Lurker > Truth_Decay

The conditions are deplorable. The amount of time is gross. Obviously no child should be subject to the abuse that some have faced. But at some point we have to be realistic. We have a border for a reason.

Agree, but I believe we differ as to where we draw the line. I'm not okay with breaking families up at the border. Being a parent myself, I realize how damaging that can be. I'd be okay with detaining families under certain conditions. The modified motels from the 90s were okay, as each family had a somewhat decent living space, but they'd need to be better. Children should have access to education, and even recreation. Conditions need to be improved all-around, including at temporary holds.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Smarkil posted...

I don't have the time to go through all the points, but they're all somewhat related to this. The reason we can't immediately deport this people is because they're claiming not to be illegal immigrants. They're claiming amnesty. So in order to process them for amnesty, they have to be detained while they go through the rigor. As you said, children cannot be detained. So what do we do with them? We can't leave them with their alleged family (trafficking not withstanding which, by the way, I would consider 'thousands' in spades according to the snopes link I posted) because detaining them with or without their family is still detaining them; which is illegal.

As I said, any trafficking is horrible, no matter the amount. But even as pervasive as it may be, it's still a small percentage of border crossers. The majority of these families have legitimate claims to seek asylum. I'm not comfortable punishing everyone for the actions of a comparative few. I think that's one point where we differ. Crossing illegally is a very minor offense. Having your children taken away is terrible. Having your children taken away for something as minor as this is way over the line of what is appropriate punishment considering the offense.

So because they won't revoke their amnesty, we have no choice but to detain the parents. What do we do with the children then? We can't just release them into the US and we certainly can't send them home on their own either. So basically the parents are forcing the government to do something illegal one way or another. At best we can release them to relatives in the states, but there's a lot of paperwork and verification that goes with that as well, which is how the Obama administration ended up releasing thousands of children to alleged traffickers.

We do catch traffickers at the border. It's not as if every trafficker slips through. While I'm sure it happens, and will continue to happen, again you're punishing thousands of people for the actions of a comparative few.

And if you're releasing children to traffickers, you're not catching them, so deporting them doesn't solve this. Then, you're just deporting them with their traffickers. Or you're detaining children with their traffickers. How is that any better? And you're traumatizing thousands of families for no more than crossing illegally just to go after this comparative handful of traffickers.

Also, the amount of accompanied children compared to the amount of unaccompanied children is still staggeringly high. I can't find the figure I was looking at again and I don't have time to look further, but I seem to recall it was something like 14k unaccompanied children (for the year?) to roughly 2k accompanied. Only 3.5% of unaccompanied minors are eventually removed once in the states, for the record, according to the DHS.

And we need a solution to that, as well. But the solution is certainly not adding even more minors into the internment population.

The government is trying to enforce the law and now everyone is jumping down their ass about it. As I said before, apparently the only way they can appease their detractors is to just let all these people in and say 'Fuck it'.

Detractors for the most part aren't just throwing their hands up and saying "Fuck it." Again, there are other solutions, and probably none of them are ideal. But some of those solutions are better than violating human rights and terrorizing children. Trump wanted to be the big, tough border protector and use helpless children as a bargaining chip for his dumb wall, and it backfired on him.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

And apparently it wasn't all that well executed because [human trafficking] was still being done in spades.

"In spades" is dubious, at best. But any human trafficking at all is unacceptable. The problem is that Trump implemented a blanket policy. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor offense. Very minor. It's like detaining every person who gets a parking ticket and taking their kids away just to try and catch one person who committed a hit-and-run and killed somebody.

What's funny is that there is, or was at one time not sure if it's still a thing, an expedited process for handling families. If we could detain families together, there is a streamlined process for either vetting or deporting them...

Again, detaining families together can present potential problems when it comes to trafficking. Separating them makes sense. Why they don't have an expedited process for families, or why they can't seem to get their shit together and do it within a few days for each family, I don't know. That needs to be resolved.

The issue with detaining families is that it's illegal to detain the children. I don't profess to have a better solution, but the one proposed by Trump is unlawful and immoral.

As for electronic monitoring, how is that supposed to work? Electronic monitoring for parolees and the like works because the people who are on it are relatively (at least compared to an immigrant) stable. They have a home, which is used for the homepoint for the device. They have a set schedule/location that they'll be in. And in terms of scope, it's relatively few compared to the amount of parole officers to monitor them.

You can't do that on the scale of immigrants. More so because there's virtually no reason for them not to just destroy the device and fuck off.

This is true. I didn't propose this as the only sensible solution. Only to point out that there are other solutions that don't violate human rights and have the US incarcerating toddlers.

My only problems with this whole situation are the conditions these people have to live in, and the speed at which they're processing them. Otherwise I don't consider this a human rights violation.

Again, even if they're only being separated for a couple of days, that is a gross violation of human rights. If their only crime is crossing the border illegally, removing their children is a disgusting overreach of authority.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Smarkil posted...

So releasing someone with the expectation that they'll come back for a court appearance rarely ever works. The Trump administration, immigration being one of their main campaign promises, is cracking down on ineffective immigration policies. This doesn't seem illogical. The practice of this might be flawed, but the principle of it doesn't appear to be.

I agree that catch-and-release is a flawed system, but if the alternative is gross violation of human rights and incarcerating children, then I'd rather go with the flawed catch-and-release method.

When I said people were being treated the same way, I meant they were being treated like cattle (IE placed in cages with mats and space blankets). This isn't something that changed under the Trump administration. People were already being treated like that since at least as far back as 2014. Possibly earlier.

