Obama's 2015 budget continues arbitrary quota for private prison beds filled by immigrants.

[woo me with science]

A recent DU OP noted that Latino voters are increasingly rejecting the ballot box, disgusted with both parties. That discussion turned to treatment of immigrants. I have not seen an OP on this yet, but it should be of concern to every Democrat, as well as any person of conscience. Obama's 2015 budget continues arbitrary quota for private prison beds that overwhelmingly house immigrants.

It is wrong. It is fueled by profit-seeking private prison lobbyists. And it is an abomination.

The president asked for what in his budget?!
http://www.presente.org/campaign/tell-obama-remove-quota-from-his-budget/original_email/

News flash: President Obama’s 2015 budget requests a wasteful and dangerous policy that indiscriminately jams immigrants into private prisons.

Immigrants who have committed no crimes or only minor crimes are being stuffed into prisons to meet an arbitrary immigrant body count quota passed by the House of Representatives in 2006. That means ICE has a sick incentive to rip immigrant families apart, profile Latinos in border communities, and give billions of dollars away to private prison corporations like GEO Group -- all for no good reason.1

President Obama could push back against this policy. Instead, his budget request legitimizes it. It’s one thing for GOP extremists to request a policy like this -- it’s another thing entirely when a President who claims to support our communities does.

Some people call it the “bed mandate.” We call it the immigrant imprisonment quota. Whatever you call it, it’s bad news -- so why does President Obama seem to support it?

Controversial quota drives immigration detention boom
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/controversial-quota-drives-immigration-detention-boom/2013/10/13/09bb689e-214c-11e3-ad1a-1a919f2ed890_story_2.html

By Nick Miroff, E-mail the writer

KARNES CITY, Tex. — In the past five years, Homeland Security officials have jailed record numbers of immigrants, driven by a little-known congressional directive known on Capitol Hill as the “bed mandate.”

The policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep an average of 34,000 detainees per day in its custody, a quota that has steadily risen since it was established in 2006 by conservative lawmakers who insisted that the agency wasn’t doing enough to deport unlawful immigrants.

But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congress’s immigration detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them eligible for deportation. The agency also has greatly expanded the number of undocumented immigrants it takes into custody after traffic stops by local police.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials say that they are not needlessly jailing immigrants to meet a quota and that they find plenty of candidates for detention and deportation by targeting criminals who pose a threat to public safety and border security.

But critics of the mandate note that the majority of ICE detainees are not violent offenders. Immigration judges eventually allow many to remain in the United States, but the detainees may spend months in costly federal custody, even when far cheaper alternatives are available, such as ankle bracelets and other forms of electronic monitoring.

Hopes frustrated, many Latinos reject the ballot box altogether
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4759030

[NYC_SKP]

1. "Immigrants who have committed no crimes" will be put in prison? I'm going to have to see the proof

It doesn't seem possible, legal, or ever likely to happen without major repercussions and lawsuits.

It's unconstitutional, unless, of course, they have committed a crime.

Sounds like a fishy attempt to smear the POTUS just as election season is looming.

But I'll check for myself.

ETA from the Washington Post:

...But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congress’s immigration detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them eligible for deportation.

Let's see, when did this begin?

Former ICE director Julie Myers Wood, who led the agency from 2006 to 2008 under President George W. Bush, said a congressional mandate for ICE to maintain a minimum number of detainees was a reasonable guideline at the outset of her tenure, when the Border Patrol was making more than a million arrests per year.

On the surface, it seems that the system set up for a high flow of traffic justifying detention is finding fewer serious cases to meet the quota.

What appears to be a better solution would be to toss the quota and use different resources, like ankle bracelets and home detention, a real money saver that would keep violators working and families intact.

It's probably in the budget, not because Obama wanted it there, but because he doesn't have a line item veto power and Congress members wanted to keep their prison programs fat with taxpayer funding.

[woo me with science]

2. How do you feel about the government's guaranteeing bed occupancy in private prisons

regardless of the crime rate and to guarantee profits for private prison industries?

This is an abomination and should be stopped under any administration.

[NYC_SKP]

5. See my additional comments. Congress members want to keep their friends in business.

I'll guess that the president would have struck that item from the budget if he had line item veto power.

