Poll: Is it OK to put children in cages?

Of all the ways I've visualized WFers, "Chad is balding with a moustache" has never been among them

Taken so far out of context that the mental gymnastics you're using in order to back up your position will earn you gold medal at the Summer Olympics.

Dayton, you're very good at citing the Bible, but you have no experience understanding it. What Paul is doing here is justifying his excluding the impure from the communion and social courtesies of the Church. Specifically, he's condemning a Corinthian who had been practicing incest and is advocating for kicking him out of the Church. Paul holds jurisdiction over those within the Church. The world outside must be left to the judgment of God.

No "teh Baba" option. Poll is invalid.

I hear you and I totally agree with this point of view. I'm not mad at people coming into the country, legally or otherwise, to better their families' lives. (I'm also not mad at hospitals or similar who help people regardless of their citizenship. Some things transcend legal barriers.) The question is: what do we do about it?

The cry for amnesty doesn't help by itself. That's just kicking the can down the road, because the laws are still in place. What do we do about those? Are they good or bad? Do they need tweaking or streamlining? Is it good that it takes X years and Y paperwork for an immigrant to become a US citizen? Do the permanent residency or visa or whatever-other-statuses-exist rules need any changing? What about the quotas, do they need tweaking? Who do we give preference to?

I don't know any of this. I'm not an expert, I don't study this, and a lot of it seems like number-crunching and practicality issues that are best left to experts. But I want it to work well for everyone involved, and I'm willing to support a good practical plan of action that doesn't violate any principles I care about. So I listen to the news to see what people want out of immigration reform. Except I don't hear anything solid. I hear people screaming about racism and wanting everyone treated the same. Which, if you want citizenship handed out for free at the border, then come out and say so and there can be discussion about that. On the other side Americans are mad that the state and federal governments are giving preferential treatment to everyone except their own citizens, i.e. the people they're actually supposed to be serving. I can get that. But there's racism and unfounded scare tactics giving energy to that side and warping it beyond rationality, and again no actionable policy being proposed where I've heard it, short of "send them all back".

The Democrats could have done something when this flared up ten years ago. They had the presidency, they took majorities in both houses (I just checked), they could have taken a good hard look at immigration policy and sat down with Republicans to work out a compromise that would ease the national divide and let both parties look like winners to their respective bases. If they were interested in governing and not just holding on to power, they could have at least tried to do that, instead of the usual political tactic of hurling rhetoric at the other side and then sticking their heads in the ground and waiting for the country to be distracted by something else. Well, guess what, as long as there's a big difference between the Mexican and US economies and cultures, the problem isn't going away. Do something about it.

If the laws and regulations are good, enforce them. If not, fix them until they're good, and then enforce them. Every news story that comes out about government handing out privileges or services regardless of citizenship only further convinces Joe Shmoe American, who is accountable to the law for taxes and everything else, that the government cares less about him than all these people who aren't legally supposed to be in the country anyway. And maybe Joe's anger is also fueled by racist considerations, but maybe not. And dismissing him as a racist insults the Joes that aren't racist, and maybe even turns them racist, while oversimplifying the issue just to make your side look like the good guys.

So here's a useful page on some of the basics: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line

Hahaha!
Remember how Republicans used to have Japanese internment to bash FDR with?
And now they tie themselves in knots to justify it with Mexican kids.
Aaah, hilarious.

On the other side Americans are mad that the state and federal governments are giving preferential treatment to everyone except their own citizens, i.e. the people they're actually supposed to be serving.

Wut?

If you haven't heard any possible solutions then you aren't listening very hard. The Gang of Eight proposal that passed the Senate but that the Tea Party killed in the House is considered by many to be the basis for reform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde...ty,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

As to the Dems should have done it, I'm sure they would have if given the time. They were only able to get through one big policy win (healthcare) before the 2010 backlash vote put the Tea Party in control of the House.

Yes is the "teh Baba" option. I'll mark you down for Yes.

Sorry, but I don't find it hilarious at all.

