Serious question, as I haven't really been tracking this specific issue: Before they were being placed in cages, what was the system before? Why is reverting to the previous system / process not an option?
Serious question, as I haven't really been tracking this specific issue: Before they were being placed in cages, what was the system before? Why is reverting to the previous system / process not an option?
well the answer is simple, they arent being held in cages, they are being held in large facilities that use wire fencing to seperate the under tens or 12's from the teenage boys, who are seperated from the teen girls who also have to be seperated from the adult men who have to be seperated from adult women, they no doubt also have an area for suspected bad guys and another for families, they use wire fencing as it makes supervision easier and safer, its the same system that they used before Trump, the difference is they didnt seperate families pre Trump and the Trump admin did its best to pack those facilities and make the whole system grim, but other than that there really isnt any difference to what Clinton Bush Obama did, nor is it different to what Canada and the EU do, its just done at a vastly larger scale than us
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Sorry, I just have trouble believing anyone thinks it’s ok for thousands of children to be spending weeks in detention centres with a legal limit of 72 hours, sleeping under foil blankets on mats on the ground within touching distance from others, going days without showering, at best getting “adequate” food and at worst missing meals, with no education for most and play time only when the room they’re locked in is being cleaned (if at all), with a complete lack of Spanish speaking workers and people experienced with at-risk youth.
And this gets back to my point: What other alternative is there for them? Where do you propose these children go?
Simply bemoaning what is going on doesn’t seem to be particularly productive to me and it certainly doesn’t help the immigrants.
It may not be ideal that they are being held for more than 72 hours, but so what? It isn’t like they can be released into the streets, with no family (either nearby or at all).
Where they are now is undoubtedly cleaner and safer than where they came from or went through to get here. Or, at the very least, their own parents presumably believe so, or they never would have sent them on their way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
. . . but you’re actually arguing that you see nothing wrong with these facilities.
No, I’m not. I was very clear in my response that I would prefer that the facilities have a few changes. That is not the same as saying that I “see nothing wrong” with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Your value of these children must be so small. Do you even see them as human? I don’t ask to agitate, I honestly want to know.
Oh good grief. Of course they are human and I see them as such. And I think that it is far better for them to be in a facility, even in excess of 72 hours, than it is to simply through them on the street in order to comply with an arbitrary legal timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Removing the situation they came from and not using “better” as a substitute for “acceptable, would you wish this on another human?
Immigrants throughout the world have faced hardship. It is the nature of the journey.
Would it preferable that they are all whisked to their country of choice by chauffeur driven Lexus and given $3M upon arrival? Of course, but that isn’t going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
If this is your example of having put some thought into the issue, this is good proof that thought alone has no value.
well the answer is simple, they arent being held in cages, they are being held in large facilities that use wire fencing to seperate the under tens or 12's from the teenage boys, who are seperated from the teen girls who also have to be seperated from the adult men who have to be seperated from adult women, they no doubt also have an area for suspected bad guys and another for families, they use wire fencing as it makes supervision easier and safer, its the same system that they used before Trump, the difference is they didnt seperate families pre Trump and the Trump admin did its best to pack those facilities and make the whole system grim, but other than that there really isnt any difference to what Clinton Bush Obama did, nor is it different to what Canada and the EU do, its just done at a vastly larger scale than us
I should have put 'cages' in quotation marks, but your point is well taken. So, revert to the previous system where families weren't split up. Has that been done yet? Are they still following Trump-era guidelines and packing these things?
I should have put 'cages' in quotation marks, but your point is well taken. So, revert to the previous system where families weren't split up. Has that been done yet? Are they still following Trump-era guidelines and packing these things?
to the best of my knowledge the answer is families arent being seperated anymore and they are moving the migrants through the border holding facilities as fast as they can but the back log and chaos Trump left hasnt been flushed through yet, still any excuse to whine about how Saint Bernie would have been better eh?
It may not be ideal that they are being held for more than 72 hours, but so what? It isn’t like they can be released into the streets, with no family (either nearby or at all).
Oh good grief. Of course they are human and I see them as such. And I think that it is far better for them to be in a facility, even in excess of 72 hours, than it is to simply through them on the street in order to comply with an arbitrary legal timeline.
