i don't know, i think "don't imprison people in concentration camps" is a pretty logically consistent idea personally
It's not really consistent where there's been no credible idea for what else to do with unaccompanied minors while you make sure the people you are handing them off to are going to take care of them.
Cause that's what the camps you are talking about are for as far as I can see reported. They won't turn away unaccompanied minors, so they get put into the system while someone contacts whoever they were supposed to meet and makes sure it's all fine and then hand them off. But the whole system is massively backlogged and they don't have enough space for all the kids.
How many times does a person have to scream that foster care exists before we can agree maybe we should put them in foster care if necessary instead of prison camps
Probably as many times as it needs to be said that the foster care system absolutely could not handle this. It would be an identical situation with a different name. Placing children takes a lot of time even if it is with known family.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No we don't.
You may as well tell me that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime in jail until their court date.
Like if they were putting them in actual otherwise unused prisons-not under lockdown in the cells- it'd be an improvement and I'd be generally fine with it.
Yes, we kinda do. We can take issue with how long that takes, but you do have to have them while processing them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the information on deportation hearings, etc. Not having them while you process them would literally be open borders. Not trying to scare monger (I believe in open borders personally) but it is the reality of it.
Have you heard of a parole officer? Same basic concept here.
Again, may as well argue that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime until their trial date. We might lose track of them if we didn't. And really, it's for their own good - what if their lawyer couldn't get ahold of them and the court date changed or they needed more information from them for the case?
I mean sometimes we do hold people accused of crimes because we're afraid they're going to flee. That's what Remanding someone or holding them without bail is. Releasing someone accused of a crime is something we do because we do not expect them to leave the area because they're tied to it, e.g. they live there, they have family there, they have a job there, etc.
Someone who just comes here has nothing tying them to any particular place. Why wouldn't they just not go to their hearing and head to wherever. What're you going to do? Deport them?
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
i don't know, i think "don't imprison people in concentration camps" is a pretty logically consistent idea personally
It's not really consistent where there's been no credible idea for what else to do with unaccompanied minors while you make sure the people you are handing them off to are going to take care of them.
Cause that's what the camps you are talking about are for as far as I can see reported. They won't turn away unaccompanied minors, so they get put into the system while someone contacts whoever they were supposed to meet and makes sure it's all fine and then hand them off. But the whole system is massively backlogged and they don't have enough space for all the kids.
How many times does a person have to scream that foster care exists before we can agree maybe we should put them in foster care if necessary instead of prison camps
Probably as many times as it needs to be said that the foster care system absolutely could not handle this. It would be an identical situation with a different name. Placing children takes a lot of time even if it is with known family.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No we don't.
You may as well tell me that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime in jail until their court date.
Like if they were putting them in actual otherwise unused prisons-not under lockdown in the cells- it'd be an improvement and I'd be generally fine with it.
Yes, we kinda do. We can take issue with how long that takes, but you do have to have them while processing them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the information on deportation hearings, etc. Not having them while you process them would literally be open borders. Not trying to scare monger (I believe in open borders personally) but it is the reality of it.
Have you heard of a parole officer? Same basic concept here.
Again, may as well argue that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime until their trial date. We might lose track of them if we didn't. And really, it's for their own good - what if their lawyer couldn't get ahold of them and the court date changed or they needed more information from them for the case?
I mean sometimes we do hold people accused of crimes because we're afraid they're going to flee. That's what Remanding someone or holding them without bail is. Releasing someone accused of a crime is something we do because we do not expect them to leave the area because they're tied to it, e.g. they live there, they have family there, they have a job there, etc.
Someone who just comes here has nothing tying them to any particular place. Why wouldn't they just not go to their hearing and head to wherever. What're you going to do? Deport them?
My example is flawed because we live in a carceral state that holds people behind bars for months if not years solely because they cannot afford to pay bail. The flaws of our justice system are many and extend beyond just immigration. However, that also is why people are having such difficulty conceiving of the actual reality we live in where human beings are, on the whole, decent people who are trying to do their best within existing systems.
No one comes to this country illegally because they want to live in constant fear moving from place to place like they're goddamn Bruce Banner from '60s Incredible Hulk TV series. They come here because they feel they can live a better life here. Just because someone is in this country outside of a legal permanent green card, that doesn't mean they aren't a decent person who is trying to just live their life in peace and be a productive member of the community.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that everyone coming to this country is inherently untrustworthy. They don't have loyalty to this country, so how can we trust them. Because they don't have ties to America. They broke the law once coming here, nothing's going to stop them from just ghosting the justice system! And then who knows how many more crimes they'll commit!
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
i don't know, i think "don't imprison people in concentration camps" is a pretty logically consistent idea personally
It's not really consistent where there's been no credible idea for what else to do with unaccompanied minors while you make sure the people you are handing them off to are going to take care of them.
Cause that's what the camps you are talking about are for as far as I can see reported. They won't turn away unaccompanied minors, so they get put into the system while someone contacts whoever they were supposed to meet and makes sure it's all fine and then hand them off. But the whole system is massively backlogged and they don't have enough space for all the kids.
