I'm of two minds of this. Grade school through high school, I was not exactly allowed to just up and leave school grounds during the day, and in the younger grades, we absolutely had fences around most/all of the property. Most people don't consider this imprisonment, even temporary imprisonment. The government carries an extra burden of care over children than parents (sadly?) because they aren't the parents. With adequate facilities available, I'm not sure keeping them confined to the facility (assuming it IS temporary) is out of the question.
Teenagers do come and go as they please, normally. A refugee teen might well want to go for a walk or pick up snacks at a convenience store. They would also presumably attend classes at local middle or high schools.
The situation with little kids is different, but most of those will be accompanied by family members or be on their way to unite with family members. Not a lot of 8 year olds crossing the border alone.
Teenagers do come and go as they please, normally. A refugee teen might well want to go for a walk or pick up snacks at a convenience store. They would also presumably attend classes at local middle or high schools.
The situation with little kids is different, but most of those will be accompanied by family members or be on their way to unite with family members. Not a lot of 8 year olds crossing the border alone.
I cant check numbers right now but Id wager most of those 0-9 kids, already a tiny share, arent actually unaccompanied, theyre judt not traveling with a provable family member.
+5
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
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.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
For teenagers, a check-in station seems reasonable just to make sure they know who is on and off premises, since they're not all going to have parents waiting in the living room for them.
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.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
What is the scenario you are envisioning that is worse than imprisonment
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
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.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
For teenagers, a check-in station seems reasonable just to make sure they know who is on and off premises, since they're not all going to have parents waiting in the living room for them.
Given what we drop on the current system it cant be beyond our capabilities to throw a cell phone to the kids old enough to use them.
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.
At this point, you are arguing that you care more about what other people perceive our treatment of immigrants to be than how we actually treat them.
You are welcome to have that opinion. It's not without merits. I don't agree, though.
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 see where your coming from, but I don't really agree.
These are mentally tasking jobs, and deserve the higher pay.
In our world, everyone is doing their job for the money. I can't think of many people who would show up to any job for free.
Also, higher wages would mean 1) more people interested in the position 2) higher standard of living for the employees, taking away another mental burden.
Idk, it really sounds like the weird Puritan idea that people have to love their job to be good at it. Most folks don't like their job, but do just fine. I'm no sure why we want to gate keep social workers with "well of you really wanted to help youd do so for free"
We all got bills to pay, and we can help others if we can't have a roof over our heads and food on the table.
if the united states is incapable of handling this humanely, then we should cease all border enforcement actions
our border security is not worth the human rights violations we keep committing
Personally, I think essentially throwing ones hands up and accepting what has been the Republican position about our capabilities is... infuriating, and maybe we ought look into doing things better?
What are we paying for the caged kids, $700 a day or some shit? I'll quit my job and fly to Arizona and watch a child full time for $700 a day, we can play minecraft, itll be fine
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
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.
No one is suggesting we put them in prisons, but some sort of free range system at an unsecured facility isn't remotely feasible.
Schools technically have "guards" in the form of hall monitors and playground aides, and we don't consider them prisons. Should these places have watchbtowers with snipers? No, absolutely not, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn't be a fence or a gate with a guard there given the nature of these kids and the circumstances that got them here.
Do you want anyone in the public to have access them to them, so any Q-MAGA bigot can do fuck knows what to them? To say nothing of garden variety scum like pimps, drug-dealers, or predators?
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Well its a big fenced in government facility that they're confined in.
Given what we drop on the current system it cant be beyond our capabilities to throw a cell phone to the kids old enough to use them.
That would certainly help, but you'll still need something to make sure that people know when a kid has been out too long and when someone inappropriate is there.
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 see where your coming from, but I don't really agree.
These are mentally tasking jobs, and deserve the higher pay.
In our world, everyone is doing their job for the money. I can't think of many people who would show up to any job for free.
Also, higher wages would mean 1) more people interested in the position 2) higher standard of living for the employees, taking away another mental burden.
Idk, it really sounds like the weird Puritan idea that people have to love their job to be good at it. Most folks don't like their job, but do just fine. I'm no sure why we want to gate keep social workers with "well of you really wanted to help youd do so for free"
We all got bills to pay, and we can help others if we can't have a roof over our heads and food on the table.
Also like... more money means you get more people applying which means you can choose to be picky about the ones who "really care" or whatever. While also compensating them fairly for a very important job.
Paying teachers/social workers less to weed out the people "only there for the money" is, imo, an exceptionally bad idea.
"We shouldn't pay people who perform an important job more because then it won't attract only those who have true passion for the job" being floated as a serious argument sure is something.
Wave tiny flags for those essential front-line workers, but don't dare demand they be provided with material compensation commensurate to the value we ostensibly place on their job!
