone who claims asylum, no matter how speciously.
The State Department should be able to provide Homeland Security with a list of countries where there is reason to believe that a claim of official persecution or officially tolerated persecution exists. The ONLY people who should be admitted to the United States on asylum claims are people from the countries on that list. Let me be absolutely clear: being afraid of criminals in your own country is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a failed state is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a country that's suffered a natural or manmade disaster is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is admirable -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim.
For all those situations I've mentioned, it's up to the Congress of the United States to establish policies to provide relief, if it chooses to do so. But it is not appropriate for the Executive Branch, regardless of any pressure it suffers from activist groups, to distort the asylum system to accommodate them.
And equally, I oppose deporting people who DO qualify for asylum unless they commit a crime. For that reason, I am just as opposed to the Biden Administration deporting Venezuelans who DO have "a well-founded fear of persecution" just because Maduro was willing to take them back as I am to their closing their eyes to phony asylum seekers.
This is analysis of the Asylum statute I did last February. The definition you quote is, in our statutes, the definition of refugee, and THAT is always entitled to asylum, period. Other definitions can be added (or subtracted) by the AG or Homeland Security Secretary. The problem, of course, is that if it is four years till you get a hearing, there is no way to weed out the iffy ones.
*********************************
"As the whole immigration thing heats up more and more with Foxian thundering about illegals, and the whole GOP shrieking invasion, it is important to keep in mind the following:
What is really important is that "illegal" only applies to illegal ENTRY (or re-entry.) If one enters legally, say with a visa or, most important right now, with a valid asylum claim, the remedy is CIVIL. Just as a breach of contract claim is. If you lost a contract dispute, should you be labeled an "illegal"? Chances are GREAT that the folks cleaning your toilet or mowing your lawn are undocumented but NOT illegal.
The ONLY way to solve the question of "is the asylum claim valid" is to beef up the immigration courts and process the claims. Those which are denied will result in deportation. The GOP is refusing to provide this funding.
The only real flexibility in this scheme is to beef up or tone down the definition of WHO is entitled to asylum. THAT is decided by procedures promulgated by The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.
Those with refugee status are entitled to asylum, period. Refugee status is defined as someone subjected to "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..."
Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above.
We don't know how much of this is changed in the currently debated bipartisan immigration bill.
This is all found in 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum. Needless to say, there are lots of exceptions to the right to asylum/refugee status, including a long laundry list of criminal activities AND the fact that in your home country you were indeed one of the persecutors."
**********************************
It is not, btw, true that Border Patrol can't turn back people speciously claiming asylum if they fall under the exceptions listed in the statute. The list of things that are crimes that deny asylum is really long and if you are within that list, out you go, no need for a hearing.
"Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above."
If this is true, and these abuses are based on nothing more than discretionary decisions within the Executive Branch, then the President DOES have the authority to improve the situation on his own authority by changing those decisions to correspond to the law and no more, and Biden should have done that on Day One, or on any day since. None of this means that Trump would be a better choice for President -- he isn't -- but it certainly makes Biden's border non-policy even less defensible than I thought it was.
I think the regulations for "defining" require the APA notice and hearing procedure. They can’t just be done by executive order. Not that either trump or Biden under pressure is paying much attention to that
Like you, I think that a President who is basing his legitimacy on his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law can't afford to try to unilaterally junk the legal requirements for changing regulations (and in Biden's case, we can hope that he learned that lesson from when he tried to do it on student debt). I suppose that the best he can do is to publish a detailed immigration reform plan for his second term that is heavy on adequate funding for personnel to streamline the system, and has plenty of features that make it clear that he is not aligned with the Open Borders wing of his party. And anything that he CAN do between now and November to communicate that, he should do. It's frustrating not to see any of this from him.
Biden has spent his entire term between rocks and hard places and it’s amazing what he has been able to accomplish despite this.
I’m disappointed in his reaction to the ICC warrants: Presumably there is some evidence and a warrant just says one prosecutor thinks it is sufficient. But under a rule of law that’s just a step—the pudding needs proof, of course.
Ironically, Netanyahu’s position vis a vis war crimes is very like Trump’s vis a via changing of financial documents. The question is did HE do it or did he just encourage others in his cabinet who are encouraging the terrorism (that’s what it is) of the “settlers” on the West Bank and who have been pushing their own “final solution” to the residents of Gaza.