How many times does a person have to scream that foster care exists before we can agree maybe we should put them in foster care if necessary instead of prison camps
Probably as many times as it needs to be said that the foster care system absolutely could not handle this. It would be an identical situation with a different name. Placing children takes a lot of time even if it is with known family.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No we don't.
You may as well tell me that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime in jail until their court date.
Like if they were putting them in actual otherwise unused prisons-not under lockdown in the cells- it'd be an improvement and I'd be generally fine with it.
Yes, we kinda do. We can take issue with how long that takes, but you do have to have them while processing them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the information on deportation hearings, etc. Not having them while you process them would literally be open borders. Not trying to scare monger (I believe in open borders personally) but it is the reality of it.
Have you heard of a parole officer? Same basic concept here.
Again, may as well argue that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime until their trial date. We might lose track of them if we didn't. And really, it's for their own good - what if their lawyer couldn't get ahold of them and the court date changed or they needed more information from them for the case?
I mean sometimes we do hold people accused of crimes because we're afraid they're going to flee. That's what Remanding someone or holding them without bail is. Releasing someone accused of a crime is something we do because we do not expect them to leave the area because they're tied to it, e.g. they live there, they have family there, they have a job there, etc.
Someone who just comes here has nothing tying them to any particular place. Why wouldn't they just not go to their hearing and head to wherever. What're you going to do? Deport them?
There has never been much of a problem getting immigrants to willingly show up for scheduled court dates. This whole "if we don't imprison them they'll just disappear" thing is another common Republican argument.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
To elaborate, tinwhiskers have some imagination. I know Americans are just used to the idea of incarceration as a norm but just imagine.
You can have people cross the border, file paperwork, and then look for a place to fucking stay after leaving their contact information with the immigration office. If they are asylum seekers or refugees, the United States should provide temporary living quarters which will have a means of contact (both by mailing address and phone). LIVING QUARTERS, not jail cells (even if not literal jail cells). The USA has the fucking means, financial and manpower (especially since we have unemployed folks) to logistically provide. The United States simply chooses NOT to do those things.
Secondly, the ORR facilities you speak of are built to be as jails so your "overflow" idea is kinda bullshit to begin with.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
That isn't what tinwhiskers is advocating for and you know it.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
tinwhiskers said you have to hold people in prisons / camps, physically.
Your second line in your post backs up what Styrofoam said. People can register paperwork and then be on their way. That's the opposite of holding them.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
Processing someone for five minutes isn’t the same as a carceral system! For goodness sakes by the standard of this article everyone passing through Ellis island was imprisoned!
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
Yeah doesn't actually look anything like what people are excusing right now.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
tinwhiskers said you have to hold people in prisons / camps, physically.
Your second line in your post backs up what Styrofoam said. People can register paperwork and then be on their way. That's the opposite of holding them.
I would again like to point out that Tin once responded to a post of mine in this thread suggesting we actually detain these folks in actual yet unused prison facilities as their design would be practical for housing many individuals while allowing a limited number of guards to monitor them.
But suggested we don’t close up the cells
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It just goes to show how normalized the police state of America has become. I blame the War on Drugs, but perhaps that's another thread.
... Then again, it actually isn't because a lot of US Immigration Policy is directly linked to War on Drugs policy. FUNNY HOW THAT SHIT WORKS.
+11
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
It just goes to show how normalized the police state of America has become. I blame the War on Drugs, but perhaps that's another thread.
... Then again, it actually isn't because a lot of US Immigration Policy is directly linked to War on Drugs policy. FUNNY HOW THAT SHIT WORKS.
America’s number one skill is basically “how do we invent shit to target POC to preserve a white colonial ethnostate in ways that will be palatable to the white masses”
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
i don't know, i think "don't imprison people in concentration camps" is a pretty logically consistent idea personally
It's not really consistent where there's been no credible idea for what else to do with unaccompanied minors while you make sure the people you are handing them off to are going to take care of them.
Cause that's what the camps you are talking about are for as far as I can see reported. They won't turn away unaccompanied minors, so they get put into the system while someone contacts whoever they were supposed to meet and makes sure it's all fine and then hand them off. But the whole system is massively backlogged and they don't have enough space for all the kids.
How many times does a person have to scream that foster care exists before we can agree maybe we should put them in foster care if necessary instead of prison camps
Probably as many times as it needs to be said that the foster care system absolutely could not handle this. It would be an identical situation with a different name. Placing children takes a lot of time even if it is with known family.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No we don't.
You may as well tell me that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime in jail until their court date.
Like if they were putting them in actual otherwise unused prisons-not under lockdown in the cells- it'd be an improvement and I'd be generally fine with it.
Yes, we kinda do. We can take issue with how long that takes, but you do have to have them while processing them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the information on deportation hearings, etc. Not having them while you process them would literally be open borders. Not trying to scare monger (I believe in open borders personally) but it is the reality of it.
Have you heard of a parole officer? Same basic concept here.
Again, may as well argue that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime until their trial date. We might lose track of them if we didn't. And really, it's for their own good - what if their lawyer couldn't get ahold of them and the court date changed or they needed more information from them for the case?