Just quoting this point because I thought it was interesting you described the timeline as arbitrary.
If you were detained by the police, but not arrested, would you be fine with being detained above the 24-hour limit, let's say up to a few weeks, because the police are busy?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Why is it on me, with nearly zero knowledge of immigration and refugee policy, to come up for a solution to someone's problem they created when they decided they were going to warehouse children in pretty questionable living conditions?
If you have “zero knowledge of immigration and refugee policy,” then why are you so apparently confident that the “border situation” is “disgusting”?
Could it not be housing immigrants, particularly unaccompanied minors, the way that they are currently being housed is the best possible solution or even normal?
Or, said differently, a person who is completely ignorant about a matter isn’t smart enough to know that something is wrong. But if they are smart enough to discern a problem, then they should be smart enough to propose a solution to it. But if they don’t care to propose a solution, then to me I guess they just don’t care enough other than to complain.
Just quoting this point because I thought it was interesting you described the timeline as arbitrary.
If you were detained by the police, but not arrested, would you be fine with being detained above the 24-hour limit, let's say up to a few weeks, because the police are busy?
there is a difference between your expectation of due process as a citizan and as a migrant, my Honduran foster son who swam the Rio Grande spent weeks in custody in the states and Canada as a 14 year old while they tried to work out what to do with him, that was under Obama, it wasnt jail but it wasnt far off either.
Just quoting this point because I thought it was interesting you described the timeline as arbitrary.
If you were detained by the police, but not arrested, would you be fine with being detained above the 24-hour limit, let's say up to a few weeks, because the police are busy?
1). I’m not a criminal lawyer, but I’m not aware of any 24 hour limit in the US.
2). The question you present is not the same when dealing with an unaccompanied minor (and also mixes criminal procedure with what should be a civil violation, and excessively long detention in a criminal procedure context could result in evidence suppression or outright dismissal of charges—not sure how that is analogous to an immigration stay).
Again, once the 72 hour limit passes, what do you propose be done with the children? Throw them out on the streets of El Paso (where they might fall in love with a Mexican girl . . .)? Put them up with some foster parents (presumably, there are only so many to go around and their houses have capacity limits)?
I don’t think that the children are being held for a period of time just because the immigration courts are busy, but also (or maybe rather) because there is nowhere for the children to go.
1). I’m not a criminal lawyer, but I’m not aware of any 24 hour limit in the US.
2). The question you present is not the same when dealing with an unaccompanied minor (and also mixes criminal procedure with what should be a civil violation, and excessively long detention in a criminal procedure context could result in evidence suppression or outright dismissal of charges—not sure how that is analogous to an immigration stay).
Again, once the 72 hour limit passes, what do you propose be done with the children? Throw them out on the streets of El Paso (where they might fall in love with a Mexican girl . . .)? Put them up with some foster parents (presumably, there are only so many to go around and their houses have capacity limits)?
I don’t think that the children are being held for a period of time just because the immigration courts are busy, but also (or maybe rather) because there is nowhere for the children to go.
Nah, it's a pretty easy question to answer, so just answer it. Use California for an example if you want where the limit if 48 hours. Are you fine with being detained for a couple weeks beyond that? Do you think that would be fine, generally, if people were just detained by police for a few weeks without being charged?
The point is that the timeline is not arbitrary. It's there for a reason. And the solution isn't about what you do after the timeline has passed, the solution is do what you need to do to carry out the process within the legal timeframe you are to carry out that process. Do not exceed the timeframe, that is your job. Not all children get to enter the US, it's not like they're just waiting around for spots to place them on the US side of the border, it's that the process is taking too long, which is creating a backlog, which means kids are being kept in unfit conditions for weeks at a time.
I've never seen people argue so adamantly against the notion that the US should fix their ####. I guess the greatest country in the world is doing the best job they can. No room for improvement. It's either this or put the kids on the street. How myopic.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Nah, it's a pretty easy question to answer, so just answer it. Use California for an example if you want where the limit if 48 hours. Are you fine with being detained for a couple weeks beyond that? Do you think that would be fine, generally, if people were just detained by police for a few weeks without being charged?
The point is that the timeline is not arbitrary. It's there for a reason. And the solution isn't about what you do after the timeline has passed, the solution is do what you need to do to carry out the process within the legal timeframe you are to carry out that process. Do not exceed the timeframe, that is your job. Not all children get to enter the US, it's not like they're just waiting around for spots to place them on the US side of the border, it's that the process is taking too long, which is creating a backlog, which means kids are being kept in unfit conditions for weeks at a time.
I've never seen people argue so adamantly against the notion that the US should fix their ####. I guess the greatest country in the world is doing the best job they can. No room for improvement. It's either this or put the kids on the street. How myopic.
There isnt any parameter that allows the US to ensure a timeline though, there is no measure of how many kids will show up, there is limited ID on the kids on purpose, most adult migrants destroy their ID prior to entering the US, and recruiting and training 10 or 15,000 foster homes isnt a fast process either, this is about as well as a country can do, the EU, as Canada did with the boat people, is leaving them in violence infested refugee camps outside the country, the US, even Trump's US, is saintly in comparison
Nah, it's a pretty easy question to answer, so just answer it. Use California for an example if you want where the limit if 48 hours. Are you fine with being detained for a couple weeks beyond that? Do you think that would be fine, generally, if people were just detained by police for a few weeks without being charged?
I have already answered your question in my previous reply. You are mixing two different policies that have very little, if anything, in common, other than they both contain a timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The point is that the timeline is not arbitrary. It's there for a reason.
It is there because of a court settlement. Not because of Congressional or Presidential action. How that court settlement came up with 72 hours as the magic number (although other readings mention a 20 day limit for other immigrants) is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And the solution isn't about what you do after the timeline has passed, the solution is do what you need to do to carry out the process within the legal timeframe you are to carry out that process. Do not exceed the timeframe, that is your job. Not all children get to enter the US, it's not like they're just waiting around for spots to place them on the US side of the border, it's that the process is taking too long, which is creating a backlog, which means kids are being kept in unfit conditions for weeks at a time.
If your proposed solution (note the “if”, because I’m unclear if you have ever proposed one) is to just get the children out the door within the specified timeframe no matter what, then I honestly think that you will end up causing more harm to the children than any that they would suffer by remaining in the holding facilities.
And I suppose that if the mandate is to get the kids out no matter what, then, at a minimum, either there will be extremely limited vetting of the foster parents/resettlement homes/alleged family members, or a massive increase in hiring for those in charge of the process, which, of course, will cost money. Or both. Regardless, I’m sure that any necessary budgetary increases will be easy to get through Congress and no one will really care if the kids are put in abusive homes—so long as they are out of a holding facility within the specified time, all is good, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It's either this or put the kids on the street. How myopic.
Sorry, but I’m still not sure what your alternative is. Just speed up the existing process? If so, how do you propose to do that? Hire more people to manage the migrants? Randomly place the children with random families that share the same surname as the child and hope for the best? Bus half of the kids to Canada to reduce the number that the US has to deal with and let the Canadians deal with the other half?
well the answer is simple, they arent being held in cages, they are being held in large facilities that use wire fencing to seperate the under tens or 12's from the teenage boys, who are seperated from the teen girls who also have to be seperated from the adult men who have to be seperated from adult women, they no doubt also have an area for suspected bad guys and another for families, they use wire fencing as it makes supervision easier and safer, its the same system that they used before Trump, the difference is they didnt seperate families pre Trump and the Trump admin did its best to pack those facilities and make the whole system grim, but other than that there really isnt any difference to what Clinton Bush Obama did, nor is it different to what Canada and the EU do, its just done at a vastly larger scale than us
lol, how does being held against your will in a facility behind wire fencing differ from being held in a cage? Like, you just described a cage.
lol, how does being held against your will in a facility behind wire fencing differ from being held in a cage? Like, you just described a cage.
well I suppose you could call a basketball court a cage but in truth its a basketball court, and yes you have to lock illegal migrants up, even the kids, while you sort out the basics, Canada does
well I suppose you could call a basketball court a cage but in truth its a basketball court, and yes you have to lock illegal migrants up, even the kids, while you sort out the basics, Canada does
Are you joking around? If you want to leave a basketball court, you just walk out any one of a minimum of four exits. On no planet is it a cage.