The discontent does not justify the Hamas terrorism, AND the Hamas terrorism does not justify the West Bank terrorism. Terrorism is simply not acceptable no matter who perpetrates it. It is the epitome of “minority rule.” But the current Israeli government hasn’t from the get go even TRIED to reach a political solution, which is what is needed to get Hamas out of the hair of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
But the GOP is using “full support of Israel no matter what it does” as a political bludgeon.
As with the Gaza/West Bank war, the immigration issue puts Biden in a terrible position. The rule of law is not working, for lack of resources in this case, and the political impediments are a real danger to the task of keeping trump from doing everything he says in his Time interview, his speeches, and his embrace of Project 2025.
As the original post shows Dems are reintroducing the failed bipartisan border agreement. That is probably just political theater at this point, but it is really the best that can be done to keep the real reason for the border crisis in its current state in the public eye.
Whether or not the asylum regs allow migration for gang violence or climate change, the people are going to keep coming. We HAVE to come up with a way of dealing with it. One way that doesn’t violate the current laws is Biden’s agreements with Mexico; Mexico is taking a much sterner stance on those coming through ITS Southern border, and that (say many commentators) is one reason the border crossings are down even as the summer season progresses. More help for the countries where the gang violence is occurring is another approach but—geeze, The Deficit. Not sure the problem of climate change, by this time, is solvable by anyone.
Replying to the Saletan piece cited. Soooo disappointing:
"I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this piece. I find this hard to say, but given that Saletan is literally the only person on the Bulwark staff that has any appreciation of the value of Palestinian civilian lives, this piece frankly struck me as a half-assed effort to make a persuasive comment to the contrary.
Saletan provides no facts, no data, and really no tangible legal or moral argument beyond some version of, “That's clearly fucked up, am I right‽”
I'll help Saletan out:
1. No restriction should be imposed on a U.S. ally.
Unbelievably, Saletan didn't even bother to provide an argument against this. It goes without saying that, duh, legal standards need to be consistent if the concept of the rule of law is to have any meaning.
But brother, even your fellow Bulwark contributors don't accept this idea, what chance is there you'd persuade anyone else of their ilk if you don't bother to provide ANY argument.
How about just starting by mentioning that:
i) Geneva Conventions apply to every single country, as much as Israel & the U.S. pretend they do not.
ii) Domestic laws, specifically the Leahy Laws, make it illegal to provide weapons to a foreign nation, ally or not, that are being used to commit gross violations of human rights.
2. No limit should be imposed on civilian casualties.
No argument provided by Saletan to rebut this awful claim.
See #1 for a proper response + how about pointing out that disproportionately killing civilians vis-a-vis the military objective at hand = a war crime?
3. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas started the war.
Again not a single argument provided by Saletan here, aside from pointing out that said argument absolves Israel of any responsibility.
No shit, Captain Obvious.
How about pointing out:
i) As an occupying force, Israel has an obligation under international law to ensure the residents of the subjugated area have their basic necessities met.
ii) Under the Geneva Conventions it's a war crime to disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the military importance of the mission.
4. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas uses human shields.
Once again, not a single argument from Saletan other than pointing out the obvious fact that this position gives Israel a blank check.
See#3 for an ACTUAL response.
5. Hamas’ use of human shields makes casualty mitigation impossible.
Again, no argument provided aside from a rather inflammatory assertion that Israel does in fact already take steps to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths, which is just inaccurate.
It would have certainly helped to point out that under international law, one war crime violation by Hamas doesn't justify another by the IDF.
And sorry but the assertion that Israel is already trying to mitigate civilian casualties is hard to reconcile with the outcome of their actions so far, nor does it reconcile with the statements made by senior Israeli war cabinet members at the start of the conflict proudly declaring that there were no restraints on IDF soldiers. These Ministers repeatedly referred to Gazans as subhuman vermin, and Netanyahu himself evoked the biblical story of Amelek where Yahweh apparently instructed Jews to commit genocide on the people of Amelek, and even their livestock.
Saletan on this stuff? Silent.
6. Civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable because most Gazans support Hamas.
Yet another point that had absolutely no argument in response from Saletan.
This is actually the second most egregious instance of Saletan's negligence in this piece.