I feel like we are talking past each other here because this response makes no sense. I know parole officers. They have information such as where their person lives, where they work, a phone number to reach them at, etc. In order to get that information you need to sit the person down and talk to them. That is literally what processing is. It is putting them into the system. If you don't do that then it is open borders because we simply don't know who has come across the border at all. I am personally all for that, but that is not likely to be a reality anytime soon.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No you don't.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
Processing someone for five minutes isn’t the same as a carceral system! For goodness sakes by the standard of this article everyone passing through Ellis island was imprisoned!
You aren't wrong, but that also wasn't what was stated. I am kind of torn for an ideal system here because I absolutely don't trust CBP/ICE to not intentionally fuck up the paper work of the people they stop to make it impossible to stay in the country, and I think the current system we have is pretty fucked as well. I don't know which of those two evils is the lesser short term. Long term we need to hire more people to process everyone faster and have them on their merry way.
i don't know, i think "don't imprison people in concentration camps" is a pretty logically consistent idea personally
It's not really consistent where there's been no credible idea for what else to do with unaccompanied minors while you make sure the people you are handing them off to are going to take care of them.
Cause that's what the camps you are talking about are for as far as I can see reported. They won't turn away unaccompanied minors, so they get put into the system while someone contacts whoever they were supposed to meet and makes sure it's all fine and then hand them off. But the whole system is massively backlogged and they don't have enough space for all the kids.
How many times does a person have to scream that foster care exists before we can agree maybe we should put them in foster care if necessary instead of prison camps
Probably as many times as it needs to be said that the foster care system absolutely could not handle this. It would be an identical situation with a different name. Placing children takes a lot of time even if it is with known family.
There' a big difference between "it's going to take a long, long time, and be very very hard" and "it's an idealistic...dingbat pipe dream".
It's been 73 days. At this point Biden's refusal to cast Mordenkainen's Decent Detention Facility is inexcusable. "Congress won't appropriate the required material components" is hogwash and he should have known ICE Agents were going to hide all the miniature silver spoons worth at least 5gp.
They Have Opened New Camps Since Biden Took Office
if they said "look we know the situation is fucked, we're working on it," and then not opened new camps that'd be something, but instead biden said "go home, we're full" and opened new camps
also like, this is exactly what i was talking about in that post. thanks for that, i guess
e: if you want to talk about a reasonable rate of progress that might be a conversation worth having, but what's happening now is not progress! more people locked up in camps than before is not progress!
'The camps are dangerously overcrowded' and 'They shouldn't open more camps' are both ideas. Not sure it makes sense to argue them both at the same time.
They don't actually have to put people in camps.
You do need to hold people until they are processed. That is like a fundamental part of having a border and these camps aren't even the "being processed" situation. They are the overflow from the ORR facilities and the ORR overflow facilities that were already swamped.
The options for the near future are "camps" or "turn away" because the number of unaccompanied children has massively outstripped the rate at which they can be processed through by ORR.
No we don't.
You may as well tell me that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime in jail until their court date.
Like if they were putting them in actual otherwise unused prisons-not under lockdown in the cells- it'd be an improvement and I'd be generally fine with it.
Yes, we kinda do. We can take issue with how long that takes, but you do have to have them while processing them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the information on deportation hearings, etc. Not having them while you process them would literally be open borders. Not trying to scare monger (I believe in open borders personally) but it is the reality of it.
Have you heard of a parole officer? Same basic concept here.
Again, may as well argue that we have to hold everyone accused of a crime until their trial date. We might lose track of them if we didn't. And really, it's for their own good - what if their lawyer couldn't get ahold of them and the court date changed or they needed more information from them for the case?
I feel like we are talking past each other here because this response makes no sense. I know parole officers. They have information such as where their person lives, where they work, a phone number to reach them at, etc. In order to get that information you need to sit the person down and talk to them. That is literally what processing is. It is putting them into the system. If you don't do that then it is open borders because we simply don't know who has come across the border at all. I am personally all for that, but that is not likely to be a reality anytime soon.
If we all fight for it, it can be soon.
But so long as we just wait around for the government to do it out of their good graces, without any direct action to force justice to happen like in the Civil Rights era, it won’t.
So we should start doing what the late John Lewis said we should:
“Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem the soul of America.”
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
"Don't come over illegally, we have a process for getting in" is inherent to enforced borders, first of all. The way you stated it is the isolationist desire of Republicans.
Second, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the idea of "we need to update that process," especially when the current process results in concentration camps and turning refugees away.
Hence this fucking thread existing and the issue being part of national discussion. Holy shit.
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
+7
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
So, setting aside you trying to frame a yet-to-be-started policy that puts some migrant families in hotels into implying Biden wants to put all immigrants up in hotels and administrative goals of reversing reductions of work visas, education visas, and various other methods that the Trump administration used to whittle away legal access for foreigners to come to the country legally for limited periods of time as "opening the country for millions of immigrants"
Biden's administration moving immigrants to hotels isn't a negative, and its not a simple process and its not quick. Opening up America for millions of immigrants by smoothing out the process is literally what I said.
Exactly how many facilities were opened under the Trump administration specifically, and how many of those facilities have been closed down by the Biden administration?
Trump opened numerous camps because hey were overflowing with immigrants from the border, it was all over the news. It was a priority his government took horrific pride in. Biden's in a transition with his immigration plans, because the government is slow by design.
The facilities pictured in the links on the first page of this thread? Those are taken inside a "temporary border facility" that was erected February of this year.
Yeah, but that's not the whole story on Biden's immigration stances. This diminishes the improvements he's made while in office. Would I love to see his immigration move faster and get everyone out of the camps? Sure. But it's that simple to solve.
I'm sorry, what? Improving immigration on that scale is not an easy problem to fix like that. There is no "soon" in immigration like you want to change, the government isn't built like that, and its in marginally worse shape post-Trump.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
What are the conditions like in Spain's facilities? Do they have proper beds or are they too crammed into cells? To compare to America's.
What is the application process - citizenship, asylum seeking, refugee, and working - like for New Zealand? To again compare to America's.
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
I'm making a different point than you think I am. You think I'm being jingoistic "America, Hurrah!" and actually I'm saying that every country in the world that I know of has a xenophobic and dysfunctional immigration policy.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
"Don't come over illegally, we have a process for getting in" is inherent to enforced borders, first of all. The way you stated it is the isolationist desire of Republicans.
Second, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the idea of "we need to update that process," especially when the current process results in concentration camps and turning refugees away.
Hence this fucking thread existing and the issue being part of national discussion. Holy shit.
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
I would have an easier time being on board with your sentiment if there wasn't the occasional half-step of excusing or agreeing with how things are.
If the voters aren't comfortable granting power to politicians who are more humanely minded on immigration, then we should be organizing and talking about how to change those peoples' minds. But when you do things like say, "Well it's a start" or "it's a bit better than Trump's policies" (in that they're more politely worded I guess) you actually validate their position rather than challenge it. In fact, it pushes in the direction of challenging us who are advocating for the big change.
So, setting aside you trying to frame a yet-to-be-started policy that puts some migrant families in hotels into implying Biden wants to put all immigrants up in hotels and administrative goals of reversing reductions of work visas, education visas, and various other methods that the Trump administration used to whittle away legal access for foreigners to come to the country legally for limited periods of time as "opening the country for millions of immigrants"
Biden's administration moving immigrants to hotels isn't a negative, and its not a simple process and its not quick. Opening up America for millions of immigrants by smoothing out the process is literally what I said.
Exactly how many facilities were opened under the Trump administration specifically, and how many of those facilities have been closed down by the Biden administration?
Trump opened numerous camps because hey were overflowing with immigrants from the border, it was all over the news. It was a priority his government took horrific pride in. Biden's in a transition with his immigration plans, because the government is slow by design.
The facilities pictured in the links on the first page of this thread? Those are taken inside a "temporary border facility" that was erected February of this year.
Yeah, but that's not the whole story on Biden's immigration stances. This diminishes the improvements he's made while in office. Would I love to see his immigration move faster and get everyone out of the camps? Sure. But it's that simple to solve.
I'm sorry, what? Improving immigration on that scale is not an easy problem to fix like that. There is no "soon" in immigration like you want to change, the government isn't built like that, and its in marginally worse shape post-Trump.
Civil Rights movement is considered by some to have begun in 1947 and culminated in 1968
Twenty one years, so I suppose we better get started by pressuring the presumably more malleable guy now before the next Republican gets in.
Maybe fourteen years of ceaseless agitation, marching, demonstrating, protest and non-violent resistance if you wanna start the clock at 1954 but still, now’s the time for action, not “give them time to sort things out.”
Civil Rights movement is considered by some to have begun in 1947 and culminated in 1968
Twenty one years, so I suppose we better get started by pressuring the presumably more malleable guy now before the next Republican gets in.
21 years isn't soon, Lanz and we still live in a world where Black Lives Matter is relevant in political discourse. Why do you assume people inside and out of government aren't doing this on immigration?
Maybe fourteen years of ceaseless agitation, marching, demonstrating, protest and non-violent resistance if you wanna start the clock at 1954 but still, now’s the time for action, not “give them time to sort things out.”
Nobody in this thread is disagreeing with that fact. Acknowledging government is slow by design like with immigration isn't doing that, how can people fix things like immigration if they don't have the right expectations with how the government works? Ignoring it won't make the government run any faster. If you think time for action outside of government wha the government does is irrelevant you're going to do whatever anyway. Which people are doing, inside of government you don't have to be an activist on the streets to improve immigration in America.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
What are the conditions like in Spain's facilities? Do they have proper beds or are they too crammed into cells? To compare to America's.
What is the application process - citizenship, asylum seeking, refugee, and working - like for New Zealand? To again compare to America's.
It’s pretty bad 1200 people in a facility made for 500, they tried to deport all of their refugees but no country would accept them because of closed borders.
In New Zealand if you have a specific skill you can get sponsored and come, if you don’t you get on the lottery. Refugees have to get to New Zealand to apply as a refugee, which is not cheap. And requires a flight. He seems why they only have 1000 refugees. And their borders are closed to most migrants since Covid.