As the system stands, budgets always get signed with stinky items that congress insists stay in the budget.

What would you do as president if you didn't have congress on your side?

[woo me with science]

6. I'm tired of the lie that Republican obstructionism is the problem here.

The Obama administration is aggressively and proactively growing private prisons. Their growth is aggressively supported by both Republicans and the corporate Third Way, for one simple reason: Imprisoning human beings is a very profitable industry. But a government's complicity in attaching a profit motive to the imprisonment of human beings is nothing short of evil.

Private Prisons Spend $45 Million on Lobbying, Rake in $5.1 Billion for Immigrant Detention Alone
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10688-private-prisons-spend-45-million-on-lobbying-rake-in-51-billion-for-immigrant-detention-alone

The Obama administration is aggressively growing private prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022568681

Obama's 2013 budget: One area of marked growth, the prison industrial complex
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002392306

Obama selects the owner of a private prison consulting firm as the new Director of the United States Marshals Service (USMS)
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/mars-d03.html

Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014158005

Federal Private Prison Populations Grew by 784% in 10 Year Span
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4362184

Private prison corporations move up on list on federal contractors, receiving BILLIONS
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655
Poor minorities are worthless to corporations on the street. In prison they can bring in $40,000/yr
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023368969

Government guarantees 90% occupancy rate in private prisons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569173

The Caging of America - Why do we lock up so many people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226110

Prison Labor Booms As Unemployment Remains High; Companies Reap Benefits
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html

Private Prison Corporation's Letters to Shareholders Reveal Industry's Tactics: Profiting from Human Incarceration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022665091

Financial growth of private prison industry...Profiting from caging humans.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BshteP8i282pcaeH8pdUsA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTUyMA--/

This Is How Private Prison Companies Make Millions Even When Crime Rates Fall
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/private-prisons-occupancy-quota-cca-crime

This Is How Private Prison Companies Make Millions Even When Crime Rates Fall

—By Andy Kroll
| Thu Sep. 19, 2013 9:43 AM PDT MotherJones

We are living in boom times for the private prison industry. The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's largest owner of private prisons, has seen its revenue climb by more than 500 percent in the last two decades. And CCA wants to get much, much bigger: Last year, the company made an offer to 48 governors to buy and operate their state-funded prisons. But what made CCA's pitch to those governors so audacious and shocking was that it included a so-called occupancy requirement, a clause demanding the state keep those newly privatized prisons at least 90 percent full at all times, regardless of whether crime was rising or falling.

Occupancy requirements, as it turns out, are common practice within the private prison industry. A new report by In the Public Interest, an anti-privatization group, reviewed 62 contracts for private prisons operating around the country at the local and state level. In the Public Interest found that 41 of those contracts included occupancy requirements mandating that local or state government keep those facilities between 80 and 100 percent full. In other words, whether crime is rising or falling, the state must keep those beds full. (The report was funded by grants from the Open Society Institute and Public Welfare, according to a spokesman.)

All the big private prison companies—CCA, GEO Group, and the Management and Training Corporation—try to include occupancy requirements in their contracts, according to the report. States with the highest occupancy requirements include Arizona (three prison contracts with 100 percent occupancy guarantees), Oklahoma (three contracts with 98 percent occupancy guarantees), and Virginia (one contract with a 95 percent occupancy guarantee). At the same time, private prison companies have supported and helped write "three-strike" and "truth-in-sentencing" laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Well then you should self-delete this and start a new OP with these facts.

You're jumping on him with two old articles that don't even reflect reality.

Is there a problem with private prison industry?

Sure there is, but it isn't in the budget with Homeland Security and your OP suggests.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. It must be challenging ...

waking up each morning scouring the internets for any &quot President) Obama Bad" thing that'll stand up to the scrutiny of DUers that can read.

But that quest WILL continue!

[NYC_SKP]

15. It's that season, I suppose.

The sad thing is how often people don't read the details or check the facts and Kick and Rec for days and days.

Thanks for caring!

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. This ...

The sad thing is how often people don't read the details or check the facts and Kick and Rec for days and days.