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Well its a big fenced in government facility that they're confined in.
Have you... have you seen a prison? Or a cage?
The existence of a fence does not a prison make. This is 60+ acres of land.
I'll accept that it's not great that they can't leave on their own to visit the city or whatever. I'm not 100% sure either way. (I'm also ignoring Covid here, because that makes it a lot easier.) But that still doesn't mean equating this to prison is appropriate.
Words have meanings. Prison is an actual thing that, you know, exists!
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Well its a big fenced in government facility that they're confined in.
It's not a prison Sammich, it's just a camp...they've been concentrated in...and are not allowed to leave...and are kept from leaving by guards and fencing and razor wire.
Having a large number of teenagers wandering around an unfamiliar place where they likely don't speak the main language is usually seen as a bad idea
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I don't have a good solution for the kids, other than find their families, and put them with their families. That is the only real solution.
The United States Foster care system (both group homes and foster homes) is a nightmare, bad outcomes, rampant sexual assault, physical abuse. Kids are safer imprisoned than in Foster care. Which is terrifying.
If we don't literally keep them in a barbed wire fenced facilities, there will be some runaways, there will be some crimes, and there will be some teens who get exploited
We should take reasonable action to keep track of migrant teens, and look for them if they don't check in, and have a graduated system of punishments for those who break the law, but all of those negative things? Those happen to just regular ass teenagers as well, and are not arguments to put them in what is basically jail
Concentration camp: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"
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.
No one is suggesting we put them in prisons, but some sort of free range system at an unsecured facility isn't remotely feasible.
Schools technically have "guards" in the form of hall monitors and playground aides, and we don't consider them prisons. Should these places have watchbtowers with snipers? No, absolutely not, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn't be a fence or a gate with a guard there given the nature of these kids and the circumstances that got them here.
Do you want anyone in the public to have access them to them, so any Q-MAGA bigot can do fuck knows what to them? To say nothing of garden variety scum like pimps, drug-dealers, or predators?
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."
Concentration camp: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"
Words have meanings.
You asked about calling them a prison, not a concentration camp.
If we don't literally keep them in a barbed wire fenced facilities, there will be some runaways, there will be some crimes, and there will be some teens who get exploited
We should take reasonable action to keep track of migrant teens, and look for them if they don't check in, and have a graduated system of punishments for those who break the law, but all of those negative things? Those happen to just regular ass teenagers as well, and are not arguments to put them in what is basically jail
Regular ass teenagers are generally not in government custody outside of school.
Boarding schools themselves usually do not let students just leave the campus when they want to and often prevent going into town
+6
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
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.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
What is the scenario you are envisioning that is worse than imprisonment
Abduction, murder, rape, trafficking, susceptibility to crime or drug addiction, gang affiliation, beatings from bigots.
Imprisonment implies that there is no way out for them. We all agree that their stay should be temporary, but without a path to citizenship or someone to take them in, how long do we expect them to stay anywhere until they're at least 18?
That's probably a good cutoff, once they're 18 or older (which could be difficult to verify depending on the lack of records), they could be transferred to something more akin to a hotel, halfway house, or community center
Concentration camp: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"
Concentration camp: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"
Words have meanings.
You asked about calling them a prison, not a concentration camp.
This comment wasn't directed at you or our fun "this isn't what the word 'prison' means" conversation. It was at @Doodmann who just called them concentration camps a couple posts above.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
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.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
What is the scenario you are envisioning that is worse than imprisonment
Abduction, murder, rape, trafficking, susceptibility to crime or drug addiction, gang affiliation, beatings from bigots.
Imprisonment implies that there is no way out for them. We all agree that their stay should be temporary, but without a path to citizenship or someone to take them in, how long do we expect them to stay anywhere until they're at least 18?
That's probably a good cutoff, once they're 18 or older (which could be difficult to verify depending on the lack of records), they could be transferred to something more akin to a hotel, halfway house, or community center
Do you think that every single hispanic teenager in America should be imprisoned until they turn 18? Maybe just the ones in foster care, or the ones who don't speak English?
Concentration camp: "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"
Words have meanings.
Yes. I agree.
Cool, then until we have any reason to say that this is a concentration camp, any at all, you'll just have to excuse me for calling out when people lie or make things up to make the situation sound worse so they can sound clever.
Posts
The situation with little kids is different, but most of those will be accompanied by family members or be on their way to unite with family members. Not a lot of 8 year olds crossing the border alone.
I cant check numbers right now but Id wager most of those 0-9 kids, already a tiny share, arent actually unaccompanied, theyre judt not traveling with a provable family member.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
What is the scenario you are envisioning that is worse than imprisonment
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Given what we drop on the current system it cant be beyond our capabilities to throw a cell phone to the kids old enough to use them.
