Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

Yeah, you can't just leave a damn four year old on the street. That's not safe.

Right, they might sleep on the ground. Or catch diseases. One would even call that malicious.

Or they might get hit by buses, get kidnapped, fall into rivers, starve, get recruited by human traffickers, be shot by police, freeze to death, or become evangelicals.

You can't rationally pretend there is some moral equivalence here. At least in the current situation there are people generally trying to take care of them, however incompetently.

[thompson]

As a rule, letting people into a country without having a plan for them isn’t a good idea. You invariably run into issues like ghettos, which are very difficult to fix once in place.

More broadly, I’d like to point out that “I just don’t want to take on the cost or responsibility for this issue” is a perfectly rational reason to oppose government policy. It’s selfish, but I’d personally prefer honest selfishness to these lame attempts to develop some contrived moral framework that somehow makes the selfish act righteous.

Edit: Maybe it’s just me, but I suspect these sorts of discussions would be much smoother if we just stated some of this up-front. Illegal immigration is a vexed issue precisely because you have no direct control over it, and you are always dealing with vulnerable people who truly do deserve better. Deterrence hurts people, acceptance pretty much means writing a blank cheque (unless you outsource the deterrence to Mexico...). So, it ultimately boils down to how you balance humanitarian needs to the selfish desire to limit spending on the issue.

Edit 2: To clarify, my position is more a “humane treatment with deportation in all but exceptional circumstances”. There’s an inherent contradiction there, and I don’t know how that works with children. Ideally you would focus more legal pathways for refugees who are then assessed on some basis. Additional funds would then go towards expanding those pathways.

Edit 3: with unaccompanied children there’s no point keeping them in immigration detention facilities. What alternative is there but to put them in state care? God that’s a horrible “solution”. I can’t imagine you would get enough children to overwhelm that system though, unless you count it’s business-as-usual state of dysfunction as being perpetually overwhelmed. But that’s another matter entirely.

[delphonso]

Or they might get hit by buses, get kidnapped, fall into rivers, starve, get recruited by human traffickers, be shot by police, freeze to death, or become evangelicals.

You can't rationally pretend there is some moral equivalence here. At least in the current situation there are people generally trying to take care of them, however incompetently.

You're right. To state that the detention center were made miserable as deterence and that isn't malicious is also fucked, though. Because if making it bad so people stop coming is a solution, then why not just let them roam free, because that's pretty bad, too.

I don't think borders should even exist, but I understand we live in a situation where they do. But clearly the US has and continues to make terrible decisions in regards to immigration. The worst decision, I think, is the amount of effort that goes into stopping it, rather than making it easier or clearer.

I have been an illegal immigrant before, and I can tell you first-hand that it is a stressful, vulnerable, and hard system to escape, especially when governments work to punish the immigrant and not what got them there - in my case a dishonest company, and in these kids' case their parents/whoever sent them and those that enabled the exchange (in my case an agent and in these cases, whoever buys the kid a plane ticket).

You would think that having children, separated from their parents, being locked in cages would be enough to energize the US into doing something actually good for once. But instead the conversation got shoved into the realm of political debate and blame instead of what it should be: a clear moral blunder that we, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, can correct.

[Maximum Spin]

You're right. To state that the detention center were made miserable as deterence and that isn't malicious is also fucked, though. Because if making it bad so people stop coming is a solution, then why not just let them roam free, because that's pretty bad, too.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "malice" means. To me, malice means WANTING people to suffer; if you feel that you need to make a credible threat of suffering in order to prevent people from doing something, and you accept the possibility that you may have to carry out that threat, that is not malicious — even if you're wrong.

To supply a concrete example, I would absolutely shoot a trespasser and I know people who have. I do not want people to trespass on my property, therefore I do not want to have to shoot a trespasser, but if it came down to it I would. I do not think this qualifies as malice against potential trespassers, since, if people do not trespass and thus do not get shot, I'm perfectly happy with that outcome.

[delphonso]

In this example, a trespasser has entered your home. You shot them, let's say, in the leg. They're on the floor.

Now what?

Do you send a stronger message to potential trespassers by shooting them again, say, in the other leg?

[dragdeler]

-

[voliol]

Are the children separated from their parents not a finite group? I though the reason they were separated was due to government (or ICE) policy? Somehing like ”Oh we don’t think you’re really family, let’s kidnap take your those kids and put them in another cage”. Or is that a misunderstanding on my part?

[McTraveller]

I'm beginning to think that until some of us actually go to the borders and see what is happening, we need to stop taking whatever we see from the media as Truth^TM.

My guess is that it's both not as bad and also much worse than we think.  That is, the general case is probably not bad on average, with people trying to do their best in a tough situation, but the extreme cases will be horrific.

[Iduno]

Are the children separated from their parents not a finite group? I though the reason they were separated was due to government (or ICE) policy? Somehing like ”Oh we don’t think you’re really family, let’s kidnap take your those kids and put them in another cage”. Or is that a misunderstanding on my part?

Nope. It at least has been standard policy for all children.


And, as someone else mentioned, we're (the US in general, nad the government specifically) fairly responsible for a lot of the need for people to seek asylum. Starting coups and destabilizing governments since the 80's at least. First, wiping out villages to make sure the poor didn't live long enough to become communists, then putting drug lords in power because they're good capitalists, then killing anyone working for the drug lords when it came back to us. Same as when the US took out Venezuela's power grid while forcing sanctions through the UN.

I'm beginning to think that until some of us actually go to the borders and see what is happening, we need to stop taking whatever we see from the media as Truth^TM.

My guess is that it's both not as bad and also much worse than we think.  That is, the general case is probably not bad on average, with people trying to do their best in a tough situation, but the extreme cases will be horrific.

I'm guessing there's a reason ICE facilities are specifically exempted from the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

[McTraveller]

Why would there even be a law to eliminate something in a certain area, where that thing is already illegal "everywhere"?  I mean we don't have a "Prison Murder Elimination Act" - it's already illegal there.

[Rolan7]

Declaring something illegal technically does very little to stop it from occurring.  It's all about enforcement (and education/rehabilitation measures, ideally).  What crimes get attention, and how do the enforcers respond to them?  Cocaine is technically illegal too

The measure provided states with funding to specifically address this problem.  Presumably that would be spent on training and hiring enforcers, and other methods.

[Doomblade187]

Acts to reduce specific crimes also typically have reporting requirements.

I don't think anyone wants to see the numbers coming out of detention centers. :|

[McTraveller]

So we needed a law to specifically say that we need to enforce the law?  Sad.

[Maximum Spin]

In this example, a trespasser has entered your home. You shot them, let's say, in the leg. They're on the floor.

Now what?

Do you send a stronger message to potential trespassers by shooting them again, say, in the other leg?

If I hit the leg by accident the first time, the second time, I would not miss.

eta:

Are the children separated from their parents not a finite group? I though the reason they were separated was due to government (or ICE) policy? Somehing like ”Oh we don’t think you’re really family, let’s kidnap take your those kids and put them in another cage”. Or is that a misunderstanding on my part?

No, there are literally new unaccompanied minors coming over the border more or less every day, brought by traffickers (who don't exactly stick around with them).

[dragdeler]

-