Is exactly what those "DUers" are counting on ... it works for the right side of their coalition, maybe it'll work on the left, as well.

[cthulu2016]

20. Are you being dishonest, or simply missing the point?

The OP is about a budget request from the President.

I do not think it is a big deal, but I do find the swarming "shout down with lies and distotions" approach to countering it to be a big deal.

The OP is about how the president has no obligation to include such a REQUEST that congress continue an odious RW policy.

Do you maintain the the president is required to unilaterally REQUEST the continuation of the policy?

Not sign it when added by congress, but request it?

What happened here was that you refused to understand the issue, presented some irrelevancies that don't contradict the point being made, and then crow about being the fact-based community based on your refusal to acknowledge facts.

Awful.

[NYC_SKP]

29. It's old news and Obama has since come out in favor of reducing the number of slots

And looking at alternatives:

From March 2014:

while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision.

Aligns Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention Capabilities with Risk.

To ensure the most cost effective use of Federal dollars, the Budget aligns Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) capabilities with immigration enforcement priorities and policies so that mandatory and priority individuals, including violent criminals and those who pose a threat to national security, are kept in detention, while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision. As ICE continues to focus on mandatory and priority cases, it will work to reduce the time that removable aliens spend in detention custody. To achieve this goal, ICE will continue to work with the Department of Justice to expedite removal of convicted criminal aliens, reducing costly stays in immigration detention prior to deportation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf

Of course privatization of prisons is a problem, the specific accusations against the president are dated and factually incorrect.

[cthulu2016]

31. So the OP is correct and you are LYING in denouncing it as "LIES" down thread.

Quite a change from "LIES" to "old news"

Thanks for the clarification/confession.

[ProSense]

34. No, you are the one defending a distortion. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

49. If it's old news that's no longer factual then it become a lie if repeated.

If it's deliberately stated as truth even after being shown that it's wrong or no longer true, then it enters the realm of a lie or set of lies.

[11 Bravo]

56. And notice how many of the links were back to his own spew.

It's pitiful how some folks can't take a break and let us celebrate ... even on a day like today, when our President can look at the Republicans, Teabaggers, and Koch brothers and ask, "Is that all you've got?"

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. And I don't know f you recall ...

He ... the "science-guy" was one of Prosense's biggest critics for posting all those "blue links." ... as if posting links in support of, i.e., evidence, is repugnant to argumentation, i.e., science.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

But a government's complicity in attaching a profit motive to the imprisonment of human beings is nothing short of evil.

No kidding

[Cali_Democrat]

4. "Sounds like a fishy attempt to smear the POTUS just as election season is looming"

Funny....I thought the same thing.

It appears the success of the ACA is leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of people.

[cthulu2016]

17. What does the lack of a item veto have to do with Obama's budget?

Obama can propose whatever the hell he wants.

[randome]

3. So it's the law that ICE keep this minimum number incarcerated?

Sounds like an atrocious law that needs to be changed pronto! I know that wasn't your intent but it's something that needs to be brought into the open.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[frazzled]

7. Unforunately, it's a law, and this budget (once again) proposes reducing the number.

Can the president break the law? It really doesn't matter in this case, because it is Congress that will ultimately pass a budget, no matter what the president proposes. And for the second time, he's proposed a reduction in the number of beds:

The Obama administration proposed in its budget on Tuesday that it should maintain fewer beds for detaining immigrants, hitting a controversial mandate that it argues gives the government too little flexibility to pursue cheaper and more humane options.

The government is currently required to maintain 34,000 beds for immigrant detainees, at the cost of $2 billion per year. Advocates of changing the detention standards argue that simply doesn't make sense: there are plenty of immigrants who could be monitored through alternatives such as ankle bracelets or check-ins with a case officer to avoid the huge cost to the federal government and keep them from being unnecessarily detained while their case is adjudicated.

The proposed 2015 Department of Homeland Security budget would reduce the bed mandate from 34,000 to about 30,500. The administration has made such a push before, but without much luck. The 2014 budget proposal, which was not enacted, requested funding to maintain 31,800 immigrant detention beds.

The FY 2015 budget proposal states that the savings from a lower bed mandate would be $184.8 million.