"Long-term health consequences included psychological anguish as well as increased cardiovascular disease. Survey information found former internees had a 2.1 greater risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality, and premature death than did a non-interned counterpart."
http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/health.html
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Psychological_effects_of_camp/
http://nationalveteransnetwork.com/consequences.shtml

While the conditions of Japanese internment camps were not quite the same as these internment camps, Trump is nevertheless looking into setting up out-door tent cities which will certainly subject these children to similar conditions with extreme temperatures.

If we allow the forced internment of these children to continue, we're looking at similar long-term consequences in the psychological and physical health of these children.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't find it hilarious at all.

I don't find the victims hilarious, I'm talking about the apologists for the perpetrators.
I could give them anger, but that's what they want.

Fair enough.

Unrelated to the above post, but these interred children are now having assigned numbers being pinned to them:

Edit: disregard, this isn't accurate. Leaving this up to point out that this image isn't actually a kid with an assigned number, to avoid any confusion.

you mean the Republicans who had multitudes of opportunities to contribute to the ACA, and did, and then still vote against it unanimously?

Still the answer to that question is that he had the time and the political capital to do one major thing and he chose health care. If the GOP hadn't gamed the 2010 elections he would have had time to do something else after but the Dems didn't see that wave coming at all.


by the way, let's note something obvious:
If we'd taken all the money we've spent (both parties) on misguided (at best) desert warfare in the last 16 years, and invested it in
a. border security (a wall if you want)
b. addressing poverty in the U.S. in a real way
c. building the economies of the central american countries these folks are fleeing such that they are attractive places to stay and live
you could have completely solved this issue already and STILL had money to give every student 2 years of free college and universal health care coverage..and the result of this choice would have been a MUCH stronger economy for everyone leading to a smaller deficit and other spending options (like infrastructure)

Our war-loving country will NEVER fully appreciate the things we've lost in order to fight the Forever War

my essay on Facebook in response to a Trumpster bleating the "it's the law so it's okay" shit:
-----------------------
First, this action is openly declared as an intended deterant - it literally is an act part and parcel of closing the border. Deterring immigrants from coming in the first place is a key element of closing the border.

Second, even with a closed border asylum seeking is still allowed under international law and at least a major share of these families are seeking asylum

Third, an ACTUAL impenetrable border is practically speaking impossible, particularly given the terrain in question.

Fourth, as long as the choice is "stay here and risk my kids being raped and murdered" or "take my chances making it into the U.S. where they have a future" these people will ALWAYS come.

Fifth, EVERY study of the net effects of Latin immigration on the U.S. economy demonstrates a an overwhelmingly POSITIVE outcome. There is no economic argument for a closed border.

Sixth, the "OMG ILLEGALS!" argument is STRICTLY a politically motivated one wholly designed to play to the xenophobia of conservative voters. The GOP leans into it and the Dems fear it. The previous Administration wasn't good on immigration either (from a liberal point of view) even though they kept families together, because they accepted the premise that you could deter attempts. The only thing that actually deters attempts is their own home being livable enough that they are not desperate for a better one.

Seventh, The people that are being used to pander to xenophobia (criminals and such) are rare exceptions, the crime rate among immigrants is lower than among native born, there's no correlation between asylum seekers and these crimes (typically these are people FLEEING that sort of behavior, not the one's given to it - if you are a violent criminal yourself then you're at home in the triangle) and shutting down this immigration doesn't solve that. There are no MS13 in these immigrants with kids.

Eighth, the idea that they are using kids as leverage to get asylum is stupid as hell. The trip is much less likely to succeed with kids in tow.

Ninth, the considerable majority of people in this country improperly (that's how the law reads, since it is a CIVIL offense and not a criminal offense - improper not "illegal") are people who overstayed a visa and most of them are likely motivated to do so out of fear that if they go home as required they won't be allowed to return.

Tenth and finally: there is a perfectly reasonable, compassionate, economically sound model for border control that is only not enacted because of political bigotry considerations. If we had a near unlimited short-term work visa (STWV) program in which migrant workers (by far the majority of those who either cross the border or stay improperly) were required to go home, say, at least 10 days every six months, and it was handled like a passport with each crossing recorded - with the penalty that if you failed to go back regularly and could not account for it to a judge (say medical emergency as an example of an exception) then you lose your Visa privilege for (say) 5 years, with criminal instead of civil penalties attached to returning without one you would VASTLY drop the number of "illegal" crossings.
Because most are migrant workers who don't come here to live, they come to make money to send back home to their families - they only stay here because we make it so risky to go back and forth.

