Seems to me, if someone arrives in a country with basic human rights (like the US) from a country with appalling human rights (like many in Central America), then compelling them to return violates their human rights — Wayfarer

Hmmm . . . How does Australia handle this? At some point its a matter of sheer numbers. North of where I live, Denver is being flooded with Venezuelians bussed up from the border. Our governor then ships them to other "sanctuary cities", creating conflicts between those cities.

It's easy to say they should not be denied their human rights, but the numbers are overwhelming. I'll bet your country doesn't have to deal with such an onslaught. Do you?

Denver is being flooded with Venezuelians ... the numbers are overwhelming. — jgill

4,000.

Less than the normal amount by which the population of Denver grows every year.

Did you notice the 'overwhelming' number of additional people last year from natural population growth?

It's easy to say they should not be denied their human rights, but the numbers are overwhelming. I'll bet your country doesn't have to deal with such an onslaught. Do you? — jgill

The history of the issue is vexed in Australia, but overall the number of boat-borne arrivals has dropped to practically zero (and probably the amount of visa overstays has also dropped due to the severe restrictions on arrivals 2021-22). Helps that Australia is an island, obviously. The then-conservative government adopted a pretty harsh policy saying that nobody who arrived by boat in Australia would ever be allowed to settle (which was also adopted by the Labor opposition, now in Government). This lead to the internment of several hundred sorry souls in a third-world outpost in New Guinea for some years although I believe they're all now settled to other countries. But, yes, Australia 'stopped the boats'.

I really have no idea of how the issue can be dealt with in either America (or Britain for that matter) but I very much doubt that a Republican administration would do any better. Besides they seem far more focussed on exploiting such issues for political advantage than on proposing any actual solutions.

Denver is being flooded with Venezuelians ... the numbers are overwhelming. — jgill

4,000.

Less than the normal amount by which the population of Denver grows every year.

Did you notice the 'overwhelming' number of additional people last year from natural population growth? — Isaac

I was speaking of the border, not Denver. Nevertheless, Denver can't keep up with the existing homeless, not counting those bussed in.

Over 2,400,000 migrants encountered at the southern border last year. Then there are those who sneaked in. How would you handle this? Here in the west we are running out of water.

Border Encounters

Over 2,400,000 migrants encountered at the southern border last year. Then there are those who sneaked in. How would you handle this? — jgill

Let them in.

Is America going to run out of space? No.

Is America going to run out of money? Jeff Bezos alone could afford their welfare cheques. Just the latest year's increase in the defense budget would cover it.

So why not?

As to stemming the flow, perhaps not enforcing a global trade and debt-management state designed exclusively to grind these countries into the ground and enrich America might just stop people wanting to leave them so badly.

The American elite doesn't want to deal with this issue.

Immigration equals higher GDP.

Geopolitical power is for a large part about how many warm bodies you control.

That's why despite serious domestic protest nothing ever happens.

The European elite operates on the same principle.

So why not? — Isaac

My daughter agrees with this. And, although we disagree on the central issue, the two of us agree that if they are let in they should immediately be given work visas.

Lots of land in the USA, but not all of it is habitable.

My daughter agrees with this — jgill

Well, I'm glad I haven't taken on your whole family!

if they are let in they should immediately be given work visas. — jgill

Yes, although, as I said, the entire welfare check could be picked up by a minor tax increase on the wealthiest. I'm in favour of Universal Basic Income so that would apply to immigrants too.

Lots of land in the USA, but not all of it is habitable. — jgill

I suspect the question of whether land is habitable might depend quite strongly on the quality of life one is emigrating to avoid.

I saw dozens of TPF users wailing and whining about Trump's criminality. Biden commits the same crime and all I hear are crickets. Where are you now? . Very very very disgraceful and cowardly.

To be fair, I've seen one or two TPF users attempt to make up some bullshit to excuse Biden, very very very shameful and dishonest.

What's shameful is to equate Biden's lawyer's action to immediately call NARA upon discovery of the documents with Trump's refusal to return the documents after repeated requests.

what they did after getting caught is an entire different issue. The fact is both Biden and Trump commited the same crime: illegally keeping classified documents. Moreover, a criminal is not exonerated for a crime simply for turning himself in, but he might receive a reduced sentence.

There is no amount of rhetorical acrobatics that you could possibly do to change the fact that the crime is the same in both cases. You should be ashamed of yourself for holding such an inconsistent double-standard.

There's nothing inconsistent about it. I'm highlighting the most important difference between the two and why they aren't the same. Yet you prefer to ignore the difference so you can cry shame like a retarded Spanish inquisitioner.

You didn’t mention the length of time Biden had them for, and that Biden was only Vice President when he took the documents and did not have the sort of declassification powers Trump had. Biden’s history with others who took classified documents betrays his own actions with them.

https://theintercept.com/empire-politician/biden-and-jimmy-carters-cia-nominee/

I'm highlighting the most important difference between the two and why they aren't the same. — Benkei

That is not the most important difference.

The most important difference is that Trump was president when he took his classified documents, whereas Biden was vice president when he took his. The fact is, they both illegally possessed classified documents when not serving as president, all regardless of whether it was done by intention or mishandling. It also does not matter what they did after discovery of the crimes... the crime is the same in both cases: illegally possessing classified documents.

I guess they have a point

It is said that 'intelligence is the ability to make distinctions'. So it can be assumed that it is a distinction that Republicans will not make.

He willingly turned them in a decade later. What a hero!

declassification powers Trump — NOS4A2

Irrelevant since he didn't declassify them.

, nah, just upfront, transparent, cooperative (regardless of the Frump thing going on).

There's something unnerving about watching people defend politicians, whether they're Biden or Trump. Like they don't understand that the job of every politician is to deceive the public.

Like they don't understand that the job of every politician is to deceive the public. — Tzeentch

:up:

Like they don't understand that the job of every politician is to deceive the public. — Tzeentch

This is facile. While all statesmen are politicians not all politicians are statesmen. The job of the statesman is not to deceive, but circumstances may require deception in some form or other. This is a general remark and does not bear directly on either the case of Trump or Biden.

This is facile. — Fooloso4

:up:

It’s not defense. It’s pointing out a clear difference. Joe Biden can go to prison for all I care. But to argue both scenarios are similar ignores reality.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/17/fact-check-biden-had-authority-declassify-vice-president/11065345002/

Whether or not he had authority to declassify is mostly irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they were declassified. Given that the documents had classification markings on them, evidently they were still classified.

Re. the comparison to Trump's case, the three statutes cited in the search warrant were:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Specifically in his case I believe the relevant parts of each statute were that of concealing classified documents. He was asked to return them and he didn't, resisting subpoenas and lying about having returned them all. That's why he was raided and is facing criminal investigation.

Given that Biden's team, after discovering them, notified the Government and returned them willingly, there's not much of a comparison. Like with the case of Hillary's email server, all he's really guilty of is carelessness.

Last year there was a case not unlike Biden’s, and she was sentenced to 3 months and fined. Biden’s snafu more comparable to this case and not Trump’s.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-hi/pr/honolulu-woman-receives-three-months-prison-removal-and-retention-classified-material

Since the Biden Center where the documents were found wasn’t built until 2018, it means these documents were taken and moved more than once, and potentially handled by movers and staff, all of whom do not have security clearance. Also, Biden used private counsel and not the FBI or security officers to search for and handle more documents, so now we can only trust their word, which no doubt serves to protect Biden’s interests instead of the public’s.

Of course Biden’s personal counsel will argue it was “inadvertent negligence”, because they are paid to protect Biden. And we’ll probably never know if the documents were opened, viewed, mishandled, because Biden’s counsel was tasked with searching and handling said documents, away from the prying eyes of the government and the public they are meant to serve.

I wonder if he’ll pardon himself.

Also, Biden used private counsel and not the FBI or security officers to search for and handle more documents, so now we can only trust their word, which no doubt serves to protect Biden’s interests instead of the public’s. — NOS4A2

Trump was offered the same courtesy but refused the initial subpoena and then lied about having returned them all, whereas Biden voluntarily disclosed that documents had been found and returned them. That’s the material difference that distinguishes the two cases.

Biden was given no subpoena. He voluntarily disclosed them, but after taking them and possessing them and doing god-knows-what with them for a number of years. And this was long after the national archives dismissed as false and misleading the complaint that the Obama administration was in possession of such documents. At least Trump’s were locked up and the chain of custody is accounted for.

Joe Biden may have inadvertently funded his son’s procurement of Russian prostitutes, who may or may not have been involved in human trafficking.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-russian-escorts-joe-payments

the crime is the same in both cases: illegally possessing classified documents. — Merkwurdichliebe

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

In other words, merely possessing such material in of itself is not a crime - you have to prove knowledge and intent. Whether Trump and/or Biden will be charged with a crime remains to be seen.