"This level of beds will allow [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to detain the current mandatory population, as well as the high-risk, non-mandatory detainees," the 2015 proposal reads. "ICE will ensure the most cost-effective use of our appropriated funding by focusing the more-costly detention capabilities on priority and mandatory detainees, while placing low-risk, non-mandatory detainees in lower cost alternatives to detention programs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/budget-immigration_n_4899244.html

[cthulu2016]

25. So you claim Obama is violating the law with the request?

If he is required by law to request funds for this (he isn't, you made that up... but playing along with you) then how can he request a bed reduction from 34,000 to about 30,500???

Where does that ability to change things come from, since he is bound by this imaginary law to not change things?

If he requested a reduction from 34,000 to zero that would be (in terms of something you simply made up and presented as true) against the law.

But requesting a reduction from "34,000 to about 30,500" is awesome.

So what is the lowest number he can legally request under the non-existent law you made up?

Is it 30,500?

[ProSense]

37. Don't be absurd. You're accusing people of "lying" for pointing out the facts.

Laws are in place that mandate actions, that doesn't mean that policies can't be adjusted to realize savings or other changes in the situation.

[frazzled]

52. It's not an imaginary law

It was passed by Congress.

He could ask for zero: but it doesn't matter. What you don't seem to get is that nothing he requests in his budget (this or anything else) is going to get past the House. It didn't before, it won't now. What he's doing is trying to show he's working within their framework, but trying to improve it. That's usually the best way of moving things in the right direction and getting the ball rolling to get what you want. But the Republicans are hopeless.

It doesn't matter what the hell he asks for. So stop criticizing it. Use your energy to criticize the Republicans who made this MANDATORY.

[cthulu2016]

58. You are wrong. The imaginary law mentioned is imaginary.

The imaginary law referred to is the non-existent law folks in this thread keep invoking, requiring Obama to request levels of funding for programs he doesn't like.

As you know, "He could ask for zero"

[NYC_SKP]

8. Your links are 2013. I found the President's budget. Please read:

Your presente article is from October 19, 2013

Your WaPo article is from October 13, 2013

March 4, 2014: (my emphasis)

Aligns Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention Capabilities with Risk.

To ensure the most cost effective use of Federal dollars, the Budget aligns Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) capabilities with immigration enforcement priorities and policies so that mandatory and priority individuals, including violent criminals and those who pose a threat to national security, are kept in detention, while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision. As ICE continues to focus on mandatory and priority cases, it will work to reduce the time that removable aliens spend in detention custody. To achieve this goal, ICE will continue to work with the Department of Justice to expedite removal of convicted criminal aliens, reducing costly stays in immigration detention prior to deportation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf

You should self-delete.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Won't happen. eom.

[msanthrope]

9. As the president has no line item veto, a law passed under Article 1 section 8

requires repeal by Congress or intervention by SCOTUS.

This underlines all the more forcefully why we must GOTV in 2014.

[cthulu2016]

28. And that has to do with... what?

This thread is about the president's budget proposal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the presidents handling of a hypothetical budget received from congress.

[msanthrope]

51. Does no one teach civics anymore? You do realize of course that the president is charged

was carrying out the laws the Congress passed. Even ones he doesn't particularly like. Even ones passed under Mr Bush.

[cthulu2016]

57. Your arrogance while being wrong is impressive

Did your awesome civics class that everyone else missed out on teach you that the President is required to request implementing funds for all laws congress passes?

(hint: he isn't. never has been. it is something you made up just now that was never taught in any civics class)

[ProSense]

11. If you're interested,

here are actual things in the President's budget.

What’s Not DOA in the Obama Budget

It’s of course tempting to decry the President’s budget as “dead on arrival” but I wouldn’t be nearly so quick to go there. To dismiss its content because it’s not going to become the nation’s budget is painting with far too broad a stroke. Here are a number of ways that some of the ideas that administration trotted out today will be referenced in months and even years to come.

–Though the budget, wisely, proposes to spend beyond the too-tight caps in place from earlier budget deals, that extra $55 billion may well not see the light of day. Still, while legislators, as part of the Murray/Ryan deal, agreed to top-line appropriation numbers, the President’s budget provides the White House’s recommendations as to how those spending levels should be spread across agencies and programs. That blueprint will surely be in the mix when appropriators allocate discretionary spending.

