Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I mean, if you post an article to whatabout, you might want to read it in depth. 11 children were detained over the course of a year without their parents, because they were unaccompanied. Not because they came with their parents, but had not parents with them at the time of being held.

In the same article, the average hold time is 13 days.

I'm not going to say it's a fun ride. But frankly, if you're seeking asylum a 2-week period is probably reasonable to check things out.

I'm not happy about the fathers being kept separately, but I expect there are reasons. It may not be perfect, but it's not taking kids away from both their parents and leaving them there for months at a time, either.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hmph. I never did see those defending the child separation saying much about Trump reversing course.

I don't think we should let that slide, frankly.

We really shouldn't. It's absolutely terrible and I believe it will (and should) scar this administration indefinitely. There is no way to excuse those actions. And as I've mentioned before in my eyes it's morally the worst thing since Jim Crowe laws.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

In Canada, 151 children were detained. As your own article states, about half were seperated but usually children are kept with their mothers. So, lets say 75 children over the course of a year.

Comparing that to over 2,000 children seperated from their parents 100% of the time in less than 2 months is literally the laziest, crappiest attempt at "both sides are equally bad" that perhaps has ever been typed on these forums - like taking a free throw, but you miss by 15 feet, and your pants fall off, also.

Suffice to say, it's not about "both sides are equally bad" but about consistency.

I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

The intent was not to practice Catch & Release, ala previous administrations. Which will be necessary anyways as they can only detain the migrant kids for 20 days (per the Flores doctrine).

Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

Looking at the article, the context in Canada is different. Canada held 151 children, with their parents, and 11 unaccompanied minors, in detention over the space of a year, based on risk assessment criteria.

That is a very different thing from the current issue here. The US intentionally separated 2,000 children from their parents in the space of a few weeks and held them in custody as a general policy.

Yea, it's not a precise apples-to-apples comparison, I'll submit to that. Just wanted to point out that these things happen.

It seems like much of the outrage stems from simply because it's the Cheeto Maniac in the White House, when separated childrens occurred by a ton PRIOR to Cheeto Maniac's election.

If you decry the zero tolerance police, then acknowledge that the alternative is really "Catch and Release"... which is essentially advocating for open borders.

What does it say on the Statue of Liberty again?

Something about huddled masses?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What does it say on the Statue of Liberty again?

Something about huddled masses?

Oh shush you. That only counted when it was the right kind of immigrants. You know the ones. Don't make me say it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What does it say on the Statue of Liberty again?

Something about huddled masses?

And?

It's a poem, not a legal statute.

 whembly wrote:


I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..

Yes, 75 is just as bad as 2000. Come on.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..

Yes, 75 is just as bad as 2000. Come on.

And who is at fault?

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..

Yes, 75 is just as bad as 2000. Come on.

So the policy is ok, as long as there is an arbitrary number that isn't being met. Got it.

A poke in the eye and a chainsaw to the leg are both acts of physical violence. One of them is still clearly worse than the other, and I don't think anyone's going to hush the guy saying 'Chainsaw Massacring people is bad' because he did a Three Stooges bit.

 djones520 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..

Yes, 75 is just as bad as 2000. Come on.

So the policy is ok, as long as there is an arbitrary number that isn't being met. Got it.

You must have missed the posts last page where we broke down exactly the difference between Canada's and the current US admin's immigration policy. It's OK, this dumpster fire of a topic moves quickly.

Canada detained 11 unaccompanied minors in a year, and 150 minors were detained with their parents. If we really were living in a just as bad (tm) world, this would 161 minors detained separately as a matter of policy.

In a matter of months, the current US admin detained and separated over 2000 children as a matter of policy. You can see the obvious and shameful difference.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

In Canada, 151 children were detained. As your own article states, about half were seperated but usually children are kept with their mothers. So, lets say 75 children over the course of a year.

Comparing that to over 2,000 children seperated from their parents 100% of the time in less than 2 months is literally the laziest, crappiest attempt at "both sides are equally bad" that perhaps has ever been typed on these forums - like taking a free throw, but you miss by 15 feet, and your pants fall off, also.

Suffice to say, it's not about "both sides are equally bad" but about consistency.

I mean, if we talking about irreparable harm being done to detained childrens, then I think we all can agree that if it's bad when it's 20,000 kids per year, it's just as bad if it's only 75 kids per year. The difference is simply the volume of this occurring between countries..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Sessions was on a radical fundamentalist propaganda network recently, defending his concentration camps, and pretending the separation of families was "not intended".

