Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.
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 have a hard time accepting the idea that you're really in this for the good of the immigrants in question when you're starting them off by stuffing them into a box like sardines with no toothbrushes or soap.
I did no such thing, but I understand it makes thinking easier if you just make those assumptions. Keep it up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
And I will continue to pursue that such an objection is ridiculous. There is no moral high ground to be found in detaining children(or families, since that distinction is important to you), in a space entirely too small for the number of people, with no sanitary provisions, when all you have to do is not stuff them into a concentration camp.
But since you object to the term concentration camp, let me walk you through my reasoning. Immigrants are being detained, unnecessarily, in a detention camp, which is designed for X number of people. But instead of A) not using it, or B) only filling it to capacity, they chose C) stuff it to 10X capacity. Some might say 10X concentration. Hence concentration camp.
I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
And I will continue to pursue that such an objection is ridiculous. There is no moral high ground to be found in detaining children(or families, since that distinction is important to you), in a space entirely too small for the number of people, with no sanitary provisions, when all you have to do is not stuff them into a concentration camp.
But since you object to the term concentration camp, let me walk you through my reasoning. Immigrants are being detained, unnecessarily, in a detention camp, which is designed for X number of people. But instead of A) not using it, or B) only filling it to capacity, they chose C) stuff it to 10X capacity. Some might say 10X concentration. Hence concentration camp.
Wrong, they aren't being detained unnecessarily.
1.They are being detained to make sure they won't be a threat to the US population. They are being detained to make sure there are no criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers etc among them.
2. They are being detained to make sure the adults and the minors are actually a family and not a ploy to just get people in easier.
3. They are also being detained to check if they are real asylum seekers and not just more economic migrants.
It boggles my mind that something so rudimentary and common sensical is being demonized.
Also, as far as I was aware they aren't:
1. Forced into slave labor. 2. Worked until death. 3. Purposefully malnourished to kill them quicker.
Yes the conditions are bad, and they should be improved, but calling them concentration camps is ridiculous.
These are some of the most basic security measures you could have at your border.
On July 05 2019 04:19 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.
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 have a hard time accepting the idea that you're really in this for the good of the immigrants in question when you're starting them off by stuffing them into a box like sardines with no toothbrushes or soap.
I did no such thing, but I understand it makes thinking easier if you just make those assumptions. Keep it up.
It doesn't matter what you're saying, it's what they're doing. That's my point. It's fine to say "yeah, they should have those things", but the fact is you still support them doing this, and while we have this conversation, they don't have those things. I'm saying that regardless, they shouldn't be doing it at all.
I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.
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.
I understand why that sounds reasonable on it's face but any familiarity with ICE seems to preclude the notion they are "protecting the children".
They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt (outside of a courtroom). Moreover it's totally unreasonable imo.
Meanwhile Trump's got tanks in DC and his supporters (albeit some reluctantly) want us to do anything but recognize what's happening around us.
At a bare minimum, the problem is that Trump's people didn't take a hot minute to cross their t's and dot their i's before they said "we're going to put this awful plan into motion for shits and giggles". The problem is not that Congress is dragging their feet on provisions of soap. It's gaslighting to even suggest it.
On July 05 2019 05:20 Introvert wrote: That's what the bill I described was about, partially. The problem was with Congress.
Remember that whole "declaration of emergency thing"? The problem is, no one buys this story Trump and his supporters really want to fix this but those dastardly Democrats are interfering with Republicans ability to help these misfortunate immigrants.
We know many Republicans/conservatives/Trumpists can't even keep a straight face among yourselves when you hear each other say this kind of stuff.
On July 04 2019 21:03 Destructicon wrote: Also barriers, like a wall do work. They won't keep out absolutely all illegal immigration, but they will at least reduce it by such a significant margin that it will be way easier to to stop sort the people coming if not countries like Hungary or Israel wouldn't have built them.
Refusing funding for improving the conditions of detained asylum seekers on the grounds that the wall isn't funded is a non sequitur, the two tackle different issues. Walls don't stop asylum seekers, that's a legal process. Hungary's wall didn't reduce the amount of people applying for asylum in Hungary, it only deflected the people that refused to apply for asylum there and only passed through to get to Germany and beyond.
On July 05 2019 04:09 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
And I will continue to pursue that such an objection is ridiculous. There is no moral high ground to be found in detaining children(or families, since that distinction is important to you), in a space entirely too small for the number of people, with no sanitary provisions, when all you have to do is not stuff them into a concentration camp.