–Increasing the amount of the Earned Income Tax Credit going to childless adults is an idea that’s been espoused by partisans on both sides of the aisle...The fight will be over payfors, including closing the carried-interest loophole, which virtually no one defends—it’s awfully hard to provide a rationale for the favorable tax treatment of the earnings of private equity fund managers—but still remains in place. But I’d bet that eventually, some version of what the President proposed today will become law.

–Tax reform, at least on the corporate side. I stumbled on two articles today that ticked off tax reform ideas that both President Obama and Republican House chief tax-writer Dave Camp agree on (including carried interest, btw). Yes, it’s true that many of his fellow R’s ran from Camp (they decamped?) as quickly as they could. But especially on the corporate side, where both parties are arguing for a lower rate and broader base <...> –Transportation spending: The corporate proposals also relate to this one, as both President Obama and Rep. Camp take some one-time revenues raised from the transition to a new approach to taxing multinationals and use those resources for improving our transportation infrastructure. To be clear, Obama and Camp’s ideas for international tax reform are quite different, but any such change involves a one-time levy on something like $2 trillion in deferred foreign earnings...More broadly speaking, I’ve heard many dismiss the President’s budget as a “political document.” Um…yep. And, as such, it will play a significant role in our political debate on the role of government, much as I suggested here. In this regard, it’s far from DOA, both in the specifics noted above and in the broader case for a more activist role for government in meeting the challenges and market failures facing way too many Americans.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/whats-not-doa-in-the-obama-budget/

How corporate America is losing the debate on taxes

By Jia Lynn Yang

If there is one clear loser in President Obama's budget this year, it's U.S. multinationals...the 2015 budget proposes a total of more than $276 billion in higher taxes on overseas earnings for U.S. multinationals over the next decade, about $120 billion more than last year's budget....So much for the White House's attempts to strike common ground with big company chief executives, who have been howling for years about paying too much in taxes with the federal corporate tax rate at 35 percent.

The trouble with those complaints is that many companies don't pay nearly that rate. GE, for instance, in its most recent annual filing said it paid an effective tax rate of 4.2 percent. (See this graphic we ran last year showing taxes paid by companies in the Dow 30.) These firms insist that the high rate is merely forcing them to find complex ways to lower their tax bills. But with this budget, it's clear the administration isn't buying it.

"The problem is not an international tax system that unacceptably handicaps U.S. businesses," said Ed Kleinard, a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law who has done extensive research on the way companies shuffle their income overseas to lower their tax bills. "Instead the problem is an international tax system both in the United States and other countries that U.S. multinational firms have demonstrated they are highly skilled at gaming."

The president's budget is the latest sign for corporate tax lobbyists that the winds are perhaps shifting against them. Last month's tax reform plan from House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) also included a number of ideas unpopular with business, including a bank tax. His section on international tax reform was somewhat more generous to big firms, giving them a lower rate on overseas earnings with anti-abuse measures that Kleinbard says don't go far enough...expectations are low that either the president or Camp's policies will ever make the leap to reality. But after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists, corporate America is not exactly seeing its worldview reflected in these blue prints.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/how-corporate-america-is-losing-the-debate-on-taxes/

From the two articles linked to in Berstein's piece:

<...>

But the overlap may one day form the basis for the first tax revamp since 1986. Here is a list of tax changes in the president's budget that Camp also highlighted for reform.

* Carried interest.

The "carried interest" tax provision lets private equity partners pay lower taxes on large portions of their incomes. Camp wants to eliminate this tax break, putting him at odds with other Republicans who steadfastly defend it. Obama's budget reiterates his longstanding call for repealing carried interest, which helped former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pay a low effective tax rate. Eliminating carried interest could raise $17.4 billion over 10 years, according to a November 2013 estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

<...>

* Oil and gas.

