US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1633

On July 05 2019 03:29 Introvert wrote:
I still reject that characterization of my comments on the shutdown.

No, no one is arguing that conditions should be horrible. What we're saying is that no one should be surprised when a system totally unprepared for this problem can't handle it.

And if you guys at all tracked the legislative debate over the recent funding bill you'd know it was congressional Democrats who almost sank the whole project. The progressive wing was trying to attach a whole bunch of poison pills. The Senate then passed its own less bad version, overwhelmingly. This forced the House to take it up or leave thr situation as is for weeks. The Republicans have been saying this is a crisis for months while the Democrats continued to pretend nothing was wrong.

“It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent,” Kelly replied.

It wasn’t Kelly’s first time making the case that separating children from their families could deter immigrants from illegally seeking entry to the United States. When he held Nielsen’s job last year, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he was considering the policy as a deterrent.

“Let me start by saying I would do almost anything to deter the people from Central America to getting on this very, very dangerous network that brings them up through Mexico to the United States,” Kelly said.

Blitzer pressed him on the point: Is the Department of Homeland Security going to separate children from their parents?

“Yes, I am considering, in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that,”

On July 05 2019 03:33 Destructicon wrote:


Not all the kids might actually be fleeing or with their real families. A loophole has been discovered which makes it easier to enter the US with a kid, now its being exploited by reprehensible orgs to get more illegals in, for a price.

Also I'm not sold on the certain death part. There are even reports of people coming all the way from Africa to the US now, traversing the Atlantic to get to Brazil and then migrate up past Mexico to the US.

If they where really that poor or desperate they would have stopped at the very first country willing to grant asylum. Also if they where that poor or desperate its unlikely they could afford to cross the Atlantic, never mind some more of South America and Mexico.

A lot of these aren't genuine refugees, just economic migrants who want a better life. The US might be big, but it is not responsible for the well being of every single human on the planet. And accepting more and more illegal immigrants hurts those that are genuine refugees.

This is why border controls and checks are necessary.

And why shouldn't day to day citizens celebrate the 4th of July or any holiday for that matter? If they work hard and pay their taxes they can do whatever they want. They are responsible for their own well being first and foremost.

On July 05 2019 03:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Republicans keep calling poison pills, but never show proof of said poison pills. Like I said Republicans did the same thing during Obama and Bill Clinton, now you want to say it’s Democrat’s?

On July 05 2019 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


Some people are definitely arguing conditions should be horrible. The Trump administration being one of them.



www.businessinsider.com

On July 05 2019 03:29 Introvert wrote:
I still reject that characterization of my comments on the shutdown.

No, no one is arguing that conditions should be horrible. What we're saying is that no one should be surprised when a system totally unprepared for this problem can't handle it.

And if you guys at all tracked the legislative debate over the recent funding bill you'd know it was congressional Democrats who almost sank the whole project. The progressive wing was trying to attach a whole bunch of poison pills. The Senate then passed its own less bad version, overwhelmingly. This forced the House to take it up or leave thr situation as is for weeks. The Republicans have been saying this is a crisis for months while the Democrats continued to pretend nothing was wrong.

In sum, no one is arguing that people should be denied basic necessities. It's just not a thing people are saying.

On July 05 2019 04:05 Introvert wrote:


I want to say that the addition of unacceptable provisions is par for the course, I have no idea why you think only one party does this. You can go read about them if you like, you'll even get their most favorable spin: "more oversight" and "accountability."



That's not really related to what I said. The Flores agreement is, however, a huge incentive to bring children here, even if they aren't your own.

I was talking about doing things like providing basic care products. No one think they shouldn't get them. but the perspective is so warped on this. Like the other day when Danglars said he didn't want the census data used to arrest people and someone thanked him for "conceding" that point. While I hesitate to speak for anyone else, I can reasonable say that wasn't a "concession" because nobody was arguing for that in the first place. Opinions on conditions at the border on the right range from mildly apathetic to deeply disturbed, no one is out there saying "they shouldn't get toothbrushes!"

The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldn’t be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a night’s sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities.

The three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were astonished. “Are you really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of safe and sanitary conditions?” U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon asked.

On July 05 2019 04:09 NewSunshine wrote:

I think what most people here are arguing, is that if you make your administration do a horrible thing, they should've at least run the numbers. There are two problems at play. The first is that we're putting children in concentration camps. The second is they built camps for X number of people, and have since then crammed 10X people into them.

Obviously the first choice is not to stuff them into camps, period. I don't know where the fuck the Ritz Carlton came from lol. Don't change, xDaunt.

On July 05 2019 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:



Because saying that still has enough social stigma, but only the most gullible people imo believe that someone advocating/defending ripping children away from their parents under these conditions is concerned about the humanity of the people being abused.

On July 05 2019 04:17 Introvert wrote:


This is like a time-travelling post from 3 months ago. We've discussed this already. These detention cneters were built for X number of people, you cannot make them magically big enough to fit 10X.

On July 05 2019 04:17 Introvert wrote:


This is like a time-travelling post from 3 months ago. We've discussed this already. These detention cneters were built for X number of people, you cannot make them magically big enough to fit 10X.



You have it backwards, the agreement is an incentive to come because you get released much more quickly. If it wasn't in force you'd cut down on people trying to come in the first place. Ideally you wouldn't even reach the "child separation" phase (although I would point out that, as we've seen from these posted stories, plenty of people are separating their own families to try and game the system).

edit: to your edit, that was a highly specific case btw, and i thought Danglars posted the relevant context sometime last week.

On July 05 2019 04:19 NewSunshine wrote:

Then don't use them. Your hands aren't tied here. You aren't tragically forced to stuff kids into concentration camps. Get a better premise.

On July 05 2019 04:30 Introvert wrote:


Yes, the concentration camp people voluntarily visit and where they are released within a month. We've gone over the first part, but I'll just restate for the record that the use of that phrase in this context is embarrassing and ridiculous.

On July 05 2019 04:32 NewSunshine wrote:

The use of the camps to detain children who are seized from their parents is what should be embarrassing and ridiculous. I'm almost shocked I have to say this.

On July 05 2019 04:41 Introvert wrote:


The vast majority of families are held as units. Even the ACLU, which is certainly no neutral observer in all this, puts the number of children separated from their parents in the past year at about 700. Meanwhile, the number of family units found since October is over 300k. Moreover, since that same month there have been over 50,000 unaccompanied minors apprehended. People sending their kids alone. Seven-hundred is peanuts.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

On July 05 2019 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:

700 is 700 too many. But I have noticed how the argument has walked back from "well we also want them to have toothbrushes, it just can't happen".

On July 05 2019 04:46 Introvert wrote:



I didn't walk anything back, you made some comment about concentration camps, to which I objected, and you pursued it again in your next post.

On July 05 2019 05:11 Introvert wrote:


ok I admit that little word game above made me chuckle so I was going to leave it there. but...

see this is how ridiculous this debate is. Maybe for the good of the child, they should be removed from the custody of the parent. You know, like we do in this country when required? Is it possible to spend the two seconds necessary to just try and see if you can operate under some sort of reasonable assumptions about your political opponents?

I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.

On July 05 2019 05:14 Falling wrote:

That's a really bad interpretation of that statement.
I interpreted it as there could be some child abuse cases or something of the sort- if the total number is 300,000 and of those, 700 are separated out. It's not unreasonable to think that there are at least some abusive situations. All speculation, but 'well the children probably deserved it' I doubt was the intent.