This point isn't even that difficult to refute, even for a lounge chair correspondent who apparently does no primary research--stuff I can in fact refute in 10 minutes of web-based legal research. Or really just basic fucking math.
The last election held in Gaza was in 2006, this in an area where 1/2 of the population is under the age of 18 (thus can't vote).
Even then, Hamas only secured 44% of the vote in 2006.
When I did the basic math, even assuming that every single adult in 2006 voted for Hamas, only 20% of those folks would still have been alive as of October 7, 2023.
That figure gets closer to 10% if you apply the voting patterns for Hamas vs other options.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to also mention that under international law, civilian voting patterns are completely irrelevant to a consideration of whether murdering said unarmed civilians is legal under international law.
What is most ironic about this imbecilic argument is that its reasoning means that it's perfectly acceptable to target both Israeli AND American civilians for violence, given that the citizens of both countries actually get to vote for their representatives on a regular basis.
It's EXTRA ironic that Netanyahu only received 23.4% of the popular vote in 2022 yet got to set Israeli policy for the year leading up to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas.
Under GOP's reasoning, this also makes any Israeli civilian a valid target of military/terrorist violence.
Talk about an unforced error.
8. Israel should do to Gaza what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Again, Saletan provides no argument or facts to refute this idiotic argument aside from what amounts to a 16-year old beauty pageant contestant's answer that this line of thinking is fucked up.
Ummm, how about pointing out the LEGAL fact that the Geneva Conventions were updated after WWII to make such mass killings of civilians a war crime?
I mean, I get where Saletan is coming from as an American: the United States has never given a flying shit about abiding by international laws. I'm just very disappointed that Saletan is apparently ignorant about these basic legal standards (Americans are typically too self-centered and arrogant to even CONSIDER that international law even exists).
Overall this piece was just embarrassing for Saletan.
The qualitative impression I got from the incredibly lazy approach in this piece, is that it was written by a reasonably intelligent Iowa high-school senior student who woke up to the realization s/he forgot to submit a paper on the date it was due and punched out an inadequate response out of desperation in less than an hour prior to going to class. I sure as fuck could have written this piece in 20 minutes given the scant research done in advance.
Saletan, shame on you. We both know you can do better."
I think Saletan had no response because he considers them as self-evidently unjustifiable. I say that as someone who thinks that Hamas' entire force-protection strategy is based on eliminating Israel's ability to hit Hamas's forces without harming the human shields resulting in international "righteous" anger against the harms done to the human shields. Thus, penalizing Israel's refusal to have zero tolerance for Hamas's human shields rewards Hamas's perfidy.
It's wrong to call Perry a "vigilante murderer". Vigilante implies that civilian authority was absent or unable to deal with a crime. In this case, there was no crime at all.
After weeks of his evading service and then posting that taunting tweet, it was just *chef’s kiss* that they tagged Rudy Colludy as he left his birthday party. He has become a total scofflaw and what he continues to do to the Georgia election workers is despicable. And I have a feeling that his “firing” is a scam cooked up between him and his very MAGA boss, Catsimitidis, to make sure the bankruptcy creditors have nothing to garnish.
At their ages, both Trump and Biden are surely on some medications that they would rather not advertise to the world, but it’s definitely Trump, if anyone, who has been on performance enhancing drugs at a debate. Still, Biden should refuse, because they will find some way to uncover and release the other medical information from the test - or just lie and say they have some and spread the lies.
"But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too."
I've heard the Hiroshima excuse at least a dozen times from Israeli apologists.
But something that both Israeli apologists and left-wing commentators always neglect to mention is that a Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuke bombing is COMPLETELTY ILLEGAL under international law since 1948.
After the Nuremberg & Tokyo trials, the Geneva Conventions were updated to make these bombings that disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the valid military objection.
So those who raise the Hiroshima "argument" are by extension saying, fuck international law.
As an interesting side-note, that also really means that every country that has nuclear weapons is essentially reserving the right to commit war crimes if faced with an existential threat. I mean, the unpredictable nuclear fallout alone makes any use of a nuclear weapon in real life circumstances, a war crime.
There are some people actually saying that nuking Gaza (not just by analogy) would end this crisis. To which I saw: Don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows--undoubtedly from the sea to the river.
