QFT.
Urbanredneck, if you honestly see concentration camps for destitute families to be in any sense, at any time a morally acceptable solution, I’m deeply saddened. I’d also have to challenge your claim that you “hate” the idea.
.
This is a deep moral problem that the Republicans are agonizing over. How to they take credit for “getting tough” on those people and simultaneously deny any responsibility for needless suffering? While in the same breath demand their Wall?
Seriously, you consider this a better alternative than accepting a certain level of lawbreaking?
Would you similarly favor solving the problem of speeding drivers by building concentration camps to put entire families in? Or do you believe that this solution is worse than the problem it addresses?
Here’s my proposal: REVERSE THE POLICY. Go back to how things were in 2016, when there was enhanced immigration enforcement resulting in fewer folks entering the country, but nowhere near this degree.
I don’t see a smiley-face, so I’ll assume you’re serious. Apologies if yours was some sort of satire.
Even during the Obama era, Canada accepted refugees at roughly three times the per capita rate of U.S.A. Countries like New Zealand accept at four times the rate; Switzerland at Five times the rate.
And that’s during the Obama era. Refugee acceptance has plummeted under Trump. Consider for example Iraq, a country the U.S. broke. Two million Iraqis have fled their country and another 4 million are displaced internally. Those are Millions with an M. How many Iraqi refugees did the U.S.A. accept during the 1st quarter of 2018? Twenty-nine. No, not twenty-nine thousand nor even twenty-nine hundred. Twenty-nine with a T.
All in all, the situation is too sad to joke about. Still, Urbanredneck, I think you should include a smiley-face in future when you make such “jokes.” In today’s Trumpian America many might think you’re serious.
No, they don’t, as proven by the fact that they haven’t done it.
As was previously mentioned, Democratic Senators have proposed a bill that would change this policy and not require family separation. No Republicans have signed on. It’s entirely reasonable to conclude, based on these facts, that Republicans in the Senate have no interest in ending the administration’s policy of deliberately traumatizing children for deterrent purposes.
And based on your posts, Urbanredneck, it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that you have little to no interest in doing so either. If you did, you’d support the Democratic bill, and lobby your own Senators and representative to support it, right?
Bingo. They control the House and the Senate. If they want to fix this, they can pass legislation.
Trump can fix this himself. The Republicans in Congress could fix it themselves. The Dems can’t, because they don’t control anything. They’re doing what they can - Feinstein’s bill has the support of every Senate Dem besides Manchin - but the bill might as well not exist unless Mitch lets it proceed.
This. It doesn’t matter what they say in public as long as they vote like good little Repuppies.
Bipartisan compromise looks like this:
Republicans want pepperoni and sausage on the pizza, but no onions or tomatoes.
Democrats want onions and tomatoes on the pizza, but no pepperoni or sausage.
Collins and Baldwin propose a bipartisan compromise bill: the pizza will have pepperoni and onions, but no sausage or tomatoes.
This is what Republicans seem to think compromise consists of:
Republicans want pepperoni and sausage on the pizza, but no onions or tomatoes.
Democrats want onions and tomatoes on the pizza, but no pepperoni or sausage.
Republicans shit on the pizza, blame the Democrats for the shit, and then propose a compromise: we can throw away the turd pizza and order one with pepperoni and sausage. When Democrats balk, Republicans blame Democrats for everyone having to eat shit pizza.
There’s plenty of room for compromise on immigration: there are things Democrats want that Republicans don’t want, and vice versa. But virtually everyone in charge claims not to want to lock children up in cages (thanks for the evidence that I was right about the cages, I guess, although I’d rather’ve been wrong). So that’s not necessarily a place for compromise: that’s a place for everyone to work together to get what everyone wants. Holding the children hostage for Democratic concessions on immigration is shitting on the pizza.
Yes, but that cannot be the exception that swallows the rule. If an individual Mexican wants to migrate here illegally, we cannot incentivize kidnapping a random child so that when they “claim asylum” they will stay with the kidnapped child in more comfortable surroundings.
If there is probable cause to believe that I committed a crime, I get separated from my child. I don’t understand why it is acceptable in every criminal context for U.S. citizens, but not for those suspected of illegal border crossing.
It’s not acceptable in every criminal context for US citizens–that’s why we don’t have desert camps full of the children of speeders.
Once again, show me one reliable nonpartisan source that says that border crossers have kidnapped children for the purpose of being more sympathetic asylum applicants. It simply doesn’t happen.
I am going out on a limb that I am the only person on this board who has had to arrange for the release of an unaccompanied minor from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. It is standard practice that ORR requires proof of the adult’s relationship to the child. In the case I handled, it was a birth certificate. In some cases ORR has even required DNA tests.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
As of today, ALL Democratic Senators have signed on. Still zero support from Republicans.
It used to be they would have a couple of theirs vote with the Democrats(but never enough to make a difference) so that they could pretend that there is diversity in the Republican Party.
Now, they don’t even pretend.
To be fair, a “cage” brings to mind a 6 sided enclosure with a door that one would need to crawl through to enter. Cages come in stacks, and it is possible that when they hear “cage” they think that we are talking about somehting like this. And that we are claiming that children are being stuffed into them like this.
I really didn’t think of it that way, and so it may be that it evokes images that somehow make people feel more uncomfortable with the notion of taking kids away from their parents, and so that is the reason for such resistance and nitpicking as to the term.
Now, I don’t define a cage in that fashion, I consider a cage to be something that prevents someone from escaping. A fenced enclosure, to me, would be a cage. If someone called a prison cell a cage, I would not consider that to be hyperbole.
However, there is something to be said for using language that is a better descriptor, and calling the places we are holding these children “cages” is both ambiguous and non-descriptive, allowing people to distract by nitpicking their definition.
So, I propose a compromise. Rather than calling them cages, we should be calling the fenced in enclosures by what they more resemble, kennels.
-
What Eva Luna said about this bullshit.
-
What’s this about more comfortable surroundings? Where’s this coming from? Cite?
What LHoD said.
Like you said, “but never enough to make a difference.” Since one GOP Senator would give the Dems a majority on this, that requires zero defectors.
Says the guy who actually said building concentration camps would be a good idea.
And are you ever going to pony up that cite about people bringing children that aren’t theirs here for sympathy?
If we are going on crazy scenarios to justify policy decisions, I will posit that it is unwise to lock up so many toddlers in these conditions because they’re probably just plotting a mass suicide to make President Trump look bad.
Shall I add more crazy to the mix, or shall we go back to dealing with reality on reality’s terms?