This is a pretty good short video about how building a wall can help Mexicans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLv8Z6bsI24
HN's core value is intellectual curiosity. That's the first casualty in ideological battle—actually it evaporates before the battle even begins—so we have to be proactive about this. If you'd please read the site guidelines and also https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it.
If you don't believe me, here are some quite typical posts that run the contrary direction to yours:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16019694
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307091
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034119
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529468
These people are having the same reaction as you are, they just start from the opposite end of the football field.
That doesn't mean we're magic centrists in a centrist fairyland. It means the situation is affected by other factors, some of which aren't obvious. If you want to look at this objectively you have to work to suspend your own political feelings, which is not easy to do and not something many people want to.
> If you want to look at this objectively you have to work to suspend your own political feelings, which is not easy to do and not something many people want to.
And something I think you have failed at doing. (As you believe of me, so I guess agree to disagree.) However, you are the one bringing it up in a moralistic and pedantic way from a position of power as a moderator.
And, if the above is correct it's totally fine. Almost every community will have a majority opinion and the cool part is that the staff at HN doesn't let it get too far out of control. And I have seen posts complaining about large numbers of "fascists" on HN for instance which blew my mind, but apparently it is largely a matter of perspective.
Incidentally, I keep saying this and people don't apparently agree, but not everything fits neatly in boxes of left and right. My belief is that people who are really thinking will find, given time that they don't eternally fit neatly in either category.
The problem with increased border security is, in my view, is that big federal security apparatuses (apparati?) are security contractor cash-cows engaged in security theater. The DHS in general and the TSA in particular are cases in point. In other words, I don't think government should be a meat-grinder into which you feed people you don't like. a) false positives are far too frequent, and b) literally no-one deserves to be put into "the system" as it stands. Maybe if the justice system were reformed, maybe if politicians (particularly the GOP) showed some adherence to actual values instead of tribal, angry populism, I could get behind that.
That said, borders are what makes a country. If you cannot do something so basic as controlling who comes into your country, it would be pretty difficult to call yourself a sovereign nation. So I think that should be a much higher priority in terms of national defense than interfering in conflicts thousands of miles away.
Since I'm quite libertarian, I'm not a huge fan of government action in general. However, I do see a role for government and defending the borders of the country from foreign invasion (which is essentially what illegal immigration is) should be the government's highest priority as it is the most basic role of government.
While it has become a meme, building a wall, at least along the easiest places to cross, would make the job for our border guards much easier. It would also have maintenance costs, but if we do it right it very well could be worth it in the long run. Especially if you take into consideration how many government resources illegal immigrants take away from the rest of the population.
A little anecdote I saw a while back during the "immigrant day of absence" to show how necessary "immigrants" (that term is very muddied since people insist on lumping legal and illegal immigrants into the same bucket) are a lot of kids didn't show up for school. A teacher tweeted about it saying how much easier class was that day because of how many fewer students there were to teach. So to some people that day had the opposite effect as to what was intended by the organizers.
Anyway, no other country on the face of the planet are as courteous and welcoming as the US is to people who aren't in their borders legally. I do not see us owing them anything, and while they do have certain rights, we shouldn't treat them like cockroaches, they have broken our laws and should be dealt with in the same way we would deal with any of our own citizens who would break the law. In addition to being deported at the end of their confinement.
As for criminal justice reformation, I more or less agree, depending on what you are referring to since that's quite the broad statement. Ending the war on drugs would be a great thing. But I see a lot of our problems to be more societal and stemming from illegitimate children, fatherless homes, than any other single source.
It is of strategic importance because Assad was about to start selling oil in another currency than the USD. The moment the USD stops being the main oil trade currency the monetary bubble will explode just as it did in the late 60s (after which the current petrodollar system was instituted) and america won't be able to run on printing money anymore.
These arguments are popular when someone's preferred party is out of power, but reality is that there is a bipartisan opposition and bipartisan support for legalization. About 28% of Democrats oppose legalization, while 30% of Republicans support legalization. The numbers are actually fascinating. [1]
For example, Hillary Clinton was all over the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed into law -- with a Democrat Congress (Republicans didn't actually take the majority until Jan 1995 after sweeping the 1994 midterm elections.[2] She promoted the law, she supported it. She even famously called African American young men "super predators" -- while stumping for Bill Clinton on the 1996 campaign trail. That super predators line came when Hillary was trumpeting the success of the 1994 crime bill. [3]
So to imply that "Congress is going to do diddly squat about legalization while the GOP runs the place" -- that's intellectually dishonest.
And the reason I mention Hillary Clinton is because the implication with these sorts of comments is that Democrats would legalize if Trump and the GOP weren't in power. Since Hillary was the alternative, her background is very relevant.
[1] http://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/political-issue-mariju... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-c... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/...
If Clinton was president, they would have most likely kept the Obama-era policy rather than reverse it after multiple states voted for legalization
I agree with grandparent that Sessions' action will tend to increase pressure for federal decrim., and that might even be Sessions' (and/or President Trump's) goal.
What would the effect of Federal decriminalization be on the mid-terms? Don't you think it would help Republicans? Do you think they don't think so? Of course they think so.
I don't know if it will pass, but my guess is that a reasonable bill would decriminalize marijuana possession and trade, but would keep it illegal for interstate commerce (this would be a sop to those States that want to keep it criminalized). Sort of like the 21st Amendment, but as a statute. Such a compromise would help Republicans in States where legalization is popular and... would not hurt them in States where it is not. It would also help with the federalist types.
This should all be blindingly obvious. The only reason I wouldn't make a prediction is that Republicans sure know how to shoot their feet off.
Do you think your theory is really more likely than this being Sessions simply doing exactly what he's explicitly said he has wanted to do every single moment of his entire adult life, crack down on people who use pot?
Crushing states where pot is legal will lose them the most heavily blue seats that they would never win anyway, but why should they care? It will give their base what they say they want whenever you ask them, the thing that they want most, that drives them to the polls. It is an assault in a culture war against the smug, pot-smoking coastal elites and despised pot-smoking minorities, hippies, college kids. Perhaps they see the drug war for what it is, for how it was designed: not a war on drugs, but a war on the demographic groups of people who tend to use them. And that's why they support it.
At best, I'd see them allowing a vote on it then let their vulnerable reps in purple/blue states vote yes but make sure it fails anyway: "I'm on your side, I promise, see, I tried".
With what votes, and what leadership?
The entirety of the GOP house leadership opposes any form of legal cannabis. Messer, the policy committee chair, even opposes medical cannabis for vets prescribed by their VA doctor and residing in states where medical cannabis is legal.
Concretely, which GOP representatives do you think will vote for decriminalization? I'm incredulous, but curious to hear a rational argument that this is a remotely reasonable expectation.
Sure, if you think they should do it, totally valid opinion. Talking as they are going to implies knowing something that everyone else doesn't, which is why you're being challenged about it.
It's easy to make something look rational when you pick and choose axioms. The republicans don't have a rational interest in decriminalization because their financial backers don't want it, and they have moral qualms about it since 100 years of government lies convinced them it's the devil's plant.
[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legal...