There are clearly a lot of people too young to remember fall out.
Has Biden considered removing the cap on the number of legal immigrants?
If we can meet U.S. employers' demand for workers by bringing in all the legal immigrants needed for the U.S. job market, presumably the demand for illegal border crossings would drop precipitously.
Does Biden need Congress to take action in this way?
Biden “didn’t do it before” b/c Congress shd do it … he’s doing it now b/c Republicans in Congress won’t do it. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t … so, in true Biden fashion, he’ll do what he thinks is best for the country all things considered. It will be imperfect &ppl who cdn’t run a small diverse town will criticize him for managing our huge diverse country in a crazy on the edge world. It is what it is. Sane ppl need to step up, speak up &vote en masse to protect &preserve our democratic republic. It’s up to us. There are no perfect heroes out there waiting in the wings.
The GOP, now the party of L&N (Lawlessness and Nihilism). I'm not surprised about Rudy's fall into the festering pit of odium--he's always come across as incredibly vainglorious and self-imporant, and after reading about his repugnant behavior over the decades this final chapter is fitting.
The only people who actually take trump saying he wants to testify or that he will are reporters who seem to still not be aware of his propensity to lie. That telegraph reporter seems unaware of that fact
What does the Iranian President do, besides whatever the Supreme Leader wants or tells him to do? I mean, the guy basically has to be approved by the Supreme Leader to run and get elected, if I am not mistaken.
He seems to be largely a front put up by the Supreme Leadership to handle the scutwork and take the blame for things that go south--or am I mistaken?
I think of the President of Iran as a Prime Minister in the kind of constitutional monarchy where the monarch still maintains ultimate authority, but the President runs the administration, making sure that everybody gets paid, that the right terrorists are funded, and the right people are arrested in the proper large numbers. Raisi was very good at the arresting -- and condemning -- part while he headed the judiciary, so I doubt that there will be much mourning during this "period of mourning". Every indication is that he was widely, if quietly, hated.
My non-expert understanding is that the Supreme Leader is supreme, but usually somewhat aloof. The president does direct policy, within an acceptable range. Iranian elections are real, but tightly controlled, not free or fair. All candidates for president and parliament must indeed be approved, but it's the Guardian Council - half appointed by the SL - mainly doing the vetting, and then later also signing off on their laws.
It is officially frowned upon, but Iranian voters can register dissatisfaction with the choices by turning in blank ballots, and the tally of these is reported. In the 2021 election that elevated Raisi, "Invalid blank" actually placed second, for the first time.
The Supreme Leader *can* step in and order a reversal in any part of the process at any time, or the dismissal of any official, but he usually doesn't have to be so direct.
This is off topic, but I think the judge in the Steve Bannon comtempt case is another Aileen Cannon.
He bought Bannon 18 months by saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to jail Bannon pending appeal, since his appeal had a "great chance of success". Now that the appeal has predictably been shot down, he seems to just be ignoring the case.
1) Age limits: Set an upper age limit for all federal judicial offices at which you MUST retire.
2) Replacement of permanent SC justice positions with randomly selected judges/justices from the federal judiciary who have over X years of tenure in the position--meaning thhat you cannot stack the justices to build permanent majorities. It also gets rid of the whole mess of SCotUS appointments
3) Binding and enforceable ethics legislation that triggers impeachment proceeedings (and forces recusals) when criteria are met.
The important thing is Biden has to show a solution to immigration. And then make the case that the Congress won't do anything because Trump told them not to. It's a do nothing congress.
Just wondering: If a rash of tax and budget cuts meant that in your local jurisdiction it would take 4 years from filing your complaint in a civil matter--say breach of contract against the contractor who totally wrecked your house during a remodel and left it undone--4 years before the court even scheduled your case---
Would you think the solution to be saying that people had to be stopped from filing civil suits, or would it perchance be saying that more judges and court staff were needed to deal with the problem? Asking for a friend.
There absolutely should be a massive increase in the number of immigration judges, no question.
But the problem remains that thousands of people who don't qualify for asylum under the definition of international law -- "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" -- are clogging our asylum system because border personnel aren't permitted to deny entry to anyone who claims asylum, no matter how speciously.
The State Department should be able to provide Homeland Security with a list of countries where there is reason to believe that a claim of official persecution or officially tolerated persecution exists. The ONLY people who should be admitted to the United States on asylum claims are people from the countries on that list. Let me be absolutely clear: being afraid of criminals in your own country is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a failed state is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a country that's suffered a natural or manmade disaster is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is admirable -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim.
For all those situations I've mentioned, it's up to the Congress of the United States to establish policies to provide relief, if it chooses to do so. But it is not appropriate for the Executive Branch, regardless of any pressure it suffers from activist groups, to distort the asylum system to accommodate them.
And equally, I oppose deporting people who DO qualify for asylum unless they commit a crime. For that reason, I am just as opposed to the Biden Administration deporting Venezuelans who DO have "a well-founded fear of persecution" just because Maduro was willing to take them back as I am to their closing their eyes to phony asylum seekers.
This is analysis of the Asylum statute I did last February. The definition you quote is, in our statutes, the definition of refugee, and THAT is always entitled to asylum, period. Other definitions can be added (or subtracted) by the AG or Homeland Security Secretary. The problem, of course, is that if it is four years till you get a hearing, there is no way to weed out the iffy ones.
*********************************
"As the whole immigration thing heats up more and more with Foxian thundering about illegals, and the whole GOP shrieking invasion, it is important to keep in mind the following:
What is really important is that "illegal" only applies to illegal ENTRY (or re-entry.) If one enters legally, say with a visa or, most important right now, with a valid asylum claim, the remedy is CIVIL. Just as a breach of contract claim is. If you lost a contract dispute, should you be labeled an "illegal"? Chances are GREAT that the folks cleaning your toilet or mowing your lawn are undocumented but NOT illegal.
The ONLY way to solve the question of "is the asylum claim valid" is to beef up the immigration courts and process the claims. Those which are denied will result in deportation. The GOP is refusing to provide this funding.
The only real flexibility in this scheme is to beef up or tone down the definition of WHO is entitled to asylum. THAT is decided by procedures promulgated by The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.
Those with refugee status are entitled to asylum, period. Refugee status is defined as someone subjected to "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..."
Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above.
We don't know how much of this is changed in the currently debated bipartisan immigration bill.
This is all found in 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum. Needless to say, there are lots of exceptions to the right to asylum/refugee status, including a long laundry list of criminal activities AND the fact that in your home country you were indeed one of the persecutors."
**********************************
It is not, btw, true that Border Patrol can't turn back people speciously claiming asylum if they fall under the exceptions listed in the statute. The list of things that are crimes that deny asylum is really long and if you are within that list, out you go, no need for a hearing.
Thanks for the clarifications.
"Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above."
If this is true, and these abuses are based on nothing more than discretionary decisions within the Executive Branch, then the President DOES have the authority to improve the situation on his own authority by changing those decisions to correspond to the law and no more, and Biden should have done that on Day One, or on any day since. None of this means that Trump would be a better choice for President -- he isn't -- but it certainly makes Biden's border non-policy even less defensible than I thought it was.
I think the regulations for "defining" require the APA notice and hearing procedure. They can’t just be done by executive order. Not that either trump or Biden under pressure is paying much attention to that
Like you, I think that a President who is basing his legitimacy on his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law can't afford to try to unilaterally junk the legal requirements for changing regulations (and in Biden's case, we can hope that he learned that lesson from when he tried to do it on student debt). I suppose that the best he can do is to publish a detailed immigration reform plan for his second term that is heavy on adequate funding for personnel to streamline the system, and has plenty of features that make it clear that he is not aligned with the Open Borders wing of his party. And anything that he CAN do between now and November to communicate that, he should do. It's frustrating not to see any of this from him.
Biden has spent his entire term between rocks and hard places and it’s amazing what he has been able to accomplish despite this.
I’m disappointed in his reaction to the ICC warrants: Presumably there is some evidence and a warrant just says one prosecutor thinks it is sufficient. But under a rule of law that’s just a step—the pudding needs proof, of course.
Ironically, Netanyahu’s position vis a vis war crimes is very like Trump’s vis a via changing of financial documents. The question is did HE do it or did he just encourage others in his cabinet who are encouraging the terrorism (that’s what it is) of the “settlers” on the West Bank and who have been pushing their own “final solution” to the residents of Gaza.