In short, politics - and the bigotry which fuels it - has us doing stupid things which makes the problem worse, causes human suffering, puts us in the roles of villains, and only serves to pander to our worse actors when 80%+ of the problem could be solved if so many voters were not motivated by "OMG BROWN PEOPLE!!!"

On the other side Americans are mad that the state and federal governments are giving preferential treatment to everyone except their own citizens, i.e. the people they're actually supposed to be serving.

which, of course, is abject bullshit of the sort that spews out of Alex Jones but the right has been conditioned to believe it unquestioningly

While we're debating the failings of current law, let's be crystal clear that the law does NOT require this policy, that multiple members of the Admin freely describe it as an intended deterrent (which it's not, and nothing we can - short of gunning them down on sight like a zombie hoard - do will be, because what they are running from is worse) and that Trump is very openly sending his ransom note to Congress on what price must be paid for him to free them.

Immigration is a fucked up mess, and good immigration law won't pass because the good ideas are the ones that conservatives have been trained to hate. Republicans pander to their bigotry and the Dems run scared of it. But this isn't a question of the law.

Matt O'Brien‏Verified account@ObsoleteDogma


If you had said that Trump would be creating baby jails and Fox News hosts would be defending him by saying “he’s not gassing children,” it would have sounded like the most extreme parody a year and a half ago, and yet here we are.

https://www.apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e

as might not surprise you, this is directly related to White Evangelical Dominionists being allowed to run lose in the White House
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-bible-study-group-trump-child-separation-policy-24de236c4824/

Infants as young as 3 months? If that’s true that is insanity.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhe...separated-from?utm_term=.kcwWJ53o6#.siakJ2RvE

A 10-Year-Old Girl With Down Syndrome Was Separated From Her Mother At The Border
The girl has been in a detention facility in Texas despite her father being a legal US resident, Mexican officials said.
----------------
to which the "we hate this but we must follow the law" crowd responds
---------------
Corey Lewandowski Just Mocked A Story About A 10-Year-Old Girl With Down Syndrome Being Taken From Her Immigrant Mother
"Womp womp," Lewandowski said.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/skbaer/cor...rome-immigrant?utm_term=.luYqMpn08#.bgZlwZQDm

NBC reported yesterday that this policy was formulated in the first week of February, 2017. Notes on the meeting say that the idea was drawn up specifically to deter refugees. Not illegal immigrants. Not economic migrants. Not even immigrants, period. Refugees. By ratified treaty and basic human decency, we are not supposed to treat them like criminals, even the ones who didn’t cross the border at a designated port of entry (as if it’d be okay to put infants into cages just because their parents were charged with an immigration violation in the first place ).

You know I’m loathe to describe people as being evil rather than their actions, but here I think we just might have some real evil bastards in power right now.

Probably not. Or maybe the news sources I was using were letting the noise drown out the signal (oh, but that doesn't happen all the time).

Again, I'm no expert, but that looks to me like the kind of bill that could have made things better. The criticisms section . . . I get where the ACLU's concerns are, but that's too dystopian for me to worry about. The other two criticisms listed are number crunching, and again you can always fiddle with numbers.

Are the people coming over to live here not failing to go through legal procedures to do so? (granted, as the link I posted says, there's no legal avenue for them to do so)
Do the people who live here get to ignore established legal procedures? No. You can argue magnitudes of scale, but that's what I'm talking about. Bending the rules over backwards to benefit people other than the people you're being paid to serve.

Are you people here suggesting that anyone who wants to come to the United States as a political refugee should be allowed to enter? Without limits?

I see why you failed the reading comprehension on your Praxis test you autistic chump.

What does "Wah Wah" mean?

No, not without limits you obtuse fool of a man. What "us people" are suggesting is that the US follow its international legal obligations and fairly assess asylum claims. At no point has anyone said people should be allowed in "without limits".

Oh, and refugees aren't just "political". Jesus, get an education man.

No.

And once again you post flat out lies. Study El Chup, ed629, or one of our other illustrious members if you want to do better.