The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,648
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
You want a hat for that straw man?

But hey, since you bring up Nazi Germany and the concentration camps there, you know who is comparing the concentration camps in the US to Nazis? Holocaust survivors and their families.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/never-again-action-ice-protests_n_5d1cc0abe4b0f312567d7267
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-concentration-camps-border-20190707-story.html

Of course this doesn't mean every holocaust survivor is in agreement, there is a difference between a labor camp, a death camp, and a concentration camp. All labor and death camps are concentration camps, not all concentration camps are labor camps or death camps.

As for calling them concentration camps, I'm not alone in this. About a quarter of Americans also say it's an appropriate label for them.

Of course you have an "easy solution" - and it just happens to absolve you of any moral qualms by blaming poor, desperate people fleeing a horrible situation. They get here and we stick them in unsanitary, overcrowded cages without access to basic sanitation and blame them by saying "look what you made me do."

Can you sink any lower?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,710
You want a hat for that straw man?

But hey, since you bring up Nazi Germany and the concentration camps there, you know who is comparing the concentration camps in the US to Nazis? Holocaust survivors and their families.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/never-again-action-ice-protests_n_5d1cc0abe4b0f312567d7267
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-concentration-camps-border-20190707-story.html

Of course this doesn't mean every holocaust survivor is in agreement, there is a difference between a labor camp, a death camp, and a concentration camp. All labor and death camps are concentration camps, not all concentration camps are labor camps or death camps.

As for calling them concentration camps, I'm not alone in this. About a quarter of Americans also say it's an appropriate label for them.
Literally everyone who calls the border detention centers "concentration camps" is an ignorant and despicable human being.



Of course you have an "easy solution" - and it just happens to absolve you of any moral qualms by blaming poor, desperate people fleeing a horrible situation. They get here and we stick them in unsanitary, overcrowded cages without access to basic sanitation and blame them by saying "look what you made me do."
If conditions are so bad over here, why are thousands of people climbing fences and fording rivers to come sit in our terrible "concentration camps"? Why have the Democrats refused to pass legislation that would've provided additional funding for the processing centers? Why are liberals protesting Wayfair for providing beds to migrants? Why do liberals not care about gang members sneaking over the border and killing Americans? The whole bleeding heart propaganda is complete bullshit that's disconnected from even a trace of logical reasoned thought. Let me guess, do you think that illegals deserve free healthcare and that crossing the border illegally shouldn't be a crime?
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,648
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Literally everyone who calls the border detention centers "concentration camps" is an ignorant and despicable human being.
Well that's a thoughtful and well-reasoned response - especially since the camps are the textbook definition of a concentration camp; you just don't want the moral ambiguity of supporting them given the reality of what they are.

If conditions are so bad over here, why are thousands of people climbing fences and fording rivers to come sit in our terrible "concentration camps"?
So your'e saying the current policy is not effective at dissuading migrants fleeing worse conditions. This is being shown in the data, by the way; migration has actually gone up under Trump's plan. Coyotes are telling people they need to go now or they won't ever get in as way of driving their own business. Fear is being used as a weapon on both sides.

Why have the Democrats refused to pass legislation that would've provided additional funding for the processing centers?
Because they refuse to fund modern day concentration camps that are ineffective, inhumane, and the mere existence of which is a violation of human rights. Also, nice "whataboutism"

Why are liberals protesting Wayfair for providing beds to migrants?
Because they are profiteering of the ineffective, inhumane, violation of human rights. If no vendors or companies were willing to support the camps, they could not exist.

Why do liberals not care about gang members sneaking over the border and killing Americans?
Show me one that doesn't care. It's not that they don't care, they just don't agree with Trump and his administration's approach to dealing with the problem. Besides, the vast majority of migrants are not the disease-carrying violent gang members Trump claims them to be. Those people exist, but they are barely a rounding error compared to the number of non-violent refugees.

The whole bleeding heart propaganda is complete bullshit that's disconnected from even a trace of logical reasoned thought. Let me guess, do you think that illegals deserve free healthcare and that crossing the border illegally shouldn't be a crime?
A pipe for your straw man to go with that hat from earlier? I never said any such thing. What I have said is that presenting one's self at the border to seek asylum is not a crime - yet those who do are being incarcerated in concentration camps, separated from their families, and their children are being lost in the system. The Supreme Court has ruled (Estelle v Gamble) that people incarcerated by the state are the responsibility of the state, that means it is the state's job to provide for their basic needs - including healthcare.

To use your argument: If you don't want to provide healthcare, don't incarcerate them.[/QUOTE]
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,696
Location
Michigan USA
Citation needed, I couldn’t find any use of the word “holocaust” to describe a genocide other than WW2.

Again that is absolutely horrifying, though from what I understand it’s more an issue of good old governmental incompetence in identifying the families to be reunited. Doesn’t excuse it at all but does fall more in the “bumbling fool” sector
than “tyrannical dictator”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust


If the want to be dictator didn't put forward the policy, the government would not need to undo it.
 

marcos_eirik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,492
Location
Oslo, Norway
Car(s)
Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
If you don't want to end up separated from your children [...] there's one very simple solution - DON'T CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALY! Literally just walk away.
In pretty much every single civilized country on earth you have to either apply at the border, or physically cross the border in order eligible to apply for protection (asylum). This is universally agreed upon as a human right. Providing safety for persecuted people is a very old tradition, going centuries back.

In Norway (famously not a shithole) the law (Immigration Act, section 28 first paragraph) says you have to be at the border, or within our borders to apply for asylum. You will then have to proceed to the facility where refugees are registered, and then they will be given accommodation, somewhere in Norway while their application is processed.

On a funnier note I recently saw an e-mail that our inquiries service received (all of us, even the lawyers, have to take our turn and answer phones and e-mail for about one day every month) it was from an American citizen and it said: "My great, great grand father emigrated from Norway to the United States a little over a 100 years ago, I now realize he made a big mistake, can we come back?"
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,696
Location
Michigan USA
Literally everyone who calls the border detention centers "concentration camps" is an ignorant and despicable human being.

So the people that lived through the Nazi era camps are ignorant and despicable?

I am at a loss of words.I
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,501
In pretty much every single civilized country on earth you have to either apply at the border, or physically cross the border in order eligible to apply for protection (asylum). This is universally agreed upon as a human right. Providing safety for persecuted people is a very old tradition, going centuries back.
And that is how it is supposed to work here too, at a port of entry. It is not a crime to enter through a port of entry and request asylum. But it is a crime to attempt to cross between ports of entry, which is why these people are being detained. Every year people die trying to cross illegally and it's the height of foolishness to encourage and incentivise such things. We also know that catch-and-release does not work. Only something like 10% of people show up for their court case and it's kinda tough to issue a warrant for someone's arrest when they have no social security number, no address, no phone number, etc. Combine that with sanctuary cities and we end up with a de-facto open borders system, and a permanent underclass, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

These detention facilities need to be better, much better, but they should continue to exist, and we should do everything we can to prevent illegal border crossings as well. If you have a valid asylum claim, go to a port of entry and do it legally.

And no, "fleeing poverty" is not a valid asylum claim. Treating it as such is utopian lunacy of the highest order. ~90% of the world lives under the poverty line by US standards...
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,648
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Valid or not, it's a major motivating factor that can't be dismissed. The poverty is only part of the problem, there's also the corruption, violence, cartels, gangs, and countless other factors that are perpetual problems in the countries these people are fleeing. Hell, look at Venezuela right now - if you were there, you'd be doing anything you could to get out too, including risking illegal border crossings and indefinite detention for the small chance of a better life.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,501
Valid or not, it's a major motivating factor that can't be dismissed. The poverty is only part of the problem, there's also the corruption, violence, cartels, gangs, and countless other factors that are perpetual problems in the countries these people are fleeing. Hell, look at Venezuela right now - if you were there, you'd be doing anything you could to get out too, including risking illegal border crossings and indefinite detention for the small chance of a better life.
I consider fleeing imminent violence to be a perfectly viable excuse to claim asylum. The problem is once these people enter a country like Mexico, they should be reasonably safe from whatever violence they were in immediate danger from in their home country. I mean, we have stories of migrants from Africa, buying plane tickets and flying to Central America, and then making their way north and crossing between ports of entry into the US. I'm pretty sure the moment you put an entire ocean between you and your home country, you should be reasonably safe from whatever violence you were fleeing.

Now of course they might argue that even Mexico has violent areas and gangs, but so does the US. We also have poverty, corruption, and countless other factors that make life difficult for people. We need to ensure that our system is not being gamed. They should go to a port of entry and claim asylum legally. If there is some imminent threat against them in Mexico, they can inform the agents at the border crossing. But we cannot permit illegal crossings between ports of entry.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,648
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
I agree with everything you just said. It's a human right to seek asylum, the asylum seeker can go to any country they want and request asylum status - it doesn't mean it will be granted, but we shouldn't throw people into overcrowded cages and deny them basic sanitation for asking. Remember, these people are not necessarily educated in the asylum process; they likely have been misled by traffickers about what they should do.

The fact that we are caging asylum seekers and taking away their children is disincentivizing people from using the legal asylum process and pushing them to take their chances on entering illegally. When we treat both the same, there's a non-zero chance of getting through illegally and a zero chance of getting through legally, people will opt for the one that they see as being the best chance in their immediate situation.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,501
The fact that we are caging asylum seekers and taking away their children is disincentivizing people from using the legal asylum process and pushing them to take their chances on entering illegally. When we treat both the same, there's a non-zero chance of getting through illegally and a zero chance of getting through legally, people will opt for the one that they see as being the best chance in their immediate situation.
As far as I'm aware, people who cross legally through a port of entry and claim asylum are not breaking any laws, and are therefore not being held in any sort of detention facility. It's only the people crossing illegally that are being detained. That is my understanding anyway.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,407
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust


If the want to be dictator didn't put forward the policy, the government would not need to undo it.
Yes I know the word didn’t originate with Nazis (nor did the swastika) but it has come to mean one very specific event in human history.

If the courts/congress are undoing his policies it pretty much by definition makes him not a dictator. Point is that the system is working more or less as designed, checks and balances are preventing him from doing whatever he wants to do.

To be honest I don’t think he is actively trying to be a dictator, I think he is trying to govern a country as he would a business.

@Blind_Io you have made it rather clear you don’t support those detention centers, what you haven’t made clear is how do you suggest we deal with influx of immigrants.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,710
It's a human right to seek asylum, the asylum seeker can go to any country they want and request asylum status - it doesn't mean it will be granted, but we shouldn't throw people into overcrowded cages and deny them basic sanitation for asking.
What should we do with asylum seekers while their claims are being reviewed and processed? Can't release them into the United States because they'll never turn up again; can't keep them at the border apparently... What should we do?
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,648
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
What should we do with asylum seekers while their claims are being reviewed and processed? Can't release them into the United States because they'll never turn up again; can't keep them at the border apparently... What should we do?
They can be screened for whether or not they have some contacts in the US that can house, support, and be responsible for them getting to court dates. If they have to be detained, the conditions in which they are housed have to be habitable and humane with access to services (yes, including healthcare), food, water, basic hygiene, and caseworkers or lawyers. Asylum claims need to be screened as impartially as possible - which is something Congress needs to take on, this can't be a standard that changes on the whim of an executive order. If someone is deported, that needs to be done quickly and with some kind of handoff back to the home nation's government; not just dumped at some port of entry.

There also needs to be a maximum length of time for any incarceration or detention before a case is processed, either to move to supervised release into the community with some kind of sponsor, granted asylum, or deported. There needs to be consequences for failing to hit those standards and companies in charge of facilities or processing applications need to lose their contracts if they are found to be violating the rights of asylum seekers.

Finally, we need to have a better legal immigration system that allows people to come to the US through a standard (non-asylum) process; this needs to be navigable and reasonable with at least a decent chance of getting into the country legally in a timely manner.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,710
If they have to be detained, the conditions in which they are housed have to be habitable and humane with access to services (yes, including healthcare), food, water, basic hygiene, and caseworkers or lawyers.
As I mentioned earlier, the Democrats have refused to take up bills that would've directed more funding towards making detention centers more hospitable (for lack for a better term).


If someone is deported, that needs to be done quickly and with some kind of handoff back to the home nation's government; not just dumped at some port of entry.
Wouldn't it make sense then to secure our border so that someone who is deported can't cross back in illegally?


There also needs to be a maximum length of time for any incarceration or detention before a case is processed, either to move to supervised release into the community with some kind of sponsor, granted asylum, or deported. There needs to be consequences for failing to hit those standards and companies in charge of facilities or processing applications need to lose their contracts if they are found to be violating the rights of asylum seekers.
  1. As long as the default at the end of that timeline is deportation, I'm fine with it. I'm flat-out against simply letting someone into the US on their own recognizance if they haven't been cleared.
  2. Are there actually contractors in charge of detention facilities? If so, news to me. Not a trick question, I'll learn something new if that's the case.

Finally, we need to have a better legal immigration system that allows people to come to the US through a standard (non-asylum) process; this needs to be navigable and reasonable with at least a decent chance of getting into the country legally in a timely manner.
That gets into questions such as a) do we need more people here? b) what should the standards be? c) who do we want to come here? d) what impact would increased immigration have? etc
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,696
Location
Michigan USA
Another one bites the dust. Acosta resigns because of scrutiny about the sweetheart deal he made with Epstein.

 
Top