Do you think the majority of Americans, or even the majority of Democrats, would be fine with everyone crossing the southern border being given a court date and then be allowed to wander the country until then? Maybe you and I think that’s the right thing to do, but do you think attacking the very idea of immigration detention is a vote getter? If they were being held with 5 star accommodations, it would still be a concentration camp right? Because migrants are being concentrated!
Yes, of course I’m aware. So? Children accompanying their parents are also not in “the wrong place at the wrong time”. Which is my point.
I agree. That’s why my idea is better than detaining children in cages.
I had some faith in the American electorate before 2016. Now I have very little. The fact that ANYone still supports the Cheeto-faced Shitgibbon continually astounds me.
I honestly don’t think your country will ever recover. I think this is the start of a long slide down.
Also, quick meta note.
I’d rather we not discuss whether or not we’re actually running concentration camps at the borders. At least if you don’t have at least some form of expertise (say, a historian, or a holocaust expert) to weigh in with. This thread is not about the “whether”, it’s about the “electoral impacts of”, and while “this isn’t a thing that will have an impact because it’s not a thing” is a take one can have, I sincerely doubt that anyone involved is going to step the rhetoric down, especially as conditions in the camps continue to worsen and people keep on dying. Whether “concentration camp” is 100% accurate or not, now it’s out in the mainstream, and it’s very unlikely that that genie gets put back in the bottle.
(Besides, I tried to have that conversation before and it didn’t go well. I do welcome anyone interested to make their own thread, and I’ll gladly participate in it, but let’s try to keep this thread on topics germane to elections, i.e. “what will this do to the polls”.)
I think the majority of Americans are blissfully unaware of just how much of their produce is picked by people crossing the border without permission, how much lawncare/landscaping/construction is done by people crossing the border without permission, how many hotels rooms/offices/buildings/homes are cleaned by people crossing the border without permission, how much childcare is provided by people crossing the border without permission.
We have ELEVEN MILLION people in the US without permission, they didn’t all just arrive in the past month or two. They’ve been coming here for decades. The country has not imploded. CLEARLY no one really gave a damn about this until recently.
Well, OK, Ronald Reagan worked up an amnesty deal for a few million back 30+ years ago. See how well that worked?
So while a lot of Americans want to get butt hurt about this all of a sudden in actual fact they approve of it, and if the cost of food, lawnmowing, new homes, and nannies went up they’d scream bloody murder - because if there are no more illegal aliens to do these jobs for a pittance either they go undone or they’ll have to pay Americans a higher wage to do it. So yes, the majority of Americans are in favor of illegally entering workers whether they realize it or not.
And until very recently YES, that’s exactly what happened: people with a claim to asylum were given a court date and allowed to stay in the US until that point in time. Again, that has been the case for DECADES and the nation has not imploded.
Nope. Because a “5-star accommodation” has things like adequate flush toilets/modern sanitation for the number of people being housed, children could stay with their parents, and a hell of a lot fewer walls made out of chain-link fencing. Oh, and things like actual bedsheets instead of mylar emergency blankets. And actual beds instead of the floor. They could piss or shit when they need to instead of asking/begging permission and hoping they get it before they piss and shit on themselves. They could get a shower when they want it instead of when someone deigns to grant it. There are chairs to sit on instead of concrete. And so on and so forth.
I’m not sure what your point is exactly.
Because the parents did something wrong it’s OK to separate families and lock up young children in cages? Is that what you’re saying?
If that’s the case, then this is the answer:
I think calling them “concentration camps” is intended to have electoral consequences and you damn well know it. And I think it will backfire because I don’t think Americans are against the concept of holding migrants at the border, they just don’t want to see children in cages separated from their parents.
No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that people (whether children or not) who come to a place to request asylum are not in “the wrong place at the wrong time” as per the definitions put forth by iiandyiiii, making his definition of concentration camp non-applicable to those asylum seekers.
Out of curiosity: what the heck do you figure I’d have to do to clearly establish that, no, I’m not in favor of it and do not in actual fact approve of it?
Because a lot of people are not nice people.
Because a lot of people don’t care if it’s not them or someone they care about affected.
But… getting back to the original question…
IF the camps and the conditions in them are sufficiently publicized it may have an anti-Trump effect at election time.
IF the media does not sufficiently show the bad conditions and call into question the morality of the situation then no, it will have no effect on the upcoming election.
I would suspect that a significant number of Trump supporters see it as a dichotomy - that it’s either keep illegal immigrants in camps, or let them wander about freely in America. And that as long as the only viable alternative to “concentration camps” is “Let them roam about,” then they won’t oppose the camps.
Do you not think a significant number of Americans, not just Trump supporters, see this as a dichotomy? What do you think anti-Trump people want to happen?
When possible, purchase “fair trade” foods and commodities and items that you can establish are harvested by legal residents (whether citizens or here with permission). This will cost a little bit more, it is true, but put your money where your mouth is.
Hire workers for your maintenance/construction/childcare needs that can prove they are here legally (whether citizen or here with permission), or if you go through a third party, ask for assurances they their employees are such. Again, this will cost you more money but put your money where your mouth is.
Of course, as a person on the internet I can’t check up on you, and frankly, I’m not interested in that sort of job anyway, but the more people who “vote” in the manner I outline above the less of an unwanted migration problem we’ll have.
Less - because some of these people are not so much running towards the US as away from some terrible thing where they came from. It could be lack of food due to crop failure. It could be fleeing from drug cartels and other sorts of criminal gangs. It could be a situation like Venezuela where a country has collapsed and remaining is more dangerous than leaving. You aren’t going to “discourage” such people short of machine gun fire - I don’t want to go to that extreme and I hope you don’t either. When being locked up in jail is safer than staying home you’re not going to stop such people from trying to enter the US… but it’s not a justification for treating them like shit, either.
Yes they are (at least some of them, anyway). We might have different understandings of that phrase, but people doing the only things they can to survive but still being punished for it are “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Well, it doesn’t seem like there is that much media attention about it. If it was so bad, wouldn’t it be on TV and on the front page of every newspaper every single day?
This is essentially a question about messaging. I think it’s possible that the Democrats could tie the phrase “concentration camp” to the GOP with some very skilled and coordinated messaging, but I don’t know if they’re capable of that. I’d also like them to make the phrase “party of sexual assault” part of their regular rhetorical drumbeat, at least from the designated attack dogs (the actual candidates can use “nicer” rhetoric). But this would take some coordinated messaging that they may or may not be capable of.
Forgot to mention that even a successful and coordinated use of these phrases, such that they’re tied to the GOP to the same level that “big government” is tied to the Democrats, imight have no significant affect on the election, because so many Americans are fine with the idea of concentration camps for migrants and don’t believe sexual assault is a significant problem. But in the long term, as attitudes change, these could be very effective attacks.
You realize you can be jailed or detained even if you haven’t been found guilty in a court? Migrants aren’t randomly being rounded up. Those who are suspected of being here illegally are in some cases being detained. Just like people in the US who are suspected of other crimes may be put in a jail while awaiting trial.
Why isn’t anyone warning these people that concentration camps await them at the US border? If there were actual concentration camps, wouldn’t that dissuade them from coming? That seems like common sense.
I hope the Democrats continue to push this narrative. Most people have common sense and will see it as lies.