But since you object to the term concentration camp, let me walk you through my reasoning. Immigrants are being detained, unnecessarily, in a detention camp, which is designed for X number of people. But instead of A) not using it, or B) only filling it to capacity, they chose C) stuff it to 10X capacity. Some might say 10X concentration. Hence concentration camp.
I also enjoy the explicit addition of the "well the children probably deserved it" edit.
On July 05 2019 04:09 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
And I will continue to pursue that such an objection is ridiculous. There is no moral high ground to be found in detaining children(or families, since that distinction is important to you), in a space entirely too small for the number of people, with no sanitary provisions, when all you have to do is not stuff them into a concentration camp.
But since you object to the term concentration camp, let me walk you through my reasoning. Immigrants are being detained, unnecessarily, in a detention camp, which is designed for X number of people. But instead of A) not using it, or B) only filling it to capacity, they chose C) stuff it to 10X capacity. Some might say 10X concentration. Hence concentration camp.
Wrong, they aren't being detained unnecessarily.
1.They are being detained to make sure they won't be a threat to the US population. They are being detained to make sure there are no criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers etc among them.
2. They are being detained to make sure the adults and the minors are actually a family and not a ploy to just get people in easier.
3. They are also being detained to check if they are real asylum seekers and not just more economic migrants.
It boggles my mind that something so rudimentary and common sensical is being demonized.
Also, as far as I was aware they aren't:
1. Forced into slave labor. 2. Worked until death. 3. Purposefully malnourished to kill them quicker.
Yes the conditions are bad, and they should be improved, but calling them concentration camps is ridiculous.
These are some of the most basic security measures you could have at your border.
It boggles my mind, you believe the reasons you've given for detention are "common sense" or the norm. It's my understanding these people don't have the freedom to leave detention... and in America we do not strip people of their freedom simply because potential exists they could be a threat.
There has to be some substantial reason to believe someone is a risk of harm to themselves or others for their right of freedom to be stripped. All the things you've listed as reasons to be checking who these people are, can be investigated and established without detaining someone and taking their freedom.
They can be investigated and not let in the country at the same time.
It's no secret knowledge that this administration is locking people up and separating families as deterrent from even coming to the boarder seeking asylum, they said as much out loud in interviews. How you see it any other way could only lead me to believe you really aren't paying attention at all, or spend your time watching alex jones/fox news.
"In a May 2018 interview, then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told NPR a "big name of the game is deterrence" in stopping illegal immigration, and that family separations "would be a tough deterrent." "
""We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to come to the border illegally and attempt to enter into this country improperly," said then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions when the policy was announced. "The parents are subject to prosecution while children may not be. So, if we do our duty and prosecute those cases, then children inevitably for a period of time might be in different conditions.""
I realize you might not want to believe that is what's happening, but these people have been very clear about their motivations.
Even if you want to detain a family, you just detain them all together and then check up on them... How the fuck do you explain separating the child from the mother? If you know anything about psychology, separating children from their parents has lasting effect on the mental health and resilience of that child throughout their life.
On July 05 2019 04:46 Introvert wrote: edit: and I'm willing to give ICE the benefit of the doubt that in 700 cases (or less, depending on family size) there may been good reason to remove the child from their parent.
It wasn't ICE who split them up, it was CPB and ORR. Investigations have also found that the reasons many of the children were separated were at most charitably, quite suspect. Misdemeanor charges like parking tickets and unfounded claims of gang membership. That kind of thing. One person interviewed said that CPB didn't believe that the child with him was his son despite him having all of the documentation, including a birth certificate, and ended up separating them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the facilities are only legally allowed to hold people for 72 hours maximum. That's the issue. There are people who have been in them for more than a month, which is literally illegal. In the case of children, not only are these children showing signs of neglect, malnourishment, and mental trauma, but CPB is often not even bothering to notify relatives or parents of where these children are, so the kids end up waiting for someone who doesn't know they are there.
Here' an article that is an interview with a pediatrician who worked at the facilities holding children in south Texas. Some of the stuff she mentions in it is haunting. A significant number of the children being held are showing signs of trauma. They don't act like the kids she works with everyday. Many of the children have respiratory issues, have dirty clothes, and are so afraid that they basically have become submissive in hopes of not being punished.
Sevier set up a makeshift clinic—stethoscope, thermometer, blood-pressure cuffs—in a room, lined with computer stations, that agents use for paperwork. Each of the agent stations had its own bottle of hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. But when Sevier asked the 38 children she examined that day about sanitation, they all said they weren't allowed to wash their hands or brush their teeth. This was “tantamount to intentionally causing the spread of disease,” she later wrote in a medical declaration about the visit, the document that the lawyers filed in federal court and also shared with me. (Asked for comment on this story, a Customs and Border Protection official wrote in an email that the agency aims to “provide the best care possible to those in our custody, especially children.” The agency’s “short-term holding facilities were not designed to hold vulnerable populations,” the official added, “and we urgently need additional humanitarian funding to manage this crisis.”)
