This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
From /r/NotTheOnion: DHS told her to leave the country. She's a citizen — and an immigration attorney
Annoyingly, the article doesn't include the full text of the email, but rather has an embeded video showing that the recipient posted images of the text to twitter, but a photo shows part of the email on a phone screen.
Supposing it was intended for a client, that person's parole smay have been terminated without their knowledge - how many contact methods does DHS use? Hopefully, the DHS is being clear about the whose parole is being terminated and the timelines, such that Micheronoi could easily narrow down which of her clients need to check their status, but that's the same DHS who mistook a citizen for someone with temporary, conditional residency - it wasn't addressed to a client, but sent to her email; it was addressed to her, with no mention of a client.
What base rate of such errors should we expect from a normally-functioning DHS, what rate of such errors should be taken as evidence of abnormal incompetence or maliciousness by the Trump II DHS, and why?
I mean, this entirely on the administration that flew in a million illegal immigrants under temporary exemptions while only requiring them to put a name and email in a fucking phone app. What did you expect? They made it deliberately difficult to track these guys down or do anything about them. And women like her got paid to help them.
Everyone involved in the CBP One program needs to be in prison or deported to a prison.
Do you have a source for this claim?
For having broken what laws?
Conspiracy to human trafficking.
This isn't human trafficking.
It is if you can find a prosecutor with half the flexibility of a progressive district judge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
CHNV, discussed here.
I think @SteveAgain is wrong about the terminology. “Inadmissible” was used, as intended, to describe someone without any of the immigration protections of a refugee or temporary resident. You can see it used the same way on the current dashboards like this one. The inadmissible numbers include anyone given a Notice To Appear under various laws…but not CHNV, which uses a different law.
Beneficiaries of that program were inadmissible and “parolees.” This was a separate status handled through USCIS instead of CBP.
Given the immense pressure on the border through the Biden presidency, it’s not hard to guess why ~530,000 people were granted parole. About 400,000 were flown from their ports of entry to other sites, mostly in Florida. Again, this didn’t affect their immigration status, but it sure did make it harder to count them.
It's not? Somehow Trump managed to solve the problem without resorting to that.
Yeah, but being Donald Trump was off the table.
To be clear, my guess is that parole was chosen as the easiest bleeding-heart-compatible overcrowding strategy. They wanted to handle the logistical problem without disincentivizing arrivals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have talked about the CBP One app and the CHNV program dozens of times. Pretending it's a completely new topic that requires extraordinary evidence all over again is an exhaustion tactic.
The CHNV program added another half million on top of that btw. It was all billed as "Biden reduces southern border crossings!" by flying them in directly. They were still listed as "inadmissible" on the graphs even though they were actually being admitted, giving the impression Biden was doing something about illegal immigration as long as you didn't look too closely. And of course the media didn't look at all and just regurgitated the admin's press releases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you be more plain and precise? "Allowing" and "flew in" are two different things and "illegal immigrants" and "temporary exemptions" are mutually exclusive, at face value (unless they violate the terms of the temporary exemptions, including termination deadlines, that is).
More options
Context Copy link
It does sound like that "immigration attorney" committed fraud by just inputting her own details into other illegal immigrant's "parole status" applications, because it got her "clients" to the next screen. She probably assumed nothing could possibly result from it. She may yet be right. These people never suffer any consequences.
What's more likely is that her office email (and probably mailing address) was listed as the agent for the applicant. I represent large companies that get sued a dozen times per day, and aside from the initial complaint, every notice in the suit goes to us, not to the company. Once we enter our appearance in a case, all the related correspondence goes through us. That's part of the reason people hire attorneys in the first place. If the client's corporate counsel wants an update they're going to call us and ask for one; they're not going to look through reams of filing notices, get copies of the relevant documents from the courthouse, and attempt to piece it together themselves. And they don't want to get spammed with mail, either.
And this is for sophisticated clients who have their own legal departments and are used to this. For an unsophisticated person who may not speak English very well trying to navigate a complex bureaucratic process, it's best to just have everything sent to the lawyer. At the very least, it prevents them from having to waste time on a phone call about some standard notice that doesn't require them to take any action but they just want to call and make sure. It could prevent someone from doing something stupid because they got a form in the mail that they assumed they'd just fill out and mail back, only to find out later that they totally fucked something up.
Which it should be noted is an extremely common attack vector in all sorts of phishing and credit card fraud scams so we know for a fact that a lot of people absolutely will react to an email that looks threatening enough without using enough caution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If so, why isn't there any indication a client being the intended recipient? Conversely, why didn't she receive multiple notices? (Would a bad actor only do this once?) I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, given the scant available evidence, but I'm leaning towards some DHS form processing error causing an immigration attorney to be mistaken for a parolee, with insufficient error detection.
Edit: Also, if she were a bad actor, why would she publicize evidence of her own crime? If she used her own name for one special client, the publicity is not doing them any favors; if she used her own name multiple times, it would be easy to prove.
Attorney's name/address got entered in the "client information" portion of some form seems like a simple mistake that might not be caught immediately.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I suspect DHS could have decided not to grant parole without three valid, tested methods of contact, but that was either deemed too much effort or not in line with the previous administration's political objectives.
IMO we should design these systems to avoid even accidental incentives for misuse: establishing "if you provide incorrect information, we can't reach you and therefore you can't be expected to comply with otherwise lawful orders to your perceived detriment" is not a sustainable precedent. There is a reason you can't just send your W-2s to the address of the municipal landfill and tell the IRS you didn't know you owed income taxes.
Even more so, we should just print each individual 10 copies of a QR code that they are obligated to scan and visit at least once per month. Number and laminate them. Provide a 800 number and a shortened URL plus a 12 digit unique code on the backside as a fallback if they don't have a camera.
More options
Context Copy link
No argument from me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link