(for more on the terrorism referenced read Haaretz for daily stories of attacks on Palestinians in their own areas of the West Bank. For the reason behind Palestinian discontent see the NY Times article that isn’t getting enough attention: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html
The discontent does not justify the Hamas terrorism, AND the Hamas terrorism does not justify the West Bank terrorism. Terrorism is simply not acceptable no matter who perpetrates it. It is the epitome of “minority rule.” But the current Israeli government hasn’t from the get go even TRIED to reach a political solution, which is what is needed to get Hamas out of the hair of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
But the GOP is using “full support of Israel no matter what it does” as a political bludgeon.
As with the Gaza/West Bank war, the immigration issue puts Biden in a terrible position. The rule of law is not working, for lack of resources in this case, and the political impediments are a real danger to the task of keeping trump from doing everything he says in his Time interview, his speeches, and his embrace of Project 2025.
As the original post shows Dems are reintroducing the failed bipartisan border agreement. That is probably just political theater at this point, but it is really the best that can be done to keep the real reason for the border crisis in its current state in the public eye.
Whether or not the asylum regs allow migration for gang violence or climate change, the people are going to keep coming. We HAVE to come up with a way of dealing with it. One way that doesn’t violate the current laws is Biden’s agreements with Mexico; Mexico is taking a much sterner stance on those coming through ITS Southern border, and that (say many commentators) is one reason the border crossings are down even as the summer season progresses. More help for the countries where the gang violence is occurring is another approach but—geeze, The Deficit. Not sure the problem of climate change, by this time, is solvable by anyone.
Replying to the Saletan piece cited. Soooo disappointing:
"I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this piece. I find this hard to say, but given that Saletan is literally the only person on the Bulwark staff that has any appreciation of the value of Palestinian civilian lives, this piece frankly struck me as a half-assed effort to make a persuasive comment to the contrary.
Saletan provides no facts, no data, and really no tangible legal or moral argument beyond some version of, “That's clearly fucked up, am I right‽”
I'll help Saletan out:
1. No restriction should be imposed on a U.S. ally.
Unbelievably, Saletan didn't even bother to provide an argument against this. It goes without saying that, duh, legal standards need to be consistent if the concept of the rule of law is to have any meaning.
But brother, even your fellow Bulwark contributors don't accept this idea, what chance is there you'd persuade anyone else of their ilk if you don't bother to provide ANY argument.
How about just starting by mentioning that:
i) Geneva Conventions apply to every single country, as much as Israel & the U.S. pretend they do not.
ii) Domestic laws, specifically the Leahy Laws, make it illegal to provide weapons to a foreign nation, ally or not, that are being used to commit gross violations of human rights.
2. No limit should be imposed on civilian casualties.
No argument provided by Saletan to rebut this awful claim.
See #1 for a proper response + how about pointing out that disproportionately killing civilians vis-a-vis the military objective at hand = a war crime?
3. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas started the war.
Again not a single argument provided by Saletan here, aside from pointing out that said argument absolves Israel of any responsibility.
No shit, Captain Obvious.
How about pointing out:
i) As an occupying force, Israel has an obligation under international law to ensure the residents of the subjugated area have their basic necessities met.
ii) Under the Geneva Conventions it's a war crime to disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the military importance of the mission.
4. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas uses human shields.
Once again, not a single argument from Saletan other than pointing out the obvious fact that this position gives Israel a blank check.
See#3 for an ACTUAL response.
5. Hamas’ use of human shields makes casualty mitigation impossible.
Again, no argument provided aside from a rather inflammatory assertion that Israel does in fact already take steps to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths, which is just inaccurate.
It would have certainly helped to point out that under international law, one war crime violation by Hamas doesn't justify another by the IDF.
And sorry but the assertion that Israel is already trying to mitigate civilian casualties is hard to reconcile with the outcome of their actions so far, nor does it reconcile with the statements made by senior Israeli war cabinet members at the start of the conflict proudly declaring that there were no restraints on IDF soldiers. These Ministers repeatedly referred to Gazans as subhuman vermin, and Netanyahu himself evoked the biblical story of Amelek where Yahweh apparently instructed Jews to commit genocide on the people of Amelek, and even their livestock.
Saletan on this stuff? Silent.
6. Civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable because most Gazans support Hamas.
Yet another point that had absolutely no argument in response from Saletan.
This is actually the second most egregious instance of Saletan's negligence in this piece.
This point isn't even that difficult to refute, even for a lounge chair correspondent who apparently does no primary research--stuff I can in fact refute in 10 minutes of web-based legal research. Or really just basic fucking math.
The last election held in Gaza was in 2006, this in an area where 1/2 of the population is under the age of 18 (thus can't vote).
Even then, Hamas only secured 44% of the vote in 2006.
When I did the basic math, even assuming that every single adult in 2006 voted for Hamas, only 20% of those folks would still have been alive as of October 7, 2023.
That figure gets closer to 10% if you apply the voting patterns for Hamas vs other options.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to also mention that under international law, civilian voting patterns are completely irrelevant to a consideration of whether murdering said unarmed civilians is legal under international law.
What is most ironic about this imbecilic argument is that its reasoning means that it's perfectly acceptable to target both Israeli AND American civilians for violence, given that the citizens of both countries actually get to vote for their representatives on a regular basis.
It's EXTRA ironic that Netanyahu only received 23.4% of the popular vote in 2022 yet got to set Israeli policy for the year leading up to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas.
Under GOP's reasoning, this also makes any Israeli civilian a valid target of military/terrorist violence.
Talk about an unforced error.
8. Israel should do to Gaza what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Again, Saletan provides no argument or facts to refute this idiotic argument aside from what amounts to a 16-year old beauty pageant contestant's answer that this line of thinking is fucked up.
Ummm, how about pointing out the LEGAL fact that the Geneva Conventions were updated after WWII to make such mass killings of civilians a war crime?
I mean, I get where Saletan is coming from as an American: the United States has never given a flying shit about abiding by international laws. I'm just very disappointed that Saletan is apparently ignorant about these basic legal standards (Americans are typically too self-centered and arrogant to even CONSIDER that international law even exists).
------------------------------------------------------------
Overall this piece was just embarrassing for Saletan.
The qualitative impression I got from the incredibly lazy approach in this piece, is that it was written by a reasonably intelligent Iowa high-school senior student who woke up to the realization s/he forgot to submit a paper on the date it was due and punched out an inadequate response out of desperation in less than an hour prior to going to class. I sure as fuck could have written this piece in 20 minutes given the scant research done in advance.
Saletan, shame on you. We both know you can do better."
I think Saletan had no response because he considers them as self-evidently unjustifiable. I say that as someone who thinks that Hamas' entire force-protection strategy is based on eliminating Israel's ability to hit Hamas's forces without harming the human shields resulting in international "righteous" anger against the harms done to the human shields. Thus, penalizing Israel's refusal to have zero tolerance for Hamas's human shields rewards Hamas's perfidy.
It's wrong to call Perry a "vigilante murderer". Vigilante implies that civilian authority was absent or unable to deal with a crime. In this case, there was no crime at all.
After weeks of his evading service and then posting that taunting tweet, it was just *chef’s kiss* that they tagged Rudy Colludy as he left his birthday party. He has become a total scofflaw and what he continues to do to the Georgia election workers is despicable. And I have a feeling that his “firing” is a scam cooked up between him and his very MAGA boss, Catsimitidis, to make sure the bankruptcy creditors have nothing to garnish.
At their ages, both Trump and Biden are surely on some medications that they would rather not advertise to the world, but it’s definitely Trump, if anyone, who has been on performance enhancing drugs at a debate. Still, Biden should refuse, because they will find some way to uncover and release the other medical information from the test - or just lie and say they have some and spread the lies.
"the surgical smiles of the bleach-blonde cougars"
That's a damned good line that I hope everyone appreciated.
Watching gay porn is the probably least objectionable thing about Fuentes.
"But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too."
I've heard the Hiroshima excuse at least a dozen times from Israeli apologists.
But something that both Israeli apologists and left-wing commentators always neglect to mention is that a Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuke bombing is COMPLETELTY ILLEGAL under international law since 1948.
After the Nuremberg & Tokyo trials, the Geneva Conventions were updated to make these bombings that disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the valid military objection.
So those who raise the Hiroshima "argument" are by extension saying, fuck international law.
As an interesting side-note, that also really means that every country that has nuclear weapons is essentially reserving the right to commit war crimes if faced with an existential threat. I mean, the unpredictable nuclear fallout alone makes any use of a nuclear weapon in real life circumstances, a war crime.
There are some people actually saying that nuking Gaza (not just by analogy) would end this crisis. To which I saw: Don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows--undoubtedly from the sea to the river.
There are clearly a lot of people too young to remember fall out.
Hi Bill,
Has Biden considered removing the cap on the number of legal immigrants?
If we can meet U.S. employers' demand for workers by bringing in all the legal immigrants needed for the U.S. job market, presumably the demand for illegal border crossings would drop precipitously.
Does Biden need Congress to take action in this way?
All the best,
Lee Rone, Memphis
Biden “didn’t do it before” b/c Congress shd do it … he’s doing it now b/c Republicans in Congress won’t do it. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t … so, in true Biden fashion, he’ll do what he thinks is best for the country all things considered. It will be imperfect &ppl who cdn’t run a small diverse town will criticize him for managing our huge diverse country in a crazy on the edge world. It is what it is. Sane ppl need to step up, speak up &vote en masse to protect &preserve our democratic republic. It’s up to us. There are no perfect heroes out there waiting in the wings.
The GOP, now the party of L&N (Lawlessness and Nihilism). I'm not surprised about Rudy's fall into the festering pit of odium--he's always come across as incredibly vainglorious and self-imporant, and after reading about his repugnant behavior over the decades this final chapter is fitting.
The only people who actually take trump saying he wants to testify or that he will are reporters who seem to still not be aware of his propensity to lie. That telegraph reporter seems unaware of that fact
What does the Iranian President do, besides whatever the Supreme Leader wants or tells him to do? I mean, the guy basically has to be approved by the Supreme Leader to run and get elected, if I am not mistaken.
He seems to be largely a front put up by the Supreme Leadership to handle the scutwork and take the blame for things that go south--or am I mistaken?
I think of the President of Iran as a Prime Minister in the kind of constitutional monarchy where the monarch still maintains ultimate authority, but the President runs the administration, making sure that everybody gets paid, that the right terrorists are funded, and the right people are arrested in the proper large numbers. Raisi was very good at the arresting -- and condemning -- part while he headed the judiciary, so I doubt that there will be much mourning during this "period of mourning". Every indication is that he was widely, if quietly, hated.
My non-expert understanding is that the Supreme Leader is supreme, but usually somewhat aloof. The president does direct policy, within an acceptable range. Iranian elections are real, but tightly controlled, not free or fair. All candidates for president and parliament must indeed be approved, but it's the Guardian Council - half appointed by the SL - mainly doing the vetting, and then later also signing off on their laws.
It is officially frowned upon, but Iranian voters can register dissatisfaction with the choices by turning in blank ballots, and the tally of these is reported. In the 2021 election that elevated Raisi, "Invalid blank" actually placed second, for the first time.
The Supreme Leader *can* step in and order a reversal in any part of the process at any time, or the dismissal of any official, but he usually doesn't have to be so direct.
Israelis just had to deny involvement in death of the President of Iran.
Which now means there's a good 60% chance they were involved in the crash.
It appears that the weather was pretty bad. I assumed the denial was done to get out ahead of the inevitable claim that it was involved.
Please don't feed the troll, Max.
A very reasonable conclusion for any countries other than Israel or the Americans who routinely do this shit.
Usually Israel waits for a comment, THEN denies involvement.
Sadly neither country has any credibility in this claim given both governments routinely get caught on brazen lies.
This is off topic, but I think the judge in the Steve Bannon comtempt case is another Aileen Cannon.
He bought Bannon 18 months by saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to jail Bannon pending appeal, since his appeal had a "great chance of success". Now that the appeal has predictably been shot down, he seems to just be ignoring the case.
SCotUS reform:
1) Age limits: Set an upper age limit for all federal judicial offices at which you MUST retire.
2) Replacement of permanent SC justice positions with randomly selected judges/justices from the federal judiciary who have over X years of tenure in the position--meaning thhat you cannot stack the justices to build permanent majorities. It also gets rid of the whole mess of SCotUS appointments
3) Binding and enforceable ethics legislation that triggers impeachment proceeedings (and forces recusals) when criteria are met.
Requires constitutional amendment. Though they can be removed if impeached. Only one was back in 1805!