As agents brought in the children she requested, Sevier said, the smell of sweat and soiled clothing filled the room. They had not been allowed to bathe or change since crossing the Rio Grande and turning themselves over to officials. Sevier found that about two-thirds of the kids she examined had symptoms of respiratory infection. The guards wore surgical masks, but the detainees breathed the air unfiltered. As the children filed in, Sevier said she found evidence of sleep deprivation, dehydration, and malnutrition too.
It's sheer incompetence on behalf of CPB, but at this point, with everything coming out about the attitudes of many of these agents and the workplace culture a large chunk of them seem to take part in, I think a good chunk of what is happening is deliberate. If you read any of the myriad news articles on the Facebook group of CPB workers, you'll notice that a lot of the posters talk about migrants as if they are subhuman.
And again, here's the friendly reminder that the administration could have avoided the entire problem by leaving the Family Case Management Program in place, which was specifically designed to solve this problem, didn't require mass detention, was highly successful at getting asylum seekers to go to their court hearings, and had specific plans in place to deal with people making false asylum claims. But the Trump administration didn't. They cancelled it and brought back mass detention.
You don't know anything about the people coming to your country, it seems prudent to, at the very least background check them in some capacity. And if they've crossed illegally you have even more reason to detain them while you check.
I don't get how you could consider these people trustworthy when the very first thing they did was enter illegally.
The separation is pretty awful for the legit families that are crossing, they should indeed be detained together while being checked.
But that doesn't detract from my previous points.
You don't know the people coming in, they could just as well be criminals as they are refugees or migrants. With them crossing illegally you have even more reason to detain them and check their background.
Also if you want to play on emotions, what about the families of the US citizens? What about those cases where people get killed because criminals did cross over?
Do you really want to say that its not common sense to at the very least check the people coming in to prevent cases like the above from happening?
Some reporting I read seems to show that Trump gave a generally on-script apolitical speech. If he had started doing his usual attacks against his political opponents, he likely would have received a hefty bill for the event.
On July 05 2019 09:12 NewSunshine wrote: Whatever happened, I'm sure it looked nothing at all like other displays of tanks in urban locales throughout history.
I get conservatives on this stuff but sometimes neoliberals feel like the meme of the dog in the burning room saying "everything is fine"
Like how bad will it get before they think maybe voting for Biden/Warren/Harris isn't going to be sufficient?
Remember the whole "we have no obligation to give them toothbrushes" stuff was in defense of OBAMA's camps.
On July 05 2019 08:14 Destructicon wrote:I don't get how you could consider these people trustworthy when the very first thing they did was enter illegally.
Surrendering yourself with a claim of seeking asylum is not only not illegal, but it's protected under a UN Convention. In the US, the government is allowed to detain you for up to 72 hours to check your story (make sure children with you are yours, make sure you are from the country you say you are from, make sure everything is on the up and up), but then you are supposed to be released to either family or to a shelter while your claim is processed.
There is no need for people to be detained for weeks or months in facilities not designed for long term detention like this. It's not only inhumane, but it doesn't make any sense.
PS: There's a non-zero chance that the Youtube channel you linked is not what it seems, and is likely a Russian or other bot account. That type of account is their bread and butter. Generic "patriotic" name with and obvious spelling and grammatical errors in video descriptions and titles. They couldn't even spell AOC's name right in the video title of this video. If you go into the channel's page it appears that it was previously a UK-based gaming channel that showed how to pirate games, and has for some reason after a year of not posting anything, started posting obviously click-baity outrage videos with Ben Shapiro-esque click-bait titles. Read the "About" section then look at what videos are being posted. Something doesn't add up.
Don't be a victim of misinformation campaigns. Don't trust anything you see on Youtube or read on Facebook/Twitter unless it is from verified sources.
On July 05 2019 09:11 micronesia wrote: Some reporting I read seems to show that Trump gave a generally on-script apolitical speech. If he had started doing his usual attacks against his political opponents, he likely would have received a hefty bill for the event.
Yes, apparently there's some clause in the regulations for NPS that prohibits NPS budget from being used for political purposes. Had Trump said anything about the campaign at all, they would have had grounds to require his campaign to pay back any NPS money used for the event.
EPT