I understand there aren't good alternatives to detention, but to pretend they aren't in cages is bizarre.
Tax cuts not as much as GOP would like
Wall funding not as much
Social issues, prisons, abortion law, boycotts, curtailing big tech , civil liberties.
There's lots of stuff a really rights. winged GOP Government would want to pass.
Sure, but would they ever win an election if they do? I mean, they might if they rig one, but they're already trying to do that anyways. And if the concern is that the GOP will attack democracy itself and then enact unpopular policies, then the strategy has to be to keep them from getting in in the first place, which means the Dems need to be uncompromising with stuff like DC statehood, anti-gerrymandering, misinformation etc.
I have already answered your question in my previous reply. You are mixing two different policies that have very little, if anything, in common, other than they both contain a timeline.
Nah, you didn't answer the question because you know the answer would be contradictory to how you're framing the timeframe here. Which is fine, just don't bull#### me with some "I answered your question" nonsense when the question was if you personally would be ok with being detained for weeks at a time by the police without a charge and your answer was "I'm not aware of a time limit!" and "That analogy doesn't make sense to me." You said things, you didn't answer the question. It was not a hard question. It was a leading question, one that was going to lead you to feel contradictory, so I get it, just don't act like I'm stupid and I don't see you. Same as the "nothing wrong" with the facilities comment. You said you'd like the mattresses to be softer and "some fencing reduced" otherwise see "nothing wrong" with them, and then got uppity about me taking the latter? Yeah nobody cares about the softness of the mattresses.
The rest of your post is just "it's hard so don't try (unless the solution is readily provided by a citizen currently living in Canada posting on the internet)." Which is also fine.
It is funny though. Here's your response to the suggestion of speeding up the process so kids aren't left in the detention facility for weeks on end:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
And I suppose that if the mandate is to get the kids out no matter what, then, at a minimum, either there will be extremely limited vetting of the foster parents/resettlement homes/alleged family members, or a massive increase in hiring for those in charge of the process, which, of course, will cost money. Or both. Regardless, I’m sure that any necessary budgetary increases will be easy to get through Congress and no one will really care if the kids are put in abusive homes—so long as they are out of a holding facility within the specified time, all is good, right?
Man, you sure make it sound difficult. Such a complex problem, reducing the amount of time kids spend at a detention facility. Very worthy of sarcasm. What was your solution for the much bigger, more complex problem of reducing immigration as a whole?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
As far as I am concerned, if politicians really wanted to reduce Hispanic immigration, then they would help to strengthen the economies of Mexico and Central American countries, legalize drugs, and assist in crime reduction there. But that would cost a lot of money and go against the military/police-industrial complex, so.....
Reducing time kids spend in detention facilities: Processes! foster homes! Hiring! Money! Congress! Abusive homes!
Completely changing the pattern of immigration by improving the quality of life in Mexico and Central America and ending the war on drugs: Money and they don't wanna.
Weird, honestly. Didn't think there were more obstacles to speeding up a process than changing the socio-economic state of entire countries. But today I learned something.
Are you joking around? If you want to leave a basketball court, you just walk out any one of a minimum of four exits. On no planet is it a cage.
I understand there aren't good alternatives to detention, but to pretend they aren't in cages is bizarre.
This truly is bizarre.
Like even if we all agreed that it's a terrible situation without good alternatives, which is fine, the amount of hoops people are jumping through is nuts.
It can't just be "there are no good alternatives" or "they're trying their best." It's gotta be:
- They aren't technically cages
- They aren't actually that bad
- It's your fault for believing politicians
- The policies that were human rights abuses are actually effective
- It's a lot worse everywhere else
- It's actually too hard to fix
- You shouldn't complain unless you can solve this
Like holy #### that's a lot of bending over backwards just to avoid saying a situation with repeated human rights abuses is... bad? Like it's better than dying and it's better than being on the street (and eventually dying) so that means it can't also be bad and worthy of criticism?
Craziness!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
