children forcibly imprisoned behind barbed wire fences is the same thing as kids being caged up. people need to stop playing semantics and team politics.
It is clearly different in terms of harm caused regardless of how bad the former still is.
The main difference between children being kept in a large facility and something like hotels would not be that they are not imprisoned. They would still be in US custody as minors without ability to freely move. The difference would be in in how humane the treatment is.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Ideally it buys you time to build a better foster network so these kids live in actual homes until theyre sorted out. Certainly plenty of low occupancy hotels around right now.
But again, its all academic, because the Biden administration isnt signaling they want anything better here.
This is well-intentioned magical thinking. I don't consider stuffing teenagers into random hotels with lax security or supervision to be a better solution than what we are seeing currently. Do you want random strangers checking in and having access to these kids? If not, now you need security at these hotels in addition to the small army multi-lingual social workers.
Those hotels also don't *have* to take in these kids, and you don't have a solution for what happens if they refuse. A well-regulated and secure government facility is the least bad of all the options that are realistically possible.
A hotel or similar facility would not necessarily give better access to journalists and the like
Tons of abuse has happened in the past and kept hushed up in facilities that weren't built for the purpose of detaining people and were in the middle of cities
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Ideally it buys you time to build a better foster network so these kids live in actual homes until theyre sorted out. Certainly plenty of low occupancy hotels around right now.
But again, its all academic, because the Biden administration isnt signaling they want anything better here.
This is well-intentioned magical thinking. I don't consider stuffing teenagers into random hotels with lax security or supervision to be a better solution than what we are seeing currently. Do you want random strangers checking in and having access to these kids? If not, now you need security at these hotels in addition to the small army multi-lingual social workers.
Those hotels also don't *have* to take in these kids, and you don't have a solution for what happens if they refuse. A well-regulated and secure government facility is the least bad of all the options that are realistically possible.
While I disagree with the hotels being the superior option. The government 100% can take over these locations as long as they are compensating the providers. (Also, what hotel wouldn't be THRILLED at this time period to guarantee maximum selling of their wares during a pandemic?)
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
There are governmental and private facilities to care for people under supervision and with limited access to the wider world that are not just prisons with euphemistic names.
But sure, we don't have as much of that infrastructure in place because our society has prioritized literal profiting off human suffering over rehabilitation and humane care. That's a problem to address, not to shrug at and go "well I wish we had other options but it'd be a shame to let all these private prison facilities go to waste."
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Ideally it buys you time to build a better foster network so these kids live in actual homes until theyre sorted out. Certainly plenty of low occupancy hotels around right now.
But again, its all academic, because the Biden administration isnt signaling they want anything better here.
This is well-intentioned magical thinking. I don't consider stuffing teenagers into random hotels with lax security or supervision to be a better solution than what we are seeing currently. Do you want random strangers checking in and having access to these kids? If not, now you need security at these hotels in addition to the small army multi-lingual social workers.
Those hotels also don't *have* to take in these kids, and you don't have a solution for what happens if they refuse. A well-regulated and secure government facility is the least bad of all the options that are realistically possible.
While I disagree with the hotels being the superior option. The government 100% can take over these locations as long as they are compensating the providers. (Also, what hotel wouldn't be THRILLED at this time period to guarantee maximum selling of their wares during a pandemic?)
Yeah the government can come in an offer marginally above market rates to an industry that is dying for business right now. Im sure there'd be wrinkles and whatever but the idea that we couldnt find space isnt very serious I think.
"the key mechanism is swift identification, referral to national child protection authorities, and provision of a guardian" is doing a ton of heavy lifting for one sentence and would still require detainment of children.
Also what national child protection authorities are there?
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
There are governmental and private facilities to care for people under supervision and with limited access to the wider world that are not just prisons with euphemistic names.
But sure, we don't have as much of that infrastructure in place because our society has prioritized literal profiting off human suffering over rehabilitation and humane care. That's a problem to address, not to shrug at and go "well I wish we had other options but it'd be a shame to let all these private prison facilities go to waste."
How are those not prisons with euphemistic names other than the reason that got them into those facilities. It is still a building they are held in and don't have the right to leave when they feel like it. Forcible confinement and denial of freedoms they would normally have is the biggest part of what makes a prison a prison outside of the reason they are put into it.
If the issue is the treatment they can expect to say, just say the problem is treatment
Edit: People who have been in those facilities might also argue with them not being prisons. Having been committed once, it felt a lot like being imprisoned to me and the idea that conditions can't be as shitty as in prisons for criminals is kind of hilarious.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
A well-regulated and secure facility (government-owned or at least operated) that is subject to regular third party inspection to ensure the safety and needs of these children are met.
Even that will be a *Herculean* challenge that will be subject to flaws like logistical problems, imperfect implementation, and abuse the same as literally any of the other options.
There's no silver bullet response or correct answer here, only lesser degrees of wrong that will hopefully fall within acceptable parameters.
Government social workers don't come out of thin air.
.....I know?
So what is the plan in the meantime while those social workers are getting trained and whatnot. Or is there supposed to just be so many of them it will be easy to get them in three months or so?
Is the argument that they should be moving towards that already so it might be ready in a few years and they are not doing that? Which is fine but not really a solution to the criticism that they are still doing it at this moment.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Government social workers don't come out of thin air.
.....I know?
So what is the plan in the meantime while those social workers are getting trained and whatnot. Or is there supposed to just be so many of them it will be easy to get them in three months or so?
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Slightly old news but I didn't see anyone post that the previously mentioned last minute union contract set up with ICE during the Trump admin has been rightfully scrapped
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
Slightly old news but I didn't see anyone post that the previously mentioned last minute union contract set up with ICE during the Trump admin has been rightfully scrapped
I mean outside of immigration the US's social services and foster care system is overloaded and badly underfunded especially after the last 4 years and doubly so after COVID took an axe to a lot of state budgets. Its not to excuse things, but it is to put context to things, there is no easy fix to a broken system that struggles under the best of times and we're far from the best of those times.
Like up in my state social services got several black eyes from children being killed by parents because social workers just didn't have the time to do a proper investigation and that was in "better" times.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So an unaccompanied minor crosses the border and gets picked up (or walks into an office seeking asylum).
What do you do with them and what are your perogatives?
They can't be on their own, unsupervised. I'm not gonna elaborate on this point.
- The best place for them is with whomever they were planning to stay with/family in country if available. These places need vetting to some standard which is labor intensive.
- After that an appropriate foster home would be best but there is most likely a language requirement and our current foster system is already fucked so this is a big lift all on its own
- Government provided shelter - whatever shape this takes the government is directly rather then ultimately responsible for the child's wellbeing - food, safety, shelter and education.
Honestly I'd rather see something that looks more like a prep school then a refugee or prison camp.
Treat every minor that crosses the border as if they're guaranteed to stay and begin investing in them with an education that pushes them along in English literacy but also allows for vocational style training or earning up to an associate's degree at the local community college for free.
They'd be able to leave on their own volition at 18 but I'd advocate for letting them stay up till 22. And even if they elect to leave the housing the education offer is still available to them.
And since any political process that even gives them a path to citizenship will ultimately be a lengthy one I'd let anyone who elected to serve in the armed forces be able to circumvent it if they complete their enlistment.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
There are governmental and private facilities to care for people under supervision and with limited access to the wider world that are not just prisons with euphemistic names.
But sure, we don't have as much of that infrastructure in place because our society has prioritized literal profiting off human suffering over rehabilitation and humane care. That's a problem to address, not to shrug at and go "well I wish we had other options but it'd be a shame to let all these private prison facilities go to waste."
How are those not prisons with euphemistic names other than the reason that got them into those facilities. It is still a building they are held in and don't have the right to leave when they feel like it. Forcible confinement and denial of freedoms they would normally have is the biggest part of what makes a prison a prison outside of the reason they are put into it.
If the issue is the treatment they can expect to say, just say the problem is treatment
Edit: People who have been in those facilities might also argue with them not being prisons. Having been committed once, it felt a lot like being imprisoned to me and the idea that conditions can't be as shitty as in prisons for criminals is kind of hilarious.
You're pointing to the worst of alternative possibilities and acting like they're representative of the whole. And, point of fact, the treatment at many of these alternatives are not equivalent to literally prison or literally concentration camps.
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
And its not a high paid job to begin with, and if the pay was better that doesn't mean you'd attract good candidates you'd just attract people who want to make money and for people dealing with children that seems pretty shit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
There are governmental and private facilities to care for people under supervision and with limited access to the wider world that are not just prisons with euphemistic names.
But sure, we don't have as much of that infrastructure in place because our society has prioritized literal profiting off human suffering over rehabilitation and humane care. That's a problem to address, not to shrug at and go "well I wish we had other options but it'd be a shame to let all these private prison facilities go to waste."
How are those not prisons with euphemistic names other than the reason that got them into those facilities. It is still a building they are held in and don't have the right to leave when they feel like it. Forcible confinement and denial of freedoms they would normally have is the biggest part of what makes a prison a prison outside of the reason they are put into it.
If the issue is the treatment they can expect to say, just say the problem is treatment
Edit: People who have been in those facilities might also argue with them not being prisons. Having been committed once, it felt a lot like being imprisoned to me and the idea that conditions can't be as shitty as in prisons for criminals is kind of hilarious.
You're pointing to the worst of alternative possibilities and acting like they're representative of the whole. And, point of fact, the treatment at many of these alternatives are not equivalent to literally prison or literally concentration camps.
It isn't the worst of alternative possibilities. Pretty much everybody involved in them can explain why they kind of suck even when necessary. Most of the problems are pretty much the exact same as a lot of those reported over the last few years with the detention camps
For the younger folk I think fencing is something of an inevitable requirement so they don't wander off or get kidnapped. The people who already treat them poorly aren't going to stop wanting to do harm to children.
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
And its not a high paid job to begin with, and if the pay was better that doesn't mean you'd attract good candidates you'd just attract people who want to make money and for people dealing with children that seems pretty shit.
Wait, what? Are you implying that we should only want people who have a passion for doing it to be teachers/social care workers for kids, etc? People who want money should be right out? I'm guessing you really mean we would get people with money as their only motivation, but I'm still not sure that's a thing we should disqualify folks for, it doesn't mean they'll do a good or bad job.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Ideally it buys you time to build a better foster network so these kids live in actual homes until theyre sorted out. Certainly plenty of low occupancy hotels around right now.
But again, its all academic, because the Biden administration isnt signaling they want anything better here.
This is well-intentioned magical thinking. I don't consider stuffing teenagers into random hotels with lax security or supervision to be a better solution than what we are seeing currently. Do you want random strangers checking in and having access to these kids? If not, now you need security at these hotels in addition to the small army multi-lingual social workers.
Those hotels also don't *have* to take in these kids, and you don't have a solution for what happens if they refuse. A well-regulated and secure government facility is the least bad of all the options that are realistically possible.
While I disagree with the hotels being the superior option. The government 100% can take over these locations as long as they are compensating the providers. (Also, what hotel wouldn't be THRILLED at this time period to guarantee maximum selling of their wares during a pandemic?)
For the oldest kids, this could be an option, but will still be a nightmare to implement.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
+4
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
For the younger folk I think fencing is something of an inevitable requirement so they don't wander off or get kidnapped. The people who already treat them poorly aren't going to stop wanting to do harm to children.
This is where I'm at.
They'll need to be able to go outside, which doesn't seem feasible without a fence.
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
And its not a high paid job to begin with, and if the pay was better that doesn't mean you'd attract good candidates you'd just attract people who want to make money and for people dealing with children that seems pretty shit.
Wait, what? Are you implying that we should only want people who have a passion for doing it to be teachers/social care workers for kids, etc? People who want money should be right out? I'm guessing you really mean we would get people with money as their only motivation, but I'm still not sure that's a thing we should disqualify folks for, it doesn't mean they'll do a good or bad job.
Social work is demanding emotionally, I'm not saying they should be underpaid, but if the only thing that attracts a candidate to a social job is money they probably are not going to do a very good job because its not that kind of work. Its like being a teacher for the money.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Literal goddamn children need adult supervision and cannot be allowed to "come and go as they please" for their own safety.
That doesn't mean we have to stick them in prison with prison guards.
We don't allow American children to carry on life for weeks and months without adult guardians. Does this mean that our entire society is just a giant prison? (Stay out of this, Foucault.)
Providing these kids with supervision from adults who treat them with respect and empathy and not as though they are criminal scum is an actual possibility, if you are willing to believe that better things are possible.
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
What you are suggesting sounds like it would require a ton more social workers than they already have and it was a pretty openly stated problem they lacked a ton of support staff needed
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
And its not a high paid job to begin with, and if the pay was better that doesn't mean you'd attract good candidates you'd just attract people who want to make money and for people dealing with children that seems pretty shit.
Wait, what? Are you implying that we should only want people who have a passion for doing it to be teachers/social care workers for kids, etc? People who want money should be right out? I'm guessing you really mean we would get people with money as their only motivation, but I'm still not sure that's a thing we should disqualify folks for, it doesn't mean they'll do a good or bad job.
Social work is demanding emotionally, I'm not saying they should be underpaid, but if the only thing that attracts a candidate to a social job is money they probably are not going to do a very good job because its not that kind of work. Its like being a teacher for the money.
Good teachers are quitting being teachers because the pay is too low.
Yes there's always the issue that the highest paid positions will attract everyone and not just the most passionate people in the world but more importantly they'll attract people who are good enough to have options.
Posts
The main difference between children being kept in a large facility and something like hotels would not be that they are not imprisoned. They would still be in US custody as minors without ability to freely move. The difference would be in in how humane the treatment is.
as much as some seem to want to believe it is
This is well-intentioned magical thinking. I don't consider stuffing teenagers into random hotels with lax security or supervision to be a better solution than what we are seeing currently. Do you want random strangers checking in and having access to these kids? If not, now you need security at these hotels in addition to the small army multi-lingual social workers.
Those hotels also don't *have* to take in these kids, and you don't have a solution for what happens if they refuse. A well-regulated and secure government facility is the least bad of all the options that are realistically possible.
Tons of abuse has happened in the past and kept hushed up in facilities that weren't built for the purpose of detaining people and were in the middle of cities
While I disagree with the hotels being the superior option. The government 100% can take over these locations as long as they are compensating the providers. (Also, what hotel wouldn't be THRILLED at this time period to guarantee maximum selling of their wares during a pandemic?)
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
But sure, we don't have as much of that infrastructure in place because our society has prioritized literal profiting off human suffering over rehabilitation and humane care. That's a problem to address, not to shrug at and go "well I wish we had other options but it'd be a shame to let all these private prison facilities go to waste."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah the government can come in an offer marginally above market rates to an industry that is dying for business right now. Im sure there'd be wrinkles and whatever but the idea that we couldnt find space isnt very serious I think.
Also what national child protection authorities are there?
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
How are those not prisons with euphemistic names other than the reason that got them into those facilities. It is still a building they are held in and don't have the right to leave when they feel like it. Forcible confinement and denial of freedoms they would normally have is the biggest part of what makes a prison a prison outside of the reason they are put into it.
If the issue is the treatment they can expect to say, just say the problem is treatment
Edit: People who have been in those facilities might also argue with them not being prisons. Having been committed once, it felt a lot like being imprisoned to me and the idea that conditions can't be as shitty as in prisons for criminals is kind of hilarious.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
.....I know?
A well-regulated and secure facility (government-owned or at least operated) that is subject to regular third party inspection to ensure the safety and needs of these children are met.
Even that will be a *Herculean* challenge that will be subject to flaws like logistical problems, imperfect implementation, and abuse the same as literally any of the other options.
There's no silver bullet response or correct answer here, only lesser degrees of wrong that will hopefully fall within acceptable parameters.
So what is the plan in the meantime while those social workers are getting trained and whatnot. Or is there supposed to just be so many of them it will be easy to get them in three months or so?
Is the argument that they should be moving towards that already so it might be ready in a few years and they are not doing that? Which is fine but not really a solution to the criticism that they are still doing it at this moment.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Do these Child Enrichment Facilities not already have staff? Or is it all prisom guards?
https://documentedny.com/2021/02/18/biden-homeland-security-nullifies-ice-union-agreement/
Yeah I imagine the government would need to do a great deal of hiring. Lot of people needing work right now though and I bet itd be a little easier to hire people if you werent trying to get them to work at the fascist kids' prison.
Time to end deportations agin
Like up in my state social services got several black eyes from children being killed by parents because social workers just didn't have the time to do a proper investigation and that was in "better" times.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What do you do with them and what are your perogatives?
They can't be on their own, unsupervised. I'm not gonna elaborate on this point.
- The best place for them is with whomever they were planning to stay with/family in country if available. These places need vetting to some standard which is labor intensive.
- After that an appropriate foster home would be best but there is most likely a language requirement and our current foster system is already fucked so this is a big lift all on its own
- Government provided shelter - whatever shape this takes the government is directly rather then ultimately responsible for the child's wellbeing - food, safety, shelter and education.
Honestly I'd rather see something that looks more like a prep school then a refugee or prison camp.
Treat every minor that crosses the border as if they're guaranteed to stay and begin investing in them with an education that pushes them along in English literacy but also allows for vocational style training or earning up to an associate's degree at the local community college for free.
They'd be able to leave on their own volition at 18 but I'd advocate for letting them stay up till 22. And even if they elect to leave the housing the education offer is still available to them.
And since any political process that even gives them a path to citizenship will ultimately be a lengthy one I'd let anyone who elected to serve in the armed forces be able to circumvent it if they complete their enlistment.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I think you are vastly underestimating time it takes to train people or how many social workers are even available right now as they tend to be extremely overworked as it is.
You're pointing to the worst of alternative possibilities and acting like they're representative of the whole. And, point of fact, the treatment at many of these alternatives are not equivalent to literally prison or literally concentration camps.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And its not a high paid job to begin with, and if the pay was better that doesn't mean you'd attract good candidates you'd just attract people who want to make money and for people dealing with children that seems pretty shit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
Wait, what? Are you implying that we should only want people who have a passion for doing it to be teachers/social care workers for kids, etc? People who want money should be right out? I'm guessing you really mean we would get people with money as their only motivation, but I'm still not sure that's a thing we should disqualify folks for, it doesn't mean they'll do a good or bad job.
For the oldest kids, this could be an option, but will still be a nightmare to implement.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This is where I'm at.
They'll need to be able to go outside, which doesn't seem feasible without a fence.
Social work is demanding emotionally, I'm not saying they should be underpaid, but if the only thing that attracts a candidate to a social job is money they probably are not going to do a very good job because its not that kind of work. Its like being a teacher for the money.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That doesn't mean we have to stick them in prison with prison guards.
We don't allow American children to carry on life for weeks and months without adult guardians. Does this mean that our entire society is just a giant prison? (Stay out of this, Foucault.)
Providing these kids with supervision from adults who treat them with respect and empathy and not as though they are criminal scum is an actual possibility, if you are willing to believe that better things are possible.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Good teachers are quitting being teachers because the pay is too low.
Yes there's always the issue that the highest paid positions will attract everyone and not just the most passionate people in the world but more importantly they'll attract people who are good enough to have options.