Normally, when people are put into cages with space blankets, it's a temporary situation and they do everything they can to get those detainees into better accommodations if they are to remain detained.

But yes, those minors were unaccompanied. These ones aren't. If we had the option of immediately deporting these people to their country of origin, children included, this wouldn't be a problem. But apparently that's unconscionable too. So what choice do you leave the administration? Apparently the only option is to just say 'fuck it' and let them in the country.

That was part of my previous point. We did have a means to expedite the deportations process... if they kept the families together. The moment you remove the children, they then become unaccompanied minors and the process becomes much more complicated from a legal standpoint. Trump's policy created more issues than it was solving.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Smarkil posted...

But they have been treated this way for apparently years now, including under the previous administration. The only difference now is in separating children from their 'parents' which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing

There has never been a blanket policy for detaining people for the simple act of crossing the border illegally. There was always discretion, and many families would be released once they were processed and told to return at a later date for a court appearance. People who were caught at the border with drugs or evidence of some other illegal activity would be detained, but most people, especially families, would be released. Often no one would make their court appearance, which was an issue Obama's administration had actually tried to address, but Obama's administration deemed it was too cruel to separate children from their families and opted for catch-and-release, essentially punting the issue down the road for someone else to handle.

Once upon a time, they would detain families in what was basically modified motels, but a case settlement in the 90s (can't recall the case off the top of my head) deemed that minors could not be detained, they had to be released. The issue we're having is that the wording in the settlement did not specify "unaccompanied" minors, which was the intent. It simply stated minors could not be detained. So, if you want to detain adults for crossing the border illegally (a misdemeanor), you have to separate them from any children traveling with them. And here we are.

There is already a process to validate that children actually belong to those adults crossing the border. To check for potential smuggling or trafficking. The current administration's process is not doing anything more in that regard.

What's funny is that there is, or was at one time not sure if it's still a thing, an expedited process for handling families. If we could detain families together, there is a streamlined process for either vetting or deporting them. However, when you separate the children it creates something of a legal quagmire that can take months to resolve, and costs more money in the end. But, we can't detain children in "criminal" cells... What we could do is implement electronic monitoring. Even the best electronic monitoring would cost a fraction of what detention costs. There are solutions that don't involve violating basic human rights.

Everything Trump is doing can be overturned with a simple phone call. He's using this tactic to bully Congress into voting for his border wall. It's unnecessary and unconscionable. If you don't see an issue with separating children from their parents, potentially for months, then I'm afraid you're unaware of the trauma and damage this can cause to a child's emotional and even physical well-being, or maybe you simply don't care.

This is disgusting what the Trump administration is conducting at our border. It's un-American. It doesn't have to be this way. Trump wants to be tough on immigration, but he doesn't want to accept responsibility for the uglier aspects of what his policies are creating, and mind you, this situation is wholly a result of his policies. Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Clinton. This all rests on Trump's shoulders, and he could end it today.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Zeus posted...

1) Racist and offensive insinuation, and a pretty stupid one at that.

2) Depends on what criteria you're using to prove your agenda. However, just within the past five years he directed Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, which had Samuel L Jackson.

1) Asking a question is not insinuating anything. Pretty stupid to think that it is, or to think that question is racist.

2) Don't have an "agenda". Again, asking a simple question. When dedbus posted that, I legit couldn't think of a single non-white person that had been cast in a Tim Burton film without looking it up.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Oh yeah that's right!

Haven't watched that in a while.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

dedbus posted...

Still looks too white.

Has Tim Burton ever cast a POC? Legit question. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Cruddy_horse posted...

I was really baffled they decided to lead with the Gears pop thing, thats the kind of thing you announce last not first. Are we made to think that thats more important than Gears 5 lol?

Never heard of "saving the best for last" or having a "grand finale"? A mobile game is a great thing to lead with. Get it out of the way, then on to bigger and better.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah Obama would've just been like, "yes mr. Kim, whatever you want, sir! You guys can have all the nukes you want. Just please don't threaten us anymore! It's very scary!"

Obama being a lousy president does not make Trump a good president by default.

Man, Trump and his supporters are absolute morons.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

ClarkDuke posted...

It's official, Zeus has stopped trying, ok?

He's beyond ignorant.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Zeus posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Money from lawsuits resulting from police misconduct should be taken directly from the department's pension funds instead of from the municipal government's budget.

That's an incredibly stupid and reckless plan, considering how quickly the pension could be wiped out.

1. This shows how pervasive abuse of power is among America's police force.

2. That's the point, genius. Have a punishment that acts as a deterrent to egregious offenses. They still have to go through trials and appeals before being hit with any punishment. It's not as if every claim will result in a payout. If a cop follows protocol, exercises reasonable restraint, they'll be fine. Fucking with someone's money is a surefire way to keep them in line.

Revelation34 posted...

Rasmoh posted...

It's a government body, not a private company, which means that funds that would typically be allocated elsewhere are now going to be used to pay off this suit. That means less resources for the community in some way, in addition to continuing the litigation-happy mindset that our society has adopted.

Get better cops then.

Or you could stop suing over nothing, which seems the better plan. Any time a cop does something wrong even slightly wrong shouldn't mean winning a lotto.

Having a gun drawn on you is "nothing"?
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

Smallville posted...

was this guy specifically targeting black people?

He's a Trump supporter. Of course he's a violent, unstable racist.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind

What a joke. Cops murder unarmed people of color for years, they get suspended with pay and keep their jobs.

Cop shoots unarmed blonde white woman, gets arrested.

What an absolute farce. America is doomed.
---

Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind