We (the US) spent decades doing our best to hard-fuck-over those countries (my good friend from HS who was trying to help make lift better in one of those countries got murdered by Reagan for his efforts) that those people are fleeing. That is the origin of this “border crisis” ITFP. We need to start working on unfucking those countries as soon as we can.
As l did say, the real solution is difficult, fraught and vulnerable to White-Wing monkey-wrenching, but doing nothing to try to help in those places simply maintains the problems we have here and provides fuel to feed the fuckheads.
I don’t know why you would think that. There is humane, and there is inhumane.
Telling them that they will have their children taken from them if they cross the border without permission, as the Trump admin did, would be inhumane.
Something like telling them that they would be put into slavery if they dare to try to escape from the horrible conditions that we have helped to cause would be an extremely inhumane way of preventing them from crossing.
Their call all the way, isn’t it? Say we tell them, while escorting them back across the border, that, hey, illegally crossing the border into the United States can lead to years of hard labor: possibly they decide, at that point, that this sounds extremely inhumane; but possibly they decide the offer sounds acceptable. If one of them nods in agreement and walks right back into the United States, well, then, who am I to argue with him? And if another one decides to walk away instead, well, then, who am I to argue with him?
Of course most all of these people are crossing at the existing border crossings, meaning all of the effort and money that Trump was spending to expand the border wall was useless.
Just like if someone is trying to escape from a house fire, and you tell them that if they jump out their window and land on your property, you will shoot them dead.
Their call all the way, right?
No, because you are the one that is making such an inhumane rule in the first place. You are the one that is saying that if they try to escape from terror and violence, that you will make sure that they now receive a worse fate than that they left.
What you propose is based entirely on pure hatred, not the slightest bit of humanity.
I’m just curious how far you take this. To break out the go-to analogy of houses in this context, I’d also be fine with someone who breaks into my home maybe first getting a warning — being told, hey, if you pull that again, you’re looking at getting sentenced to hard labor — and then, if he grins and does so, getting sentenced to hard labor. I’m fine with letting a would-be rapist or a would-be murderer be told about the possibility of getting sentenced to hard labor, and, well, if they explain that they understand right before going ahead with it, sentencing them to hard labor.
Are you ever okay with sentencing folks to hard labor, or are you just frowning on it here?
I agree with both of you that we should right these wrongs, but IMHO this is a separate issue from the current crisis. Even “unfucking those countries asap” is not a short term solution to what we’re facing right now. Immigrants have poured into the United States seeking both refuge and opportunity from Day One. That will never change. We need humane policies and a process for dealing with them, wherever and why-ever they come.
Since many of them think with good reason that their other choices involve being murdered, held in captivity and raped, and/or starving to death – quite possibly with their children suffering the same fate – I suppose some would take it.
However, ‘either be enslaved or be tortured and/or murdered’ not only is inhumane; it’s pretty much the choice all slaves get. I don’t see how what you’re proposing is different from any other slavery. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA should reinstitute slavery?
And somebody breaking into my house intent on raping me is in no way comparable to somebody breaking into my house intent on escaping somebody who’s otherwise going to rape them. Even if a house were equivalent to a country.
Still, let’s be clear: as I understand it, some folks are fleeing for reasons that prompt them to legally request asylum; and other folks just sort of — show up and walk across the border, right? And sometimes they get deported, and come right back in?
I’m talking about the latter. I’m not talking about the former.
Exactly right! If someone breaks into my house bent on rape, that’s a matter for the cops — and, as I’d said, I’m okay with a story that can end in “and then they got sentenced to hard labor.” But if someone breaks into my house and says they’re just trying to escape a rapist — well, then, that’s not a situation where I want them to end up getting sentenced to hard labor. I agree with your point; I just apply that same yes/no split right back to the original scenario, is all.
I’m saying that, to the best of my knowledge, the USA currently has inmates engage in prison labor; and I’m asking whether it makes sense to do that in this context likewise.
That has to be done by letting people in and allowing them to stay in proper facilities and/or with friends or relatives while their cases are investigated. It can’t be done by chasing them all back across the border, whatever their motives and degree of endangerment are, and telling them to hike back home and, if they survive and are able to, to reapply from there. (Whether or not the waiting list is literally decades long.)
And that’s what we’ve been doing; and to some extent what we’re still doing, though I’ll cut the Biden administration a bit of slack to the extent to which they’re trying to build and rebuild housing and processing facilities which the Trump administration had refused to deal with.
My whole point, there, was that (a) granted, some folks show up and request asylum — and I take your point to be that we have to sort out which ones had a valid case to make, and which ones didn’t — but (b) some folks show up and don’t request asylum; some of them are showing back up, after having gotten booted out the first time without ever mentioning asylum, which brings us to them not mentioning asylum upon crossing the border a second time.
If someone isn’t even bothering to claim that they’re one of the which-is-which types in need of sorting, then I’m not seeing that we need to so, uh, sort.
But, again, I figured the idea was that this would be the end result of legal proceedings — you know, as with sentencing folks to hard labor for anything else.
To revisit your analogy: if a guy breaks into my home and winds up getting taken into custody, it’s possible that we wind up in a ‘sorting’ scenario: they might, as you say, claim that they were merely fleeing a would-be assailant — but, of course, it’s easy to say that; it could be true but it could be a lie. But if a guy breaks in (a) with a mask and a gun, (b) and doesn’t say anything about fleeing — well, again, it could be that they just forgot what to say or didn’t bother, but we kind of base our system around the idea that we’re going to look into this and, quite possibly, decide a criminal sentence is appropriate, instead of, y’know, just declaring that whole idea off-limits: sometimes, we decide, prison labor makes sense; so, please, clue us in as to whether this is going to be one of those times when we’re sorting based on a claim that you were, uh, fleeing a would-be assailant.