He is either A: Stupid or B: Lying. Neither answer is desirable for the AG.

Gads, I'm not even American and this tomfethery is infuriating.

The intent was not to practice Catch & Release, ala previous administrations. Which will be necessary anyways as they can only detain the migrant kids for 20 days (per the Flores doctrine).

Maybe you should look closer to your country's tomfethery too.

Looking at the article, the context in Canada is different. Canada held 151 children, with their parents, and 11 unaccompanied minors, in detention over the space of a year, based on risk assessment criteria.

That is a very different thing from the current issue here. The US intentionally separated 2,000 children from their parents in the space of a few weeks and held them in custody as a general policy.

Yea, it's not a precise apples-to-apples comparison, I'll submit to that. Just wanted to point out that these things happen.

thats fair.

It seems like much of the outrage stems from simply because it's the Cheeto Maniac in the White House, when separated childrens occurred by a ton PRIOR to Cheeto Maniac's election.

Partially thats probably true, nay is absolutely true in some respects. I think however the circumstances and intent are different. Trump comes off as doing this because he wants to be mean, wants it to be a deterrent, and the administration has said as much (among other things), while illegal crossings are at record lows, neither of which were true under Obama, and they werent making life difficult for asylum seekers at the ports of entry in the process. From my understanding under Obama, separation occurred only when an issue arose like weapons or drugs being found on parents, not as a general matter of course for anyone caught.


That this administration cant seem to get its people all on the same page for even a couple of days didnt help. Trump botched the optics on this about as bad as one can.

If you decry the zero tolerance police, then acknowledge that the alternative is really "Catch and Release"... which is essentially advocating for open borders.

In a practical sense that could be true to an extent (single dudes caught with cocaine bundles arent gonna get by on an asylum plea), though at least theres a record of their crossing and they can get put into the system for the state and justice departments to get to at some point if caught and released.

I'm not thrilled about that either really, but I think it's better than the policy more recently pursued. I'm not against adding more BP officers or expanded monitoring of the border or the like, there's lots of valid reasons to deport people that I think can be better and more aggressively addressed, but I don't think the policy of a mexico facing Iron Curtain that Trump appears to be pursuing is a winning ticket either.

So after the corpse of “we have to take kids from mothers because congress won’t act”’ is not even cold yet, Trump tells congress there isn’t a need to act because of reasons.

And his basic campaign message for the GOP in the midterms is “we control both houses and can’t get anything done in either, so give us more control”.

To get extra security against the scary undocumented immigrants Congress might have to allow certain reforms for increased stability to stand strong against the wave of danger. Maybe give Trump a more long term position to help out. Then round off a job well done with some thunderous applause...

Its clear the current system can't work.

jouso wrote:

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

The Ukraine thought that too. Even agreed to give up their Nuclear weapons. Boy were they wrong!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

The Ukraine thought that too. Even agreed to give up their Nuclear weapons. Boy were they wrong!

I was told they had to because their nuke was only operational using Russian infrastructure, with no way of recalibrating to using Ukrainian.

So they *had* to give it up, even the the US "agreed in principle" to give some security to them... (who was the President when that happened? And who was President when Crimea was lost to RU??)

So, the Supreme Court ruled in Favor of Carpenter and privacy in a 5-4 decision. I'm quite happy with this, and I think anyone should be really.

When religion and politics mix, it is often religion that bends to the other:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-trump-evangelicals-back-self-styled-top-u-112721399.html

 Sasori wrote:
So, the Supreme Court ruled in Favor of Carpenter and privacy in a 5-4 decision. I'm quite happy with this, and I think anyone should be really.

I havent seen much on this one, but it seems to be in line with Katz, and seems to crop up with basically each new generation of personal technology (Olmstead was found guilty via illegal wire-taps, but he wasn't pardoned until well after due to the Katz decision, to give some reference to generations of tech)

 d-usa wrote:
When religion and politics mix, it is often religion that bends to the other:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-trump-evangelicals-back-self-styled-top-u-112721399.html

You mean a large portion of evangelicals are hypocrites and go against their self asserted "values" at almost every turn?

 djones520 wrote:
So the policy is ok, as long as there is an arbitrary number that isn't being met. Got it.

Well, the policies are not the same. The reason I went with the numbers is because that's clearly and unarguable worse by an order of magnitude; over the same timeframe one system produces about 75 and one would have, all things being equal, have produced 12,000.

The numbers are symptomatic of the fact that one policy is being done when it's necessary and proper (unaccompanied minors, minors that appear to be neglected or abused, etc) and one is because literally 100% are being detained.

Let's do this. I will stipulate that it's always OK to sometimes seperate minors, regardless of country, when the purpose is their own best interests at heart (unaccompanied, neglected, abused, etc) if you will stipulate it's not OK to detain 100% of all minors for the purpose of politically-driven punishment.

I'd also go so far as to say that the US policy on detaining minors was just and proper literally 2 months ago and prior. The fallacious idea that "any child being detained by ICE is horrible only because Trump is POTUS" being championed by Whembly seems to be forgetting no one was concerned up until now.

 whembly wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

Dude, Europe outspends Russia in defense something like 10 to 1. It's cool to think about columns of T-72 rolling through the Fulda gap over a few beers on a FoW TY game, but those days are long gone.

The Ukraine thought that too. Even agreed to give up their Nuclear weapons. Boy were they wrong!

I was told they had to because their nuke was only operational using Russian infrastructure, with no way of recalibrating to using Ukrainian.

So they *had* to give it up, even the the US "agreed in principle" to give some security to them... (who was the President when that happened? And who was President when Crimea was lost to RU??)

There was no Russian or Ukrainian infrastructure back then. It was all Soviet infrastructure. It was a single country with a shared infrastructure. Part of the infrastructure was located in Russia, but it was nothing that they could not have easily separated and replicated. They had all the neccessary infrastructure and knowledge. The Ukrainian SSR was one of the major missile producers of the Union. Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons seemed a smart decision for them back then. It saved them a lot of money in maintenance costs, and Ukrainian leaders of that time would have never thought they'd ever end up being at war with their Russian brothers.

Also, I believe the US president at the time was George Bush, and at the time of Russia's re-annexation of the Crimea it was Barack Obama.

I also have to imagine using nuclear weapons in that situation wouldn't have been a very good idea on top of the structural problems.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The Ukraine thought that too. Even agreed to give up their Nuclear weapons. Boy were they wrong!

There's a significant difference between a country that is an ally of convenience, not particularly close culturally but useful as a counter to Russian interests in the region, and our closest cultural and political allies. One is somewhat expendable for the sake of preventing an escalation of the war, the other will be defended much more strongly.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So the policy is ok, as long as there is an arbitrary number that isn't being met. Got it.

Well, the policies are not the same. The reason I went with the numbers is because that's clearly and unarguable worse by an order of magnitude; over the same timeframe one system produces about 75 and one would have, all things being equal, have produced 12,000.

The numbers are symptomatic of the fact that one policy is being done when it's necessary and proper (unaccompanied minors, minors that appear to be neglected or abused, etc) and one is because literally 100% are being detained.

Let's do this. I will stipulate that it's always OK to sometimes seperate minors, regardless of country, when the purpose is their own best interests at heart (unaccompanied, neglected, abused, etc) if you will stipulate it's not OK to detain 100% of all minors for the purpose of politically-driven punishment.

I'd also go so far as to say that the US policy on detaining minors was just and proper literally 2 months ago and prior. The fallacious idea that "any child being detained by ICE is horrible only because Trump is POTUS" being championed by Whembly seems to be forgetting no one was concerned up until now.


I would support decriminalizing the act of illegal entry and make it an issue where we simply fine them and deny them welfare benefits.

Are you saying we fine them, let them in, then treat them as second class citizens?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Are you saying we fine them, let them in, then treat them as second class citizens?

not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen. Also, they are not citizens. Treat them as guests or tourists.

 thekingofkings wrote:
not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen.

It kind of does. You're literally saying that certain people do not have all of the rights that citizens normally get.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
not being eligible for welfare does not make someone a second class citizen.

It kind of does. You're literally saying that certain people do not have all of the rights that citizens normally get.

But they are not citizens at all.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Are you saying we fine them, let them in, then treat them as second class citizens?

Well, they're not citizens...

That doesn't mean that protections of US law and the constitution don't apply, but it's entirely fair to expect that they would not simply be automatically granted access to all benefits and privileges enjoyed by citizens.