Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 10:03:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 19, 2018 10:49:09 GMT -5
Rationality has nothing to do with accepting evil policies. It is simply being sociopathic enough to accept human rights abuses because one can't muster any emotional reaction for kids being ripped out of the arms of their parents and gathered in internment camps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 11:58:48 GMT -5
Rationality has nothing to do with accepting evil policies. It is simply being sociopathic enough to accept human rights abuses because one can't muster any emotional reaction for kids being ripped out of the arms of their parents and gathered in internment camps. Kind of wish I'd just said that, rather than spending hours responding point by point. The National Review's hysterical pinko liberal bleeding heart David French has a few words (I'm quoting snippets -- go to link for full context). Yeah, he wants Congress to act. But it's not because only they can stop this particular policy -- the President can stop it with a nod, and French wishes he would. It's not because they need to come up with a better solution first if we are to stop this zero tolerance policy, and meanwhile, oh well, it beats catch and release, right. It's because they need to take back their rightful Constitutional power from the president and keep him in check. And hells bells yes, the laws we've tossed around in this thread were NOT intended to justify family separation for the misdemeanor of crossing the border illegally. Come on, guys. You may never have seen me this emotional and this "irrational" before. But please consider that maybe, just maybe, getting past the Tone Argument... I'm right about this policy being unfucking acceptable, period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 12:49:00 GMT -5
oh, by the way?
Yes, this is better than catch and release.
To note, they are separating boys from girls, and children by age groups. In other words, if the kids have siblings, they are likely to be separated from them too, and have no idea where they are or when and if they will be united. Please picture a small child dealing with that.
Did I mention that the children are not permitted to hug one another, nor are staff and visitors permitted to hug them? One of my cites above discusses it, but there are plenty of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 12:55:20 GMT -5
To the "oh, if we don't jail them they'll just disappear" point that someone made above --
Also, by the way --- we're all worried about the costs of illegal immigrants, but isn't it pretty fucking expensive to arrest them all and warehouse all the family members apart? Asking for a friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 15:44:42 GMT -5
I want to add one more thing (or rather, elaborate on something I already said), and then I'm done unless someone has a new point.
My intention in making my slavery analogy above was actually not to measure up the evils of slavery to the evils of separating kids from their parents, or to compare the misery of slaves to that of these kids. I think there are some comparisons, I think both are incredibly wrong, but that wasn't why I brought it up.
I brought it up in response to Amadan and Prozyan scoffing at my legal discussion as weak sauce. Since that apparently wasn't clear --
Amadan and Prozyan are right. I can't say "existing law absolutely forbids Trump from doing this". I can only say "existing law doesn't require Trump to do this, and indeed we never did do it until he enacted his zero-tolerance policy. Since I cannot argue "existing law forbids it!," as they correctly note, I am heavily falling back on "it's fucking wrong and a violation of basic human rights."
Okay, so my point with the slavery analogy --
If you had asked me, in 1850, to counter the "legal" argument for slavery (the constitutional reference to it, the statutes, the case law, the historical precedents, etc.) -- not to mention the economic arguments (the economic devastation to slave states and slave holders), and certain social arguments (what are we gonna do with all those suddenly freed slaves, huh? how's that going to work?) -- you know what I'd have?
NOTHING. Nothing at all. A big fat NOTHING. I'd be standing here with my thumb up my ass. Because slavery was not just a matter of discretionarily enforcing a statute as harshly as it would allow -- it was a policy that was specifically spelled out in and protected by our legal system and constitution, and had been from our country's founding. Moreover, it was enmeshed in the economic prosperity of the slave states. Undoing it was necessarily a matter of actually changing the law and (as grotesque as this sounds) taking away valuable property from people who'd legally acquired it, causing them and their states great personal economic harm. No way around it, unless you wanted to pay them for their slaves, which is economically disastrous in another way.
Point all that out to 1850 me, and demand a legal argument, and I'd have nothing. ALL I would have had in response was "it's wrong. It's a violation of the slave's basic human rights. FFS, it's wrong." And half the white people in the U.S. (the rest didn't count, of course) would have said "pffft, it's the law. Show me how it's not legal or shut up." And I'd have worse than nothing.
Here, actually, that's not the case. This family separation policy is NOT enshrined in that 9th circuit case nor any other. The statute does not contain a draconian "you must toss these people in federal prison" much less " you must take away their kids and dump them in cages." It's a discretionary -- and new -- policy the president can stop with a wave of his pinky finger. Moreover, that 9th circuit case is wholly about protecting vulnerable migrant children. That's why you don't dump them in prison. Doing what we're doing with them has the exact opposite of the effect on children that the court intended. It's actually grotesque that it's being used to justify the family separation policy. If this ever comes to a court, trust me that they'll be arguing that.
So yeah, my legal argument that "hey, the law does not say we have to do this" is actually a fuckload stronger than ANY legal argument I could have made against slavery.
Ditto the economic arguments -- please, the economic effects of illegal immigrants, catch and release, etc., is just nothing at all like the effect of freeing slaves. I don't have to take away huge amounts of what "property" people "legally" paid for. There won't be farms, businesses, industries that suddenly have had their free workforce yanked away. (Yes, that's totally a gross argument, I agree, but it is unfortunately how slaveholders and half the country saw it.)
So yes, at bottom, my main argument isn't legal at all. Amadan and Prozyan are totally right, there. My primary argument is "For god's sake, people. We are taking innocent kids from their parents, and this is what is happening to them. And it's just fucking wrong."
If that seems weak to you, well, okay. But the "legal" argument against slavery was non-existent. Not everything actually comes down to a legal argument. The only reason I made that one at all was because I understood Prozyan to be arguing that law going back to the Clinton era requires this (which is in fact what Trump's admin is arguing, or one of their arguments). And, no, it doesn't. The slavery-era laws explicitly protected slave owners rights to own slaves. But nothing in current law mandates this policy, and no change to laws needs to be made to stop it.
And to be clear -- an argument in favor of this family separation policy boils down to "yes, I think it's okay, if distasteful, to take migrant kids away from their parents and dump than in cages for the sake of deterring illegal immigration." (Though, as I point out somewhere above, it so far is NOT having that effect.) So you're not really relying on legal argument -- this is not a "but the law says this is what we have to do." This is a discretionary policy, one you think can be justified, at least to some extent.
And to the extent that's your argument, I admit have no answer except that I think it's seriously fucking wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 16:00:23 GMT -5
I think you missed the point of our objections.
I did not bring up the law to argue that separating children from parents is what the law prescribes, so that's what we should do.
You keep speaking as if we advocated a policy of being Lawful Evil - follow the law no matter what, even if it says slavery is legal and hiding Jews from Nazis is illegal. That is not what what anyone here advocated.
I brought up the law because entering the country illegally is illegal, and allowing people to get away with it by bringing their children is encouraging them to do it more. So if we intend to enforce that law (which I think we should), we need to do something besides recoil in horror because enforcement is unpleasant when children are involved.
I would prefer that we do something that is neither letting people continue to get away with breaking the law nor taking children away from parents. But I feel like we've been arguing in circles now.
The problem with the slavery analogy is that slavery is inherently immoral (I think we all agree on that), so I can't construct a metaphor in which we morally defend pro-slavery laws. But I do not think laws controlling our borders, and even imposing harsh penalties on people who attempt to enter the country illegal, are inherently immoral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:07:54 GMT -5
I think you're missing the point of mine. Controlling our borders, okay. That's not inherently immoral. I never said it was.
What IMO is inherently immoral is taking kids away from their parents and dumping them in a cage. Controlling the borders doesn't require that and does not justify it.
And if I must clarify, my chief concern is the welfare of those kids.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 19, 2018 16:09:00 GMT -5
Rob, I guess I'm having some trouble with your points, too. The kids are safer in Walmart without their parents? There are only a couple thousand of them, fewer than some might think? I don't know what that bit about Walmart means. And you don't seem to be even acknowledging my points, as your absolutist position is seemingly grounded on assumptions like these: all of the separating going on is permanent or at least long term, there's nothing comparable to these actions in the rest of the legal system, and all of the children in question are being separated from their actual parents (who of course have full custodial rights to them). I don't think any of those assumptions hold up. And the process you want to return to is one that people up to no good want to return to, as well, because it gives them a card to play if they are caught crossing the border illegally. That necessarily means children are sometimes getting used (at the very least) by people who don't give two shits about them. What do you think happens to the kids who get used in that manner? Seriously. But hey, they don't protest and they don't have people protesting for them, so let's pretend they don't exist... Of course that last bit isn't fair, but imo neither is relying wholly on one's moral superiority, comparing this to the Nazis, to slavery, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 16:16:26 GMT -5
I think taking children away from parents is situationally immoral. The crux of our disagreement is whether or not the crime of attempting to enter the country illegally is severe enough to warrant being separated from your children. To me, that's conditional based on a lot of factors that have been brought up already. I'd prefer it didn't happen, and when it does happen, for it to be temporary. To you, the answer is an unequivocal and absolute no. We are not going to agree on this point.
As for dumping kids in cages and telling the social workers they can't hug them, yes, that's fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 19, 2018 16:19:15 GMT -5
I guess I still don't understand how you can basically support the immigration policies promoted by the Trump admin - unless it's out of your own desperation (or, the perceived desperation of others) as it were. America first? I dunno. I don't see the numbers of illegal immigrants making it into the U.S. each year having a significant impact on (worsening of) the problems we already have in this country, specifically in impoverished areas. Ready for more cognitive dissonance? I don't support the policies promoted by the Trump admin. Just because I blame the laws and Congressional inaction instead of the Trump administration does not mean I believe in or support what Trump is doing. Trump is a child. A bully. And any number of other pejoratives. But I don't blame Trump for acting like Trump. If you have a puppy that chews things you don't blame the puppy for chewing up the shoes you left on the floor. You blame yourself for leaving your shoes on the floor. Much in the same way, I don't blame Trump for using existing law and policy to a horrific end. I blame those who left behind the existing law and policy that lets it be used to a horrific end. In short, for decades everyone involved in politics or immigration issues recognized this could be an issue. They didn't do shit to solve it. So I blame the existing laws and Congressional inaction for the situation. Someone once has a signature quote regarding Don. It said something to the effect they blame the Feds for Don. If they didn't keep fucking things up Don wouldn't be able to point out how they fucked it up. I don't view this much different. If decades of kicking the can down the road and pretending there wasn't an issue hadn't occurred, Trump wouldn't be able to use the current system as the club he is. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Trump is not a puppy or a child. He's a grown-ass adult and he's the President of the United States. Not holding him accountable for his own actions over decades is likely part of the reason he acts the way he does. Making what amounts to excuses for his behavior is not absolving him of blame, nor is it looking so hot on those minimize his culpability for what he and his administration are doing. Fifty-eight percent of republicans support Trump's actions here. I'm guessing most of them aren't like "oh this is so cool that kids are being torn away from their parents! I love this new policy!" I'm sure there's a lot of tsk-tsking going on. I imagine most of the lot are saying similar things as some on this thread; well, illegal immigration is a crime, we need immigration reform, OBummer, et al, etc., etc. Nah, Trump and his admin are most certainly at fault, knew they'd have base support, and are playing a political game with children's well-being to get...a wall, I assume. And Trump and his ilk need to be called out on it, repeatedly. The end. All that said, even if people didn't think Trump was at fault, surely it is painfully obvious that he has the power to STOP his own zero-tolerance policy. If people aren't calling him to use his power to do exactly that, then, is it wrong to assume they're okay with the zero tolerance policy and the separation of children that results from it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:23:09 GMT -5
If you don't know what the Walmart thing means, you haven't been reading much about where and how they are dumping the kids, or for that matter, the stuff I've already posted. wnep.com/2018/06/16/what-its-like-inside-the-former-walmart-in-texas-where-1400-immigrant-children-are-held/www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/18/17474986/family-separation-border-videoIf you need me to explain other references, such as cages and aluminum foil blankets and no hugging or touching, I'll be glad to provide more cites (though I actually think I have, above). I've posted a couple of things on the permanent effects and long-term harm to the children from this. Many of my articles discuss the plight of these parents and kids. Your assumption seems to be, hey, they're apart for a very short time, and what's the big deal. Read my links. Do you think these kids are now with people who give two shits about them? Hell, we literally don't even know where they all are. And that's on us, because we separated them from their parents. And ultimately, it sounds like your position comes right back to Amadan and Prozyan's : "hey, we gotta do something about illegal immigration, and if this is what it takes..." And no one has bothered at all to address my cites saying that so far the policy does not even appear to be a deterrent (even if deterrence could justify this policy, which IMO it couldn't).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:24:13 GMT -5
As for dumping kids in cages and telling the social workers they can't hug them, yes, that's fucked up. Thank you for saying that, anyway. Yes, it is massively fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 19, 2018 16:25:14 GMT -5
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Trump is not a puppy or a child. He's a grown-ass adult and he's the President of the United States. Not holding him accountable for his own actions over decades is likely part of the reason he acts the way he does. Making what amounts to excuses for his behavior is not absolving him of blame, nor is it looking so hot on those minimize his culpability for what he and his administration are doing. Fifty-eight percent of republicans support Trump's actions here. I'm guessing most of them aren't like "oh this is so cool that kids are being torn away from their parents! I love this new policy!" I'm sure there's a lot of tsk-tsking going on. I imagine most of the lot are saying similar things as some on this thread; well, illegal immigration is a crime, we need immigration reform, OBummer, et al, etc., etc. Nah, Trump and his admin are at most certainly at fault, knew they'd have base support, and are playing a political game with children's well-being to get...a wall, I assume. And Trump and his ilk need to be called out on it, repeatedly. The end. All that said, even if people didn't think Trump was at fault, surely it is painfully obvious that he has the power to STOP his own zero-tolerance policy. If people aren't calling him to use his power to do exactly that, then, is it wrong to assume they're okay with the zero tolerance policy and the separation of children that results from this policy? Ah, yes - I meant to address that earlier, but forgot with all the other exchanges. I agree with most everything Prozyan has said, but I do agree with this - "Don't blame Trump for acting like Trump" is facile. He is to blame for the choices he makes, and he's chosen the worst possible way to go about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:25:25 GMT -5
Ready for more cognitive dissonance? I don't support the policies promoted by the Trump admin. Just because I blame the laws and Congressional inaction instead of the Trump administration does not mean I believe in or support what Trump is doing. Trump is a child. A bully. And any number of other pejoratives. But I don't blame Trump for acting like Trump. If you have a puppy that chews things you don't blame the puppy for chewing up the shoes you left on the floor. You blame yourself for leaving your shoes on the floor. Much in the same way, I don't blame Trump for using existing law and policy to a horrific end. I blame those who left behind the existing law and policy that lets it be used to a horrific end. In short, for decades everyone involved in politics or immigration issues recognized this could be an issue. They didn't do shit to solve it. So I blame the existing laws and Congressional inaction for the situation. Someone once has a signature quote regarding Don. It said something to the effect they blame the Feds for Don. If they didn't keep fucking things up Don wouldn't be able to point out how they fucked it up. I don't view this much different. If decades of kicking the can down the road and pretending there wasn't an issue hadn't occurred, Trump wouldn't be able to use the current system as the club he is. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Trump is not a puppy or a child. He's a grown-ass adult and he's the President of the United States. Not holding him accountable for his own actions over decades is likely part of the reason he acts the way he does. Making what amounts to excuses for his behavior is not absolving him of blame, nor is it looking so hot on those minimize his culpability for what he and his administration are doing. Fifty-eight percent of republicans support Trump's actions here. I'm guessing most of them aren't like "oh this is so cool that kids are being torn away from their parents! I love this new policy!" I'm sure there's a lot of tsk-tsking going on. I imagine most of the lot are saying similar things as some on this thread; well, illegal immigration is a crime, we need immigration reform, OBummer, et al, etc., etc. Nah, Trump and his admin are most certainly at fault, knew they'd have base support, and are playing a political game with children's well-being to get...a wall, I assume. And Trump and his ilk need to be called out on it, repeatedly. The end. All that said, even if people didn't think Trump was at fault, surely it is painfully obvious that he has the power to STOP his own zero-tolerance policy. If people aren't calling him to use his power to do exactly that, then, is it wrong to assume they're okay with the zero tolerance policy and the separation of children that results from it? Indeed.
|
|