Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Introduces Bill: Border Patrol+ICE Must Document Every Stop

[HunterSdVa29]

What's the reason for a senator proposing a good solution to a problem? That's pretty much their job. Try to pass it even if you're fighting long odds. Or at least introduce it into the discussion so the seed is planted. See my first comment to you: "No good bill will pass in today's gov't. I don't think that means we should roll over and die." That means, "don't stop doing your job just because there are major obstacles to success at the present time."

you should replace Tom Perez, seriously

I mean that totally complimentary, well to you not him

 

[essie]

The Pulp Fiction one, I presume?

Objectively silly take imo.

I guess it's well made but not very good.

 

[Trotsky]

What, pray tell, is the reason for proposing a bill that won't get passed?

to get the poor white vote?

hahahahahahahahah

To at least feign the appearance of actual governance and signal that some of the government actually wants to do its job in holding itself accountable and maximizing its efficacy.

Democrats shouldn't be shamed because the GOP gave up all interest in actually governing for electoral gamesmanship and corruption.

you should replace Tom Perez, seriously

I mean that totally complimentary, well to you not him

Jack Savage > Tom Perez > Chuck Schumer/Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

I guess it's well made but not very good.

Well that's a matter of taste. In terms of cinematography and innovation, it's top notch.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Only minorities care about freedom? You think all white people want law enforcement to act without oversight?

Based on responses in threads in the WR, yes.

 

[Trotsky]

Based on responses in threads in the WR, yes.

I mean, the disparities on how much people care about police abuses is shockingly stratified by race and ethnicity. And even though there are liberal and leftist white people who empathize with the plight of POC that are affected by government abuses, few of them are actually acquainted with them first hand. Rural white folks that think themselves freedom-loving "don't tread on me" patriots? They could give a shit about police abuses, because it rarely affects them. So, even when you see videos of cops murdering innocent people, it's still "back the blue!"

 

[waiguoren]

Am I missing something? What's wrong with documenting the shit out of this? Why is that even optional? If you're gonna stop people and check the legality of their presence in the country, there should be paper trail of every such instance, period, non-negotiable.

As I wrote, I'm not going to pass judgment on this bill until the bill's text is released. You are judging the bill based on a press release from the bill's author---tread carefully.

But if we put this in context, it's pretty clear what's going on here. Gillibrand was an immigration hardliner of the Jeff Sessions variety when she served in the House. Upon running for Senate in New York, she radically loosened her immigration positions. She did a complete about-face on multiple issues in the span of a couple years.

Now she has her eye on the Democratic nomination for president. In about a year, she will be targeted by people like Cory Booker as being too hard on illegal immigration. She is trying to get ahead of the competition with this bill.

 

[Quequeg]

Conservatives always in favor of overbearing, unaccountable law enforcement while screaming FREEDUMB!!! and SMALL GUMMIT!!!!

 

[waiguoren]

What's the reason for a senator proposing a good solution to a problem

You're better than this. You haven't read the bill yet, so to say that Gillibrand is "proposing a good solution" is going way too far.

Also, you haven't established that there is a "problem" that needs to be solved in the first place. You did claim that ICE/CBP are "terrorizing" the "populice", so maybe you could actually provide some evidence of that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're better than this. You haven't read the bill yet, so to say that Gillibrand is "proposing a good solution" is going way too far.

The description sounds good to me. If there's some kind of wording issue that makes it less so, what is it? I wouldn't just assume there would be one.

Also, you haven't established that there is a "problem" that needs to be solved in the first place. You did claim that ICE/CBP are "terrorizing" the "populice", so maybe you could actually provide some evidence of that.

You're getting a lot of mileage out of a typo. I guess congratulations on that. And, sure:



Those kinds of videos get shown regularly. The bill is clearly in response to that kind of thing. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[waiguoren]

And the graph shows that there is seasonality in the metric. The recent spike is still to a normal level.

Apprehensions at the border haven't been this bad in four years. This is the Trump presidency. It's time to get serious.

In the absence of any evidence that civil rights are being systematically violated, and in the absence of the text of the bill in question, and considering Gillibrand's history, it's reasonable to suspect that the bill will impose unreasonable restrictions on ICE/CBP. Just consider Vox's lede:


Kirsten Gillibrand introduces a bill to crack down on immigration agents

 

[waiguoren]

The description sounds good to me. If there's some kind of wording issue that makes it less so, what is it? I wouldn't just assume there would be one.

You've been following policy and politics far too long to assume that a bill's press release must accurately describe the bill's contents.

The only one making assumptions here is you; I have repeatedly stated that I am reserving judgment until I see the text. If the bill does not appear to impose unreasonable restrictions on LEOs, I will almost certainly support it. I like the idea, but I am skeptical given Gillibrand's history and the circumstances under which the bill is being proposed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Apprehensions at the border haven't been this bad in four years. This is the Trump presidency. It's time to get serious.

In the absence of any evidence that civil rights are being systematically violated, and in the absence of the text of the bill in question, and considering Gillibrand's history, it's reasonable to suspect that the bill will impose unreasonable restrictions on ICE/CBP. Just consider Vox's lede:

Isn't the whole point that tracking civil rights violations is currently hard, but we know that they are occurring? And the fact that you don't consider Gillibrand to be in your tribe is not a good reason to assume that there is going to be something wrong with the text. I consider this branch of the discussion to be stupid. When the text is available, if you have a problem with the details, I'll be fine with discussing that. My comment is that this seems like a good idea.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Translation : ICE must be slowed down with beurocratic red tape!!

 

[Lord Coke]

1. Would require border patrol and immigration enforcement agents to document every instance when they stop, search, or interrogate people
2. The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
3. The law would apply to all stops by agents who work for US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
4. Would need to report the time, date, and place of each stop, and the basis for questioning someone and the duration of the stop, among other detail

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rsten-gillibrand-immigration-border-stop-bill
---------------------

Looks like more ammo for the coming Democratic primary race. It has no chance of passing. Also---assuming we're talking about detailed reports for each person at each stop---it's a horrible idea, with ICE/BP already bogged down amid a spike in border apprehensions. If it's just that each stop must be documented along with the number of people questioned, I'm on board.

Does this bill add money to the budget so that the Border Patrol isn't spending all its resources on this

 

[waiguoren]

Isn't the whole point that tracking civil rights violations is currently hard, but we know that they are occurring?

If very few civil rights violations are occurring and if this bill will bog down LEOs in bureaucracy while creating yet another expensive government program, then the bill would not be justified. It's a balancing act. We must see the bill's contents and hear from ICE/CBP before rushing to judgment as you have.

And the fact that you don't consider Gillibrand to be in your tribe is not a good reason to assume that there is going to be something wrong with the text.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't assume something is going to go wrong, and I don't consider anyone to be in my "tribe" except my family members and close friends.

My comment is that this seems like a good idea.

I already agreed with this multiple times throughout this thread. But the circumstances under which the bill is being proposed (Gillibrand's history, the upcoming primary race, and the Vox lede) are sufficient to raise skepticism in an unbiased observer.

 

[waiguoren]

Does this bill add money to the budget so that the Border Patrol isn't spending all its resources on this

A very good question and it is one of many questions that we do not know the answer to yet. People cheering or maligning this bill are jumping to conclusions.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If very few civil rights violations are occurring and if this bill will bog down LEOs in bureaucracy while creating yet another expensive government program, then the bill would not be justified. It's a balancing act. We must see the bill's contents and hear from ICE/CBP before rushing to judgment as you have.

Does that video and others like it (I'm sure you've seen many) bother you at all? If so, do you think it's something lawmakers should try to reduce?

I already agreed with this multiple times throughout this thread. But the circumstances under which the bill is being proposed (Gillibrand's history, the upcoming primary race, and the Vox lede) are sufficient to raise skepticism in an unbiased observer.

You're not talking about skepticism and you are jumping to conclusions. You're saying that given Gillibrand's history of not being a Republican and a news story about the bill, we should assume that it will be badly written. I'm saying if it turns out to be badly written, let's discuss that. As is, we know the general idea behind it, and it sounds good to me.

 

[KILL KILL]

Conservatives always in favor of overbearing, unaccountable law enforcement while screaming FREEDUMB!!! and SMALL GUMMIT!!!!

Seriously.

 

[Trotsky]

Translation : ICE must be slowed down with beurocratic red tape!!

Holy hell, you really decided to go full throttle with this thread's squabbling over misspellings. This is an almost impressively terrible butchering.

Anyways, regardless of attempts toward slowing down ICE, it is balancing against that consideration a very real concern about abuse of discretion, lack of accountability, and trampling of constitutional rights. I did some immigration law work years ago, and the unfettered power given to ICE agents and unelected government officials is truly scary, especially now that Trump is politicizing immigration judges to an extent unheard of in previous administrations.

 

[waiguoren]

Does that video and others like it (I'm sure you've seen many) bother you at all? If so, do you think it's something lawmakers should try to reduce?

I will watch the video shortly. I have not seen videos of civil rights abuses by ICE/BP.

You're saying that given Gillibrand's history of not being a Republican and a news story about the bill, we should assume that it will be badly written.

No. It seems you missed the point. You appear to be unaware of Gillibrand's history on the immigration issue. As a member of the House, her voting record aligned closely with the views of Jeff Sessions and other immigration hardliners---for example, she voted to defund sanctuary cities, to refuse drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, and for the SAVE Act.

As soon as she ran for the Senate in New York she flipped to the other side. She knows she will be targeted by the other Democrats in the upcoming primary. It is reasonable to suspect that she is trying to preempt the opposition and secure a talking point for the upcoming debates.

And again, I did not assume that the bill will be badly written. I do predict that reasonable opposition to the bill will cause it to fail to pass, that Gillibrand knows this, and that her primary motivation for proposing the bill is political considerations related to the facts outlined in the previous paragraph.