"Concentration camps-like" migrant youth shelters in the US have taken over 10,000 children.

starviego

Rookie
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
72
. These people come from a region of the world where just yesterday dismembered bodies were being scattered down main-street like confetti. Where the authorities are corrupt and largely subservient to drug cartels who butcher people for kicks....
That may be true, but why is it our job to solve these people's problems? Don't we have enough of our own? There's a world of hurt out there. Are we supposed to save them all?
 
Last edited:

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
That may be true, but why is it our job to solve these people's problems? Don't we have enough of our own? There's a world of hurt out there. Are we supposed to save them all?
Clearly not. America can't take on the burden of the entire world, and is right even to apprehend illegal border-crossers to ascertain whether or not they have any legitimate claim to asylum, and particularly to ascertain if children in the company of illegal border-crossers are comfortable with and not in peril from the adults in their company.
The old system, which Thunderian describes above in relative accuracy, had families very briefly detained in order to establish the above facts. They may have even briefly separated those families, so as to inspect and interview the children, assuring they're with family and not being abused.
Then, as Thunderian said, they'd be released together while their application for asylum goes through. If it's approved, which is very rare to be true, those families AREN'T illegal immigrants, they're asylum-seekers, and are welcomed to the country.

If you separate undocumented families, move them to separate facilities, and confine them for prolonged and potentially differing periods of time, the chances of those families ever getting back together are terribly slim, even if their application for asylum is approved- all though I'm getting the distinct impression the Trump administration is no longer approving any asylum-seekers anyway.

Again, you're right, America can't save the whole world. But when a mother and child show up at your very doorstep cold and hungry, I hope you can understand how that's a very different thing than starving kids across the ocean. America unquestionably has its own problems and its own poor, but even if there's not enough in your pantry to feed that mom and her kid, even if you don't really have room for them and can't invite them in, are you going to put them in cages, drag them to opposite ends of town, and forget about them?

Charity is a high ideal, but not always possible. Decency is always possible, and to most people a minimum requirement where dealing with children is involved.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
I am always amazed that these people allegedly one step away from being murdered back in their home country are always able to have plenty of kids. More kids than Americans can afford to have.
Poor people in third world countries don't have solid access to birth-control, and don't have access to lasting jobs, absorbing hobbies, distracting entertainments, etc. It's a well-known fact that brith-rates in the third world far exceed those of the first world, and it's not particularly surprising given those factors.
 

starviego

Rookie
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
72
....they'd be released together while their application for asylum goes through. If it's approved, which is very rare to be true, those families AREN'T illegal immigrants, they're asylum-seekers, and are welcomed to the country.
And--surprise, surprise--everybody showing up at the border in now an asylum seeker.

... when a mother and child show up at your very doorstep cold and hungry, I hope you can understand how that's a very different thing than starving kids across the ocean.
The people across the ocean have figured that out, and are now showing up at our southern border. (Requesting asylum, 'natch)
 
Last edited:

DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
7,596
Maybe because our alphabet agencies caused their problems?
Excellent post Lurker perhaps if they stop bombing those countries, messing with their politics and give a chance for an economically viable future not that many would come. People generally do not want to make these dangerous journeys but through necessity.

Charity is a high ideal, but not always possible. Decency is always possible, and to most people a minimum requirement where dealing with children is involved.
Agreed they can tighten up their borders no one can fault that, however, child separation is inhumane. Not decent and frankly fascist.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
That may be true, but why is it our job to solve these people's problems? Don't we have enough of our own? There's a world of hurt out there. Are we supposed to save them all?
If it's not your job to save them then why in the blue hell did your barbaric country (USA) go into places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and etc. to supposedly "help" them? You patriotic Lady Gaga listening robots like going to places where you don't belong under the guise of "help" but then when it involves real help on the footsteps of your border it's all of a sudden not your problem a?
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Phewph. So long as it's just the law-breaking toddlers.
You know they aren't all toddlers. The overwhelming majority of the children in custody did not arrive with their parents. They were either sent by their parents with human smugglers (a business that has sprung up due to the non-enforcement of immigration law that was practiced under previous administrations), or they are being trafficked into the US by criminals.

Do you believe there's such a thing as legitimate asylum-seekers? Families in such grave peril that they deserve asylum, even after fleeing across the border without an approved application? Is that something you consider a possibility, or is the border more sacred than, say, a mother and her child doomed to die if they turn back?
There are absolutely legitimate asylum seekers, and it bears pointing out that when families seeking asylum arrive at an official port of entry, they are not separated. It's only illegals who are dealt with in this way.

The poor choices of toddlers in breaking laws they don't comprehend warrants the punishment of indefinite separation from all family and loved ones, and incarceration in a holding facility for an equally indefinite period of time?
I am not happy thinking about innocent children being kept away from loving hands, but you must know that these aren't all toddlers. The media is trying to portray this in the most heart-rending terms possible, and you can see they're succeeding in that barely a week ago no one knew or cared about this issue.

I mean, those pictures of that one largely empty facility look nice enough, but this is a multi-state effort using facilities of all sorts, is it not? You have seen the photos, authorized for release because they wont let photographers into these facilities, of kids in space-blankets sleeping on floors in kennel-style chain-link cages?
Have you heard this?
There are clearly things to be desired with the program, but there are no signs anyone is being abused. If the countries these kids came from are so bad, this would be a relatively small price to pay for the eventual freedom to live in a much better country. And as I pointed out earlier, no one is being held against their will. They are welcome to return to their home country at any time.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
I don’t get why people are up in arms about this. It’s not America’s job to let everyone in and only benefits corporations who have even more access to even cheaper labor.

On the other hand it’s circular in the fact that the US often has a hand in the poor conditions these “asylum seekers” are running from.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
You know they aren't all toddlers.
I am not happy thinking about innocent children being kept away from loving hands, but you must know that these aren't all toddlers.
You're absolutely right that it's not all families being split up, that it's not all toddlers being confined, that there are criminals and child-traffickers among them, trying to exploit the children in their company. All of that is true, and I don't debate it. But there ARE toddlers among them, and some of those toddlers have been separated from their mothers or fathers, possibly permanently. America is actively incarcerating toddlers for indefinite periods while intentionally separating them from their families for equally indefinite periods as a matter of policy. This is new, this is true, and this is obscene.
And as I pointed out earlier, no one is being held against their will. They are welcome to return to their home country at any time.
You keep saying this, and it's a bit bewildering, particularly as I'm not well versed in American border-law. Are you saying if folks who are caught across the border illegally are apprehended, they at any time can say 'alright, alright, I'll head home' and be released to head in the opposite direction? Some kind of 'Go on, git!' clause in the law? It sounds unlikely to me. Or are you simply saying a willingness to risk incarceration is a willingness to be incarcerated?
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
I don’t get why people are up in arms about this. It’s not America’s job to let everyone in and only benefits corporations who have even more access to even cheaper labor.
There's a reason why the Koch brothers are supporting the Democrats in immigration issues. They love the cheap illegal labour.

As part of the big picture, this is more proof that Trump is the real deal. Enforcing immigration law is an anti-globalist stance.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
As part of the big picture, this is more proof that Trump is the real deal. Enforcing immigration law is an anti-globalist stance.
The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing is a fallacy. The US had Germany as a common enemy with Russia during WW2, but this "friendship" ended up costing more to the US in the long term. Trump is just a loose cannon that is, ultimately only controlled opposition.
 
Top