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
"Don't come over illegally, we have a process for getting in" is inherent to enforced borders, first of all. The way you stated it is the isolationist desire of Republicans.
Second, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the idea of "we need to update that process," especially when the current process results in concentration camps and turning refugees away.
Hence this fucking thread existing and the issue being part of national discussion. Holy shit.
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
I would have an easier time being on board with your sentiment if there wasn't the occasional half-step of excusing or agreeing with how things are.
If the voters aren't comfortable granting power to politicians who are more humanely minded on immigration, then we should be organizing and talking about how to change those peoples' minds. But when you do things like say, "Well it's a start" or "it's a bit better than Trump's policies" (in that they're more politely worded I guess) you actually validate their position rather than challenge it. In fact, it pushes in the direction of challenging us who are advocating for the big change.
In my experience, a small amount of acknowledgement of progress is necessary to encourage further progress, but you have to avoid going too far with it. If you refuse to acknowledge it, people give up because they feel you're impossible to please, while obviously you don't throw a damned party with Mission Accomplished or something.
+9
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
What are the conditions like in Spain's facilities? Do they have proper beds or are they too crammed into cells? To compare to America's.
What is the application process - citizenship, asylum seeking, refugee, and working - like for New Zealand? To again compare to America's.
It’s pretty bad 1200 people in a facility made for 500, they tried to deport all of their refugees but no country would accept them because of closed borders.
In New Zealand if you have a specific skill you can get sponsored and come, if you don’t you get on the lottery. Refugees have to get to New Zealand to apply as a refugee, which is not cheap. And requires a flight. He seems why they only have 1000 refugees. And their borders are closed to most migrants since Covid.
So those sound about on par with the United States, though in New Zealand's case a lot of that is "uhhh we're an island" and not necessarily driven by "ew gross."
Which leads me to the conclusion of, the United States does not have the "most welcoming" stance on immigration.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Attempting to keep people from "flooding" the country is a regressive and bad policy and we should be pushing back against it. Immigrants are a net positive for any nation smart enough to welcome them.
Unfortunately, no nation is smart enough to welcome them. The USA is one of the most welcoming countries in the world where immigrants are concerned... and the USA hates immigrants.
Most people would rather live in a town populated only by people like them even if it means they are much poorer than they would be in a diverse town.
You are now tasked with listing all other countries' immigration policies, as a point of citation. I will gladly wait.
It's short: they all suck.
I'm being 100% serious. You're saying the USA's immigration policy is the best in the world, so you have to show me all the other countries' immigration policies. Here, I'll throw you a few countries to demonstrate your statement being correct with.
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
New Zealand is an Island with 1000 refugees. And their policies on immigration require sponsorship from a company or a very competitive lottery. It’s very atypical.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
Which of those countries have concentration camps for migrants?
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
What are the conditions like in Spain's facilities? Do they have proper beds or are they too crammed into cells? To compare to America's.
What is the application process - citizenship, asylum seeking, refugee, and working - like for New Zealand? To again compare to America's.
It’s pretty bad 1200 people in a facility made for 500, they tried to deport all of their refugees but no country would accept them because of closed borders.
In New Zealand if you have a specific skill you can get sponsored and come, if you don’t you get on the lottery. Refugees have to get to New Zealand to apply as a refugee, which is not cheap. And requires a flight. He seems why they only have 1000 refugees. And their borders are closed to most migrants since Covid.
So those sound about on par with the United States, though in New Zealand's case a lot of that is "uhhh we're an island" and not necessarily driven by "ew gross."
Which leads me to the conclusion of, the United States does not have the "most welcoming" stance on immigration.
I agree. In my supposition I said Germany has the most welcoming stance on immigration policy.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
"Don't come over illegally, we have a process for getting in" is inherent to enforced borders, first of all. The way you stated it is the isolationist desire of Republicans.
Second, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the idea of "we need to update that process," especially when the current process results in concentration camps and turning refugees away.
Hence this fucking thread existing and the issue being part of national discussion. Holy shit.
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
I would have an easier time being on board with your sentiment if there wasn't the occasional half-step of excusing or agreeing with how things are.
If the voters aren't comfortable granting power to politicians who are more humanely minded on immigration, then we should be organizing and talking about how to change those peoples' minds. But when you do things like say, "Well it's a start" or "it's a bit better than Trump's policies" (in that they're more politely worded I guess) you actually validate their position rather than challenge it. In fact, it pushes in the direction of challenging us who are advocating for the big change.
In my experience, a small amount of acknowledgement of progress is necessary to encourage further progress, but you have to avoid going too far with it. If you refuse to acknowledge it, people give up because they feel you're impossible to please, while obviously you don't throw a damned party with Mission Accomplished or something.
In my experience and life-long observation (at minimum) of immigration policy, baby steps taken are regarded as "dust off hands, okay job well done folks problem solved." I'm tired of that shit and it needs to change. Conceding "good job" now is going to make that very short rotation of history repeat. Again. For the nth time in my life alone.
Civil Rights movement is considered by some to have begun in 1947 and culminated in 1968
Twenty one years, so I suppose we better get started by pressuring the presumably more malleable guy now before the next Republican gets in.
21 years isn't soon, Lanz and we still live in a world where Black Lives Matter is relevant in political discourse. Why do you assume people inside and out of government aren't doing this on immigration?
Because for several years including under the last democratic administration our immigration system for undocumented immigrants was to treat them as criminals, and so far neither party has particularly made good on it aside from talk about supporting the Dreamers while doing little to actually solve the problem of “the government keeps locking up brown folk crossing the southern border”
Because American politics is still deep in the throes of white supremacy to the point it doesn’t readily recognize it as long as it isn’t directly shouting slurs, as long as the violence is abstracted away through layers of facade that create the illusion that these laws and regs apply to all, yet it is primarily POC who are ensnared and made to suffer its cruelty.
Because I’m tired of even Democrats supporting system this inherently cruel and inhumane as we dwell in a nation founded on theft from and genocide of the native populace, then pulled up the ramp once folks who could not readily be adopted into whiteness started immigrating in large enough numbers to threaten white dominance.
Because I’m tired of my government instigating cruelties against my fellow human beings in the name of order and process, all ultimately the abstractions of white supremacy as ever entangled through every inch of this nation and its policies, and the folks who are willing to cut the executors of such policy slack because they share a party affiliation with them instead of demanding that the most powerful people in this country do more and do better.
And because if 21 years isn’t Soon, then all the more reason to get started now before climate change empowers eco fascism to commit further atrocities against those who seek to immigrate here
"Don't come over" is inherent to enforced borders. But there is "don't come over you're wasting our resources and yours" and "don't come over or we'll steal your children and give them away".
"Don't come over illegally, we have a process for getting in" is inherent to enforced borders, first of all. The way you stated it is the isolationist desire of Republicans.
Second, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the idea of "we need to update that process," especially when the current process results in concentration camps and turning refugees away.
Hence this fucking thread existing and the issue being part of national discussion. Holy shit.
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
I would have an easier time being on board with your sentiment if there wasn't the occasional half-step of excusing or agreeing with how things are.
If the voters aren't comfortable granting power to politicians who are more humanely minded on immigration, then we should be organizing and talking about how to change those peoples' minds. But when you do things like say, "Well it's a start" or "it's a bit better than Trump's policies" (in that they're more politely worded I guess) you actually validate their position rather than challenge it. In fact, it pushes in the direction of challenging us who are advocating for the big change.
In my experience, a small amount of acknowledgement of progress is necessary to encourage further progress, but you have to avoid going too far with it. If you refuse to acknowledge it, people give up because they feel you're impossible to please, while obviously you don't throw a damned party with Mission Accomplished or something.
In my experience and life-long observation (at minimum) of immigration policy, baby steps taken are regarded as "dust off hands, okay job well done folks problem solved." I'm tired of that shit and it needs to change. Conceding "good job" now is going to make that very short rotation of history repeat. Again. For the nth time in my life alone.
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Also the idea that “government is slow by design” is honestly a cop out. Every one of us here knows the government moves shockingly quick on the shit it actually cares about.
It’s only ever actually slow when it comes to things like “please stop oppressing people of color.”
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Nobody in this thread is disagreeing with that fact. Acknowledging government is slow by design like with immigration isn't doing that, how can people fix things like immigration if they don't have the right expectations with how the government works? Ignoring it won't make the government run any faster. If you think time for action outside of government wha the government does is irrelevant you're going to do whatever anyway. Which people are doing, inside of government you don't have to be an activist on the streets to improve immigration in America.
Then you change the government Mr. Dresden. The government is only as slow as we permit it to be. It's not "by design" at all. It's how it is, and how it is is stupid, and should change. But while we also fight to change it, we can also fight to change things like immigration policy. Think it's too hard or impossible? Then get the fuck out of the way of those of us who believe it IS possible, because "you're rocking the boat" sentiments are obstruction and it doesn't matter how many times you say "I agree with you but."
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
Getting kids out of cages is about as great a look they can aspire to so... ?
Posts
I mean sometimes we do hold people accused of crimes because we're afraid they're going to flee. That's what Remanding someone or holding them without bail is. Releasing someone accused of a crime is something we do because we do not expect them to leave the area because they're tied to it, e.g. they live there, they have family there, they have a job there, etc.
Someone who just comes here has nothing tying them to any particular place. Why wouldn't they just not go to their hearing and head to wherever. What're you going to do? Deport them?
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
- New Zealand
- Spain
- Tanzania
- Sudan
- Argentina
- Vietnam
And hey, maybe you'll end up right. But I'm going to tell you something important.
Even if the USA is "the most welcoming," it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our shit-ass system.
My example is flawed because we live in a carceral state that holds people behind bars for months if not years solely because they cannot afford to pay bail. The flaws of our justice system are many and extend beyond just immigration. However, that also is why people are having such difficulty conceiving of the actual reality we live in where human beings are, on the whole, decent people who are trying to do their best within existing systems.
No one comes to this country illegally because they want to live in constant fear moving from place to place like they're goddamn Bruce Banner from '60s Incredible Hulk TV series. They come here because they feel they can live a better life here. Just because someone is in this country outside of a legal permanent green card, that doesn't mean they aren't a decent person who is trying to just live their life in peace and be a productive member of the community.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that everyone coming to this country is inherently untrustworthy. They don't have loyalty to this country, so how can we trust them. Because they don't have ties to America. They broke the law once coming here, nothing's going to stop them from just ghosting the justice system! And then who knows how many more crimes they'll commit!
Nonsense.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No you don't.
There has never been much of a problem getting immigrants to willingly show up for scheduled court dates. This whole "if we don't imprison them they'll just disappear" thing is another common Republican argument.
Like yes, you literally do.
You can release people pending their hearing / trial, but you need to process them into the system. It might be five minutes or handing them a tablet to enter their details into, but some degree of processing has to happen at some point.
You can have people cross the border, file paperwork, and then look for a place to fucking stay after leaving their contact information with the immigration office. If they are asylum seekers or refugees, the United States should provide temporary living quarters which will have a means of contact (both by mailing address and phone). LIVING QUARTERS, not jail cells (even if not literal jail cells). The USA has the fucking means, financial and manpower (especially since we have unemployed folks) to logistically provide. The United States simply chooses NOT to do those things.
Secondly, the ORR facilities you speak of are built to be as jails so your "overflow" idea is kinda bullshit to begin with.
That isn't what tinwhiskers is advocating for and you know it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Your second line in your post backs up what Styrofoam said. People can register paperwork and then be on their way. That's the opposite of holding them.
Processing someone for five minutes isn’t the same as a carceral system! For goodness sakes by the standard of this article everyone passing through Ellis island was imprisoned!
Yeah doesn't actually look anything like what people are excusing right now.
I would again like to point out that Tin once responded to a post of mine in this thread suggesting we actually detain these folks in actual yet unused prison facilities as their design would be practical for housing many individuals while allowing a limited number of guards to monitor them.
But suggested we don’t close up the cells
... Then again, it actually isn't because a lot of US Immigration Policy is directly linked to War on Drugs policy. FUNNY HOW THAT SHIT WORKS.
Vietnam doesn’t have a lot of reliable data. Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, and Tanzania all have negative net migration. People are trying to get out for all kinds of reasons, mostly poverty. People are trying to leave not immigrate there.
The only compatible is Spain. Which has some issues with how they treat Muslim immigrants.
And the US has more immigrants than any other nation, but Germany has a very compassionate immigrant and refugee policy, and that’s the model I would like us to follow.
America’s number one skill is basically “how do we invent shit to target POC to preserve a white colonial ethnostate in ways that will be palatable to the white masses”
I feel like we are talking past each other here because this response makes no sense. I know parole officers. They have information such as where their person lives, where they work, a phone number to reach them at, etc. In order to get that information you need to sit the person down and talk to them. That is literally what processing is. It is putting them into the system. If you don't do that then it is open borders because we simply don't know who has come across the border at all. I am personally all for that, but that is not likely to be a reality anytime soon.
You aren't wrong, but that also wasn't what was stated. I am kind of torn for an ideal system here because I absolutely don't trust CBP/ICE to not intentionally fuck up the paper work of the people they stop to make it impossible to stay in the country, and I think the current system we have is pretty fucked as well. I don't know which of those two evils is the lesser short term. Long term we need to hire more people to process everyone faster and have them on their merry way.
If we all fight for it, it can be soon.
But so long as we just wait around for the government to do it out of their good graces, without any direct action to force justice to happen like in the Civil Rights era, it won’t.
So we should start doing what the late John Lewis said we should:
“Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem the soul of America.”
By your incredibly pointless context-free pedantry I also suggested that even citizens shouldn't be able to re-enter the country. If Biden leaves he can't come back because that would be coming over. Please at least consider good faith.
And yes, holy shit, we need to update the process, because oh fuck, I've mentioned my own dissatisfaction with the process, because Jesus Christ, you're ignoring what I'm saying and the context in which I'm saying it and coming up with your own cardboard narrative like a Republican because actually addressing the reality is harder that shitting out slogans and truisms.
The current situation sucks, and is inhumane as hell, and it wasn't wholly invented by Trump or the conservatives; it's very much a shared sin. It needs to get better, and while the process currently underway is an improvement, it's far from transformative. The political and cultural reality limits the range of possibility, because not enough of the people with power - including your average voter - are willing to push for a more humane system, either because it's not their priority or because their moral system actively supports punishing the desperate. This impacts all of the humanitarian crises in play, and it's why we have to keep reminding people that these things are happening to people in all kinds of situations with all kinds of origins.
We absolutely need to avoid an "okay it's solved now" response to Biden's actions, but it's at least a start. I remain pretty livid about how hard it is to get outsiders access because isolating the information about what's going on there makes it easier for people to ignore. It's why you don't see war footage anymore; a huge part of getting Americans to be anti-war was making them aware of the real consequences of it.