While Republicans usually defend corporate oil and gas tax breaks whenever Obama targets them for repeal, Camp's reform plan would eliminate the industry's tax breaks and preferred accounting rules. Obama recommends repealing $4 billion in tax subsidies for oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-usa-fiscal-tax-factbox-idUSBREA231LI20140304

<...>

Bank tax: To the chagrin of Wall Street, Camp’s plan included a tax on the biggest U.S. banks and insurance companies. Obama also proposes what he calls a financial crisis responsibility fee, designed to raise about $56 billion over 10 years. Camp’s would raise more — about $86 billion.

Cutting corporate taxes: Obama would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28%, down from its current top rate of 35%. For manufacturers, however, Obama would lower the corporate rate to 25%. The difference with Camp is just a few percentage points: the Michigan Republican wants a top corporate rate of 25%.

- more -

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/03/04/what-tax-plans-from-barack-obama-and-dave-camp-have-in-common/

[NYC_SKP]

12. OP edited the name "Obama" from the subject line. And then put it back!

Articles are still from last year.

And inaccurate.

I posted an excerpt above, Obama supports non-prison alternatives where appropriate.

This shit really gets old, doesn't it?

[amandabeech]

39. Camp announced recently that he isn't running for re-election.

When Camp was first elected in 1990, he wasn't completely unreasonable, for a Republican.

Perhaps without re-election or any need to angle for his committee placement, he might revert to a generally more reasonable outlook.

Well, I guess I can hope.

[woo me with science]

19. The Third Way propaganda swarm in response to this OP is expected,

but it is deliberately and dishonestly myopic in painting the actions of this administration.*

Yes, Obama's budget for 2015 proposes a very small decrease in the number of quota beds. Very small. To make a statement about democratic values, the unconscionable quotas should not be in the budget of a Democratic President in the first place. The request for this token decrease has been made before, with no serious effort, ever, to ensure that even that smallness actually makes it into the budget. It is a bit like the repeated promises to "draw down" troops here or there, while the MIC budget keeps skyrocketing.

But this game should be familiar by now. There are always pretty words and empty gestures that lead to nowhere. The MIC budget is forever and always to be cut, yet somehow it never happens. The president has repeatedly promised to rein in for-profit colleges, too, but the promises disappear as soon as the election is over. To determine the administration's real priorities, you have to look at the overall pattern of behavior.

The overall thrust of this administration has been to increase private prisons. I encourage anyone interested in this issue to reread the links provided in the posts above. This administration has been a great friend to the private prison industry, even taking the major step of appointing a private prison representative as the Director of the US Marshal's service. Under this new leader, federal contracts for private prisons have skyrocketed.

I would like to see a public, strong rejection of private prisons by this administration, instead of empty gestures with one hand, while the other hand is enabling the attachment of a profit motive to the imprisonment of human beings.

*Just for the record, the word "Obama" is still in the subject line, too.

[ProSense]

22. "Yes, Obama's budget for 2015 proposes a very small decrease in the number of quota beds."

OP distortion not going as anticipated?

[woo me with science]

23. It's important to read the rest, too.

Including all the blue links I provided, which actually go somewhere.

[ProSense]

27. "The request for this token decrease has been made before, with no serious effort, ever...

"The request for this token decrease has been made before, with no serious effort, ever, to ensure that even that smallness actually makes it into the budget."

Distortion FAIL.

[Shivering Jemmy]

41. You have been owned upthread

You do get that right?

[Capt. Obvious]

53. "Including all the blue links I provided, which actually go somewhere."

You mean they don't just go to other threads of yours? Which link to other threads of yours? Which link to other threads of yours? Which link to other threads of yours? Which link to other threads of yours?

I think that's breaking the Blue Link (TM).

[NYC_SKP]

24. Your post and links are LIES. So you resort to insults. Typical when losing the argument.

From March 2014:

while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision.

Aligns Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention Capabilities with Risk.

To ensure the most cost effective use of Federal dollars, the Budget aligns Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) capabilities with immigration enforcement priorities and policies so that mandatory and priority individuals, including violent criminals and those who pose a threat to national security, are kept in detention, while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision. As ICE continues to focus on mandatory and priority cases, it will work to reduce the time that removable aliens spend in detention custody. To achieve this goal, ICE will continue to work with the Department of Justice to expedite removal of convicted criminal aliens, reducing costly stays in immigration detention prior to deportation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf

[cthulu2016]

30. Where are these LIES you lying about?

You keep posting gibberish that has no bearing on the question.