At this point, you are arguing that you care more about what other people perceive our treatment of immigrants to be than how we actually treat them.
You are welcome to have that opinion. It's not without merits. I don't agree, though.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I see where your coming from, but I don't really agree.
These are mentally tasking jobs, and deserve the higher pay.
In our world, everyone is doing their job for the money. I can't think of many people who would show up to any job for free.
Also, higher wages would mean 1) more people interested in the position 2) higher standard of living for the employees, taking away another mental burden.
Idk, it really sounds like the weird Puritan idea that people have to love their job to be good at it. Most folks don't like their job, but do just fine. I'm no sure why we want to gate keep social workers with "well of you really wanted to help youd do so for free"
We all got bills to pay, and we can help others if we can't have a roof over our heads and food on the table.
our border security is not worth the human rights violations we keep committing
Personally, I think essentially throwing ones hands up and accepting what has been the Republican position about our capabilities is... infuriating, and maybe we ought look into doing things better?
What are we paying for the caged kids, $700 a day or some shit? I'll quit my job and fly to Arizona and watch a child full time for $700 a day, we can play minecraft, itll be fine
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
No one is suggesting we put them in prisons, but some sort of free range system at an unsecured facility isn't remotely feasible.
Schools technically have "guards" in the form of hall monitors and playground aides, and we don't consider them prisons. Should these places have watchbtowers with snipers? No, absolutely not, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn't be a fence or a gate with a guard there given the nature of these kids and the circumstances that got them here.
Do you want anyone in the public to have access them to them, so any Q-MAGA bigot can do fuck knows what to them? To say nothing of garden variety scum like pimps, drug-dealers, or predators?
Well its a big fenced in government facility that they're confined in.
That would certainly help, but you'll still need something to make sure that people know when a kid has been out too long and when someone inappropriate is there.
Also like... more money means you get more people applying which means you can choose to be picky about the ones who "really care" or whatever. While also compensating them fairly for a very important job.
Paying teachers/social workers less to weed out the people "only there for the money" is, imo, an exceptionally bad idea.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Wave tiny flags for those essential front-line workers, but don't dare demand they be provided with material compensation commensurate to the value we ostensibly place on their job!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There is a cult of assholes who wants the worst for these kids.
Have you... have you seen a prison? Or a cage?
The existence of a fence does not a prison make. This is 60+ acres of land.
I'll accept that it's not great that they can't leave on their own to visit the city or whatever. I'm not 100% sure either way. (I'm also ignoring Covid here, because that makes it a lot easier.) But that still doesn't mean equating this to prison is appropriate.
Words have meanings. Prison is an actual thing that, you know, exists!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's not a prison Sammich, it's just a camp...they've been concentrated in...and are not allowed to leave...and are kept from leaving by guards and fencing and razor wire.
The United States Foster care system (both group homes and foster homes) is a nightmare, bad outcomes, rampant sexual assault, physical abuse. Kids are safer imprisoned than in Foster care. Which is terrifying.
We should take reasonable action to keep track of migrant teens, and look for them if they don't check in, and have a graduated system of punishments for those who break the law, but all of those negative things? Those happen to just regular ass teenagers as well, and are not arguments to put them in what is basically jail
Yeah we seem to have a hard time not employing them at the camps.
Words have meanings.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
those people are literally their jailors right now
Yes. And they're not going to suddenly be good neighbors when their power is taken away.
ICE is not in charge or associated with this new place at all.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
.....yes?
....and?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You asked about calling them a prison, not a concentration camp.
Regular ass teenagers are generally not in government custody outside of school.
Boarding schools themselves usually do not let students just leave the campus when they want to and often prevent going into town
Abduction, murder, rape, trafficking, susceptibility to crime or drug addiction, gang affiliation, beatings from bigots.
Imprisonment implies that there is no way out for them. We all agree that their stay should be temporary, but without a path to citizenship or someone to take them in, how long do we expect them to stay anywhere until they're at least 18?
That's probably a good cutoff, once they're 18 or older (which could be difficult to verify depending on the lack of records), they could be transferred to something more akin to a hotel, halfway house, or community center
Yes. I agree.
This comment wasn't directed at you or our fun "this isn't what the word 'prison' means" conversation. It was at @Doodmann who just called them concentration camps a couple posts above.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Do you think that every single hispanic teenager in America should be imprisoned until they turn 18? Maybe just the ones in foster care, or the ones who don't speak English?
Cool, then until we have any reason to say that this is a concentration camp, any at all, you'll just have to excuse me for calling out when people lie or make things up to make the situation sound worse so they can sound clever.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile