They come from shithole countries, definitely.
Their parents are endangering them by makng them cross deserts. How does a guard know that kids is actually family?
So, putting them in cages with their famillies would be acceptable?
Does this mean you’re in favor of more children being put in danger?
Trafficked. Bought and sold (or rented) to improve your chances of being accepted. It’s usually and aggravating fact that, whle doing an illegal action, you put a minor in danger.
[QUOTE]
OK.
Because I’m evil.
I don’t like your theory and dismiss it as easily as you proposed it.
Yes, none have been presented here. Definitley one of my proposals would be to disincentivize endangering minor on your way to the US.
There are 15 links in that post. Which is the one you think solves the problem?
But… they don’t matter, because the people running this program aren’t looking for effective, non-cruel solutions. We know that this is a new policy designed to be cruel as a deterrant. It’s not an easy problem, but the Trump administration is not looking for solutions. People who have been paying attention to this issue are aware that the problem is not and never has been “We don’t have a way to solve this other than child separation”. The cruelty is the point.
I’m all for deterring people from putting minors (their own or otherwise) in danger.
Which of your solutions or appeals to pity reduces the number of children endangered by adults?
I’m not so I avoided the lecture.
Yes, you are. You favor putting children in danger and benefitting people who traffick children under the excuse of “sending them to a better place.”
They’re not separating families to protect children. The administration stated the real reason why on multiple occasions – they see value in harming families and children for deterrent purposes. The administration purposefully separated families because they saw value in separating families. It was to deliberately harm families and children for deterrent purposes. By their own words.
If you’re peremptorily dismissing the relevance of basic morality, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what fundamental principles you *do *base your position upon.
"Yes, well, I’m polymerized tree sap and you’re an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you.” - S. Cooper
Everything comes down to a moral question at some point, and the point of laws is to attempt to codify our morals into a legally enforceable structure.
If you cannot use morals to decide that not murder is better than murder, then how do you justify laws about homicide or violence. If you cannot use morals to show that not stealing is better than stealing, then how do you justify laws on property rights?
All laws are based on morality, so to then say that you don’t care about morality, only the law, is to have it backwards.
If the law serves morality, if the law attempts to reflect the morality of the people. then that is a path towards egalitarianism.
If morality serves the law, if morality is defined by what is legal and illegal, then that is a path towards totalitarianism.
I believe laws come from morality in many cases. I just know that the set of axiomatic principles that comprise a moral code are in fact axiomatic. Secondly, moral codes are not universally shared. I’m willing to argue morality but in doing so there will be irreconcilable differences that will arise. Ultimately, those are resolved via force.
They are most successfully and peacefully resolved through a representative democracy. Obviously, at some times, force is required, as society’s disapproval of murder may not reconcile with Crazy Eddie’s approval of murder.
No, morals are not universally shared, but we have come up with a framework that most of us can agree to mostly.
It is the edge cases that get argued back and forth, not the 90% of what we agree on. And I would think that sending a mentally ill person off to die painfully and alone in a foreign country should be something that falls into that 90%, and that those who will accept or even cheer such a result are in the extreme minority. This should not be an edge case, concentration camps shouldn’t be edge cases. We should be arguing whether the small number of immigrants who need to be detained should be getting 20 or 30 square feet of room each, that’s the sort of thing that doesn’t fall into the
part that everyone should be agreeing on.
Yeah I’m not gonna lie, if sending a mentally ill homeless person off to near-certain death in a foreign country they’ve never lived in isn’t something that disgusts you, I’m not really interested in debating morality with you, any more than I want to debate morality with someone who is about to shoot up a mosque. You have found excuses to be cruel, and I don’t really want to try to explain why something is wrong to someone who is that far gone.