None.

But you seem to be adept at covering your inability to address the topic by name-calling and denouncing as LIES things you cannot seem to contradict.

[ProSense]

36. You keep ignoring the fact the the OP has backtracked and admitted a decrease n/t

[NYC_SKP]

26. I stand corrected.

Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I confused this OP with one of the dozed the author included in one of their replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569173

[SidDithers]

33. All the edits can be seen by clicking the "Thread Info" button at the bottom of the OP...

whether or not the red text is there.

Sid

[woo me with science]

35. No, what's creepy is making up this accusation,

when any DUer can check the edits and see that the subject line is the same in all three versions.

[NYC_SKP]

46. You're right, I apologize, it was a different OP you wrote.

That read Government instead of Obama, so I was wrong about that.

I confused this OP with one of the dozen you included in one of your replies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2569173

[SidDithers]

21. ...

Every day, a new spin, a new manufactured outrage.

Sid

[randome]

32. Can I buy an 'O' for 'Woo'?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

38. Why are we debating a law passed during the Bush Administration?

You want to talk about the law, let's talk. You want to somehow blame Obama for what Bush did? Then go away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

40. There is no law that the President must maintain quotas for the imprisonment of human beings

in his own budget proposals.

[ProSense]

42. Ridiculous.

"There is no law that the President must maintain quotas for the imprisonment of human beings in his own budget proposals."

Maybe the next President could simply leave out funding for any law s/he opposes.

The budget proposed decreasing the mandate, which you tried to ignore. Then when called on it, you made the ridiculous claim that the President isn't trying hard enough to pass his budget.

[cthulu2016]

45. Um... YES! ("Maybe the next President could simply leave out funding for any law s/he opposes.")

YES. That is what presidents fucking DO. If you don't think something SHOULD be in the budget then you do not REQUEST it in the budget.

If Congress wants to fund it then they can do so.

That is how the US government works. Yes, the President does not have to request operating funds for any law. Duh!

He has to follow the law

....and he has to use funds congress appropriates for enforcing the law

...but he is not required to request that congress provide funds to enforce any given law.

[ProSense]

47. Bullshit. n/t

[cthulu2016]

54. You use "bullshit" to mean "true" now?

[ProSense]

55. No, still bullshit. n/t

[ProSense]

50. As posted up thread, here

is the fucking policy.

Aligns Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention Capabilities with Risk.

To ensure the most cost effective use of Federal dollars, the Budget aligns Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) capabilities with immigration enforcement priorities and policies so that mandatory and priority individuals, including violent criminals and those who pose a threat to national security, are kept in detention, while low-risk non-mandatory detainees are allowed to enroll in alternatives to detention programs, including electronic monitoring and supervision. As ICE continues to focus on mandatory and priority cases, it will work to reduce the time that removable aliens spend in detention custody. To achieve this goal, ICE will continue to work with the Department of Justice to expedite removal of convicted criminal aliens, reducing costly stays in immigration detention prior to deportation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf

[randome]

44. So not funding prisoners would result in...?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

48. There is no law requiring the President to budget any particular amount for this in his proposals

I'm not actually discerning any mandate for the item at all.

I'm pretty damn sure he could propose for 10 beds or none and not be guilty of any crime at all. Just as he is not violating any law by proposing a reduction from 34k to 30.

[Vattel]

43. Obam is clueless when it comes to undocumented workers, border enforcement, etc.

[LuvNewcastle]

59. K&R for the morning crowd.

[LuvNewcastle]

60. The very concept of quotas for a certain amount of prisoners to be

taken makes me want to puke. It's akin to giving quotas for a certain number of Indian scalps to be taken. Why do we allow this in a country that is supposed to be freer than any other country in the world? And we're supposed to be bringing 'freedom' to all these countries we invade! A person's freedom is a sacred right, and should never be taken away lightly. Giving quotas to law enforcement and prisons is going to get lots of innocent people and people who commit petty crimes pulled into their net. It's outrageous, and it's got to stop.