I agree we need to look for something better than detention - like the oft-mentioned court date thing -, and certainly the sort we have right now, but I'm not sure it's possible to get that during a pandemic and with the current political situation, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden is not progressive enough to fight for eliminating it even if he had nothing else going on.
He's also got no intention to do anything especially fast. Back in December he was already expecting this to take six months, and that he was going to be undoing things slowly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/biden-immigration-policy-changes/2020/12/22/2eb9ef92-4400-11eb-8deb-b948d0931c16_story.html
Unless there is hard political pressure to prioritize, which pretty much has to come from moneyed interests, it's going to be agonizing. Hopefully this will be a major push from organized protest this year, once everyone has access to vaccines and people are less afraid to join the crowds.
Spain they have overflowing “temporary immigration facilities” and “temporary detention facilities.” None of the rest get migrants, and unauthorized migrants can’t really get to New Zealand.
Biden's administration moving immigrants to hotels isn't a negative, and its not a simple process and its not quick. Opening up America for millions of immigrants by smoothing out the process is literally what I said.
Trump opened numerous camps because hey were overflowing with immigrants from the border, it was all over the news. It was a priority his government took horrific pride in. Biden's in a transition with his immigration plans, because the government is slow by design.
Yeah, but that's not the whole story on Biden's immigration stances. This diminishes the improvements he's made while in office. Would I love to see his immigration move faster and get everyone out of the camps? Sure. But it's that simple to solve.
I'm sorry, what? Improving immigration on that scale is not an easy problem to fix like that. There is no "soon" in immigration like you want to change, the government isn't built like that, and its in marginally worse shape post-Trump.
What is the application process - citizenship, asylum seeking, refugee, and working - like for New Zealand? To again compare to America's.
I'm making a different point than you think I am. You think I'm being jingoistic "America, Hurrah!" and actually I'm saying that every country in the world that I know of has a xenophobic and dysfunctional immigration policy.
If the voters aren't comfortable granting power to politicians who are more humanely minded on immigration, then we should be organizing and talking about how to change those peoples' minds. But when you do things like say, "Well it's a start" or "it's a bit better than Trump's policies" (in that they're more politely worded I guess) you actually validate their position rather than challenge it. In fact, it pushes in the direction of challenging us who are advocating for the big change.
Civil Rights movement is considered by some to have begun in 1947 and culminated in 1968
Twenty one years, so I suppose we better get started by pressuring the presumably more malleable guy now before the next Republican gets in.
Maybe fourteen years of ceaseless agitation, marching, demonstrating, protest and non-violent resistance if you wanna start the clock at 1954 but still, now’s the time for action, not “give them time to sort things out.”
21 years isn't soon, Lanz and we still live in a world where Black Lives Matter is relevant in political discourse. Why do you assume people inside and out of government aren't doing this on immigration?
Nobody in this thread is disagreeing with that fact. Acknowledging government is slow by design like with immigration isn't doing that, how can people fix things like immigration if they don't have the right expectations with how the government works? Ignoring it won't make the government run any faster. If you think time for action outside of government wha the government does is irrelevant you're going to do whatever anyway. Which people are doing, inside of government you don't have to be an activist on the streets to improve immigration in America.
In New Zealand if you have a specific skill you can get sponsored and come, if you don’t you get on the lottery. Refugees have to get to New Zealand to apply as a refugee, which is not cheap. And requires a flight. He seems why they only have 1000 refugees. And their borders are closed to most migrants since Covid.
In my experience, a small amount of acknowledgement of progress is necessary to encourage further progress, but you have to avoid going too far with it. If you refuse to acknowledge it, people give up because they feel you're impossible to please, while obviously you don't throw a damned party with Mission Accomplished or something.
Which leads me to the conclusion of, the United States does not have the "most welcoming" stance on immigration.
Because for several years including under the last democratic administration our immigration system for undocumented immigrants was to treat them as criminals, and so far neither party has particularly made good on it aside from talk about supporting the Dreamers while doing little to actually solve the problem of “the government keeps locking up brown folk crossing the southern border”
Because American politics is still deep in the throes of white supremacy to the point it doesn’t readily recognize it as long as it isn’t directly shouting slurs, as long as the violence is abstracted away through layers of facade that create the illusion that these laws and regs apply to all, yet it is primarily POC who are ensnared and made to suffer its cruelty.
Because I’m tired of even Democrats supporting system this inherently cruel and inhumane as we dwell in a nation founded on theft from and genocide of the native populace, then pulled up the ramp once folks who could not readily be adopted into whiteness started immigrating in large enough numbers to threaten white dominance.
Because I’m tired of my government instigating cruelties against my fellow human beings in the name of order and process, all ultimately the abstractions of white supremacy as ever entangled through every inch of this nation and its policies, and the folks who are willing to cut the executors of such policy slack because they share a party affiliation with them instead of demanding that the most powerful people in this country do more and do better.
That would be the "too far with it" scenario. Conceding nothing just gets you ignored. Politicians are looking for opportunities to look good. If you refuse them that they'll move to something else.
It’s only ever actually slow when it comes to things like “please stop oppressing people of color.”
Which they are in the process of doing.