As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

U.S Immigration

1252628303138

Posts

  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Idk man this whole "you'll never be happy" meme when we're posting about a Democratic administration putting kids in boxes and splitting up families seems kind of grotesque.

    The assertion that families are being split up on false charges was made earlier, and shouted down as lies. It was not defended at the time.

    And now you're repeating the charge that families are being split up.

    This is frustrating.

    adytumJaysonFour
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Biden literally undoing everything the Trump administration implemented would not be "progress," because that would merely be a reversion to the Obama-era immigration policies.

    Undoing all of Trump's policies is less than the acceptable bare minimum, and Biden hasn't even undone all of them yet.

    This is why I chafe at people demanding we give Biden credit for all the "progress" he is making.

    I don't think you know what the word "progress" means.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    Idk man this whole "you'll never be happy" meme when we're posting about a Democratic administration putting kids in boxes and splitting up families seems kind of grotesque.

    The assertion that families are being split up on false charges was made earlier, and shouted down as lies. It was not defended at the time.

    And now you're repeating the charge that families are being split up.

    This is frustrating.

    What the government defines as family for the purpose of splitting people up is jot what you or I or these immigrants would define as family.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Dee Kae
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    kime wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Biden literally undoing everything the Trump administration implemented would not be "progress," because that would merely be a reversion to the Obama-era immigration policies.

    Undoing all of Trump's policies is less than the acceptable bare minimum, and Biden hasn't even undone all of them yet.

    This is why I chafe at people demanding we give Biden credit for all the "progress" he is making.

    I don't think you know what the word "progress" means.

    I invite you to watch the Malcolm X video again.

    Insisting it is "progress" whenever a Democatic president undoes some of the regressive policies put in place by their Republican predecessor is how nothing ever materially improves.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Henroidsomething a million times dumberTicaldfjamKristmas KthulhuBloodsheedDamnItCohaagenTefDee KaeAistanMan in the Mists
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    When it comes to immigration, it is best to assume things have always been shit within living memory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Chaffee_crisis
    The Fort Chaffee crisis occurred when during the Mariel boatlift in 1980 when over 19,000 Cuban refugees were detained at Fort Chaffee. After a promise of quick release many processing setbacks occurred and many refugees remained still detained at the center. Frustrated with the conditions many refugees rioted, 62 refugees were injured (some by gunfire) and 46 others were arrested. Refugees at the center would go on to refer to the riot as El Domingo. After the riots Governor Bill Clinton put heavy fortifications at the center. Clinton would lose the later Arkansas election after his opponent would use the incident against him.[1]
    On May 26 hundreds of refugees escaped the base through an unguarded gate. The refugees couldn't be captured since they were technically not illegal aliens. Clinton would later recall "I was afraid people in the area were going to start shooting them. There had been a run on handguns and rifles in every gun store within fifty miles of Chaffee."[2] As the group of refugees walked to Barling armed citizens, some on horseback, faced down the escapees to stop their movement. The police intervened to stop violence and asked for a Spanish speaking interpreter. Eduardo Gamarra a Bolivian born refugee re-locator official was brought in to interpret. Gamarra pleaded the refugees sit down to talk, warning the residents might open fire. The refugees talked of their frustrations in not finding sponsors so they could leave the base and Gamarra reassured them he would help to find sponsors, the refugees decided to return to the base. As the refugees returned to the base's fence the angered citizens charged the refugees pushing some over the fence and forcing them back into the base.[3]

    Later that night Ku Klux Klan members carrying torches marched by the base with signs saying "Kill the Communist Criminals" while local armed vigilantes circled the base with pickup trucks.[5] Gamarra would recall that later that night the local news would refer to the standoff as a sit-in protest staged by the refugees.[3]
    After the May 26th standoff People magazine quoted an INS officer claiming that, “85 percent of the refugees are convicts, robbers, murderers, homosexuals, and prostitutes.” This figure was a gross overestimate, but stoked popular fears. Former Carter administration official Gene Eidenberg stated on the media’s role in the incident: “I was in Chicago in 1968. What happened at Ft. Chaffee was a disturbance but it became a riot in the public mind. The national media defined the character of 127,000 Cubans… people wandered off the base on a hot summer night to stretch their legs, they were scared, nervous, bored, but not about to take on the U.S. Army.” Mayor Jack Freeze of neighboring community Fort Smith noted of the incident "People here decided they didn’t want the Cubans before they saw them. The press had already said they were bad. I knew they couldn’t be productive. There might be a Desi Arnaz or two out there, but mostly they were going to be killing one another."[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#History
    In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan reacted to the mass migration of asylum seekers arriving in boats from Haiti by establishing a program to interdict them (i.e. stop and search certain vessels suspected of transporting undocumented Haitians).[11] As the number of undocumented immigrants who were fleeing economic and political conditions increased, President Bush Sr attempted to find a regional location to handle the influx. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees arranged for several countries in the region—Belize, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela—to temporarily provide a safe haven for Haitians, however the Coast Guard was quickly overwhelmed, and by November 18, 1991, the United States forcibly returned 538 Haitians to Haiti.[12] These options also proved inadequate for the sheer numbers of Haitians fleeing their country, and the Coast Guard took them to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, where they were pre-screened for asylum in the United States.

    This does not excuse failures to improve things

    Couscous on
    override367HenroidFencingsaxKristmas KthulhuMan in the Mists
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Biden literally undoing everything the Trump administration implemented would not be "progress," because that would merely be a reversion to the Obama-era immigration policies.

    Undoing all of Trump's policies is less than the acceptable bare minimum, and Biden hasn't even undone all of them yet.

    This is why I chafe at people demanding we give Biden credit for all the "progress" he is making.
    To get specific, this would still leave our "economic" qualifiers (roundabout racism) in place, it would still leave Operation Gatekeeper in place, it would still leave child separation (no matter how politely phrased) in place, and ICE would still exist. Just to name a few things. A reset button is not progress enough.

    "is not progress enough" is something we all agree on, I think, and it would be really really cool if we could all keep that in mind in this discussion.

    "is not progress period" is a fundamental misunderstanding of English for anyone who doesn't want more racism.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    IncenjucarElvenshaeshrykeLord_AsmodeusadytumJaysonFour
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    shryke
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Biden literally undoing everything the Trump administration implemented would not be "progress," because that would merely be a reversion to the Obama-era immigration policies.

    Undoing all of Trump's policies is less than the acceptable bare minimum, and Biden hasn't even undone all of them yet.

    This is why I chafe at people demanding we give Biden credit for all the "progress" he is making.

    I don't think you know what the word "progress" means.

    I don't think you do either, 3 steps back and 1 step forward is not progress no matter how much that 1 step forward feels good.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    override367DarkPrimusYamiB.KraintBloodsheedKristmas KthulhuTefDamnItCohaagenDee KaeDavid WalgasMan in the Mists
  • HenroidHenroid Affiliate Streamer Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Biden literally undoing everything the Trump administration implemented would not be "progress," because that would merely be a reversion to the Obama-era immigration policies.

    Undoing all of Trump's policies is less than the acceptable bare minimum, and Biden hasn't even undone all of them yet.

    This is why I chafe at people demanding we give Biden credit for all the "progress" he is making.
    To get specific, this would still leave our "economic" qualifiers (roundabout racism) in place, it would still leave Operation Gatekeeper in place, it would still leave child separation (no matter how politely phrased) in place, and ICE would still exist. Just to name a few things. A reset button is not progress enough.

    "is not progress enough" is something we all agree on, I think, and it would be really really cool if we could all keep that in mind in this discussion.

    "is not progress period" is a fundamental misunderstanding of English for anyone who doesn't want more racism.
    Your interest in the argument is dictionary definitions while we're arguing about peoples lives?

    Affiliate on Twitch (henroidt) - 10pm to 2am PST
    Currently need help with living expenses. Relevant link is on my Twitch page.
    Styrofoam SammichDarkPrimusYamiB.something a million times dumberBloodsheedKristmas KthulhuTefDamnItCohaagenMan in the Mists
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    YamiB.Kristmas Kthulhu
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    I mean, I do consider it immoral to turn people away at the border, but I also admit that I'm for open borders, so y'know :P

    But that also doesn't change the fact that I can recognize steps towards what I want, even if it's just the 1,000,000th step moving to the 999,999th step.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Websters defines progress as
    a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant

    So i dont think any of you are using it right.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    kimeKristmas KthulhuDee Kae
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but US courts have said that we should not turn asylum seekers away at the border, like a couple of times

    DarkPrimus
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    Idk man this whole "you'll never be happy" meme when we're posting about a Democratic administration putting kids in boxes and splitting up families seems kind of grotesque.

    The assertion that families are being split up on false charges was made earlier, and shouted down as lies. It was not defended at the time.

    And now you're repeating the charge that families are being split up.

    This is frustrating.

    What the government defines as family for the purpose of splitting people up is jot what you or I or these immigrants would define as family.

    I'm trying to find policy specifics that you might be talking about, and coming up empty.

    Where does this assertion come from?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Why do we need background checks? Doesnt seem to me that theyre any more likely to be deranged killers than the rest of us and we certainly wouldnt just start drag netting some random sidewalk just in case a serial killer is walking down it.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DoodmannYamiB.Kristmas KthulhuAistanMan in the Mists
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Why do we need background checks? Doesnt seem to me that theyre any more likely to be deranged killers than the rest of us and we certainly wouldnt just start drag netting some random sidewalk just in case a serial killer is walking down it.

    I mean, parts of America have made it okay for cops to do that and they always do with gusto
    assuming your skin color falls within a certain range anyway

    Styrofoam SammichDoodmannDarkPrimusTicaldfjamKristmas KthulhuMan in the Mists
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    An ID check along the border seems fine? For everyone, not just immigrants.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Prove it's a serious problem and I'll take it seriously. We already have mechanisms for screening for known dangerous people. I mean, if you are talking "please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" as detention, cool, I can get behind that. If you mean "Please go stand in that cage with 50 other people during COVID for weeks on end" as detention, not a chance.

    YamiB.Kristmas KthulhuDoodmannTefDamnItCohaagenAistan
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    I never said everyone should be arrested. I said people crossing the border will need to be screened on entry.

    So, let’s say we do no background check and anyone who makes it to the border is let in with a court date. Is there any acceptable criteria by which it’s ok to deport them?

    If not, how is that anything other than a policy of open borders by another name?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    I never said everyone should be arrested. I said people crossing the border will need to be screened on entry.

    So, let’s say we do no background check and anyone who makes it to the border is let in with a court date. Is there any acceptable criteria by which it’s ok to deport them?

    If not, how is that anything other than a policy of open borders by another name?

    My proposed "let them go and give them a court date" doesnt preclude eventual deportation for illegal entry. We just wouldnt be putting them in covid boxes until then.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DarkPrimusoverride367YamiB.Kristmas KthulhuMan in the Mists
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    You are arguing two entirely different things Marathon. Letting people in with a court date to be reviewed for an appointment with a judge is NOT open borders. It's not even beginning to address what cases are ok for deportation. We are arguing for humane treatment of human beings. You are... trying to determine what amounts to acceptable reasons to allow someone into the country or not. Let's deal with the emergency, then we can handle your issue?

    Styrofoam SammichKristmas Kthulhu
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Prove it's a serious problem and I'll take it seriously. We already have mechanisms for screening for known dangerous people. I mean, if you are talking "please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" as detention, cool, I can get behind that. If you mean "Please go stand in that cage with 50 other people during COVID for weeks on end" as detention, not a chance.

    The volume of people arriving daily changes what I believe is a system they want to work in a manner like “please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" into one where people are being detained far too long.

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Prove it's a serious problem and I'll take it seriously. We already have mechanisms for screening for known dangerous people. I mean, if you are talking "please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" as detention, cool, I can get behind that. If you mean "Please go stand in that cage with 50 other people during COVID for weeks on end" as detention, not a chance.

    The volume of people arriving daily changes what I believe is a system they want to work in a manner like “please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" into one where people are being detained far too long.

    Again, the onus is on the people making the claim (you, the gov't) to prove your assertion, not on me to prove the negative.

    YamiB.Kristmas KthulhuDamnItCohaagenMan in the Mists
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We've been promised incremental progress for decades and have shit to show for it. And we're being assured that "this time it will be different," just as we were promised with Obama. See how cyclical this is becoming?

    So trying to reinforce the narrative of "but progress is being made" doesn't actually help the situation. The only thing it helps is white people from feeling guilty.

    That's because a lot of what you call "progress" is stuff the majority of the country doesn't desire.

    If your benchmark for progress is essentially the dissolution of the border. Yeah we will never make sufficient progress for you.

    I mean I'm fine with having open borders as a utopian goal, I mostly support it as an ideal goal.

    That being a goal doesn't mean that anything less is an abject failure and only worthy of derision.

    Do you guys actually think we're upset Biden hasnt dissolved the borders?

    I think the notion comes across in these discussions because often any sort of detention is categorized as unacceptable, and in some posts so is turning away anyone who reaches the border. Even Biden’s policy to discourage migrants from traveling here in the first place is called unacceptable.

    Taking those arguments at face value, what would a policy where none of these things took place look like except for essentially an open border?

    The Biden administration is trying to get people to apply for asylum before/instead of making a dangerous journey to the border. And those who do come and make it across the border will require some amount of processing, which currently requires them to be detained in the meantime.

    That detention should be as humane as possible and also for the shortest duration, but I don’t see any way around it, because I don’t consider “give them a court date and have them be on their way” to be a realistic alternative.

    Why isnt it a viable alternative? There's no observed difficulty in getting immigrants to show up for court dates.

    Because I don’t see how you get around even a basic level of background check for people arriving at the border. It would be irresponsible to not check to be sure someone doesn’t have a history as a violent criminal or something like that. And in the meantime you can’t just let them walk, some period of detention seems unavoidable.

    Prove it's a serious problem and I'll take it seriously. We already have mechanisms for screening for known dangerous people. I mean, if you are talking "please sit there in that chair for a bit while we run your ID" as detention, cool, I can get behind that. If you mean "Please go stand in that cage with 50 other people during COVID for weeks on end" as detention, not a chance.

    Mostly the only people being detained right now are unaccompanied minors though. Who you can't just release on their own because they are, you know, minors. That's the majority of what the actual problem is right now with needing to hold people. And this has been pointed out many times already.

    shryke on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Let's not call it detained, it massively undersells what's happening right now. Weeks in overcrowded cages during a pandemic is not "detained". Yes, yes, literal definitions and all that.

    The only reason also that it's only kids is because they can use Title 42 to reject all adults w/o kids.

    DarkPrimusKristmas KthulhuDamnItCohaagen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Let's not call it detained, it massively undersells what's happening right now. Weeks in overcrowded cages during a pandemic is not "detained". Yes, yes, literal definitions and all that.

    The only reason also that it's only kids is because they can use Title 42 to reject all adults w/o kids.

    That wouldn't solve the issue of needing to hold the unaccompanied minors though. It might actually make the situation worse as they'd need to process even more people.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    DamnItCohaagen
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    They are holding people who are trying to apply for asylum in these same facilities, and to remind you and the rest of the thread, one can still apply for asylum without having to present themselves to authorities at an official border crossing station. These people, definitionally, have broken no laws.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Styrofoam SammichTyphoid MannyKristmas Kthulhusomething a million times dumberZibblsnrtDoodmannoverride367DamnItCohaagenDee KaeAistanDavid WalgasMan in the Mists
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    Sorry, you seemed to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to ever happen.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Kristmas KthulhuYamiB.David Walgas
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    Depends how fast you were going. I've definitely know folks driving so fast they got arrested.

    Sleep on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    Depends how fast you were going.

    Yeah and if illegal immigrants are trying to get into the country by ramming a car through a border checkpoint things might go differently for them, its not inportant to the point.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Kristmas KthulhuYamiB.Man in the Mists
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    I have been. There is speeding and then there is SPEEDING. The main difference is that say 10 over is a civil violation...more over is a criminal violation.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    I have been. There is speeding and then there is SPEEDING. The main difference is that say 10 over is a civil violation...more over is a criminal violation.

    Yes Im aware how traffic laws work thanks, the point being even our shitty carcerially obssessed system is perfectly capable of dealing with misdemeanors and non violent crimes without arresting people

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Kristmas KthulhuMan in the Mists
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Let's not call it detained, it massively undersells what's happening right now. Weeks in overcrowded cages during a pandemic is not "detained". Yes, yes, literal definitions and all that.

    The only reason also that it's only kids is because they can use Title 42 to reject all adults w/o kids.

    That wouldn't solve the issue of needing to hold the unaccompanied minors though. It might actually make the situation worse as they'd need to process even more people.

    what is it about unaccompanied minors that makes necessary locking said minors up under these conditions?

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 8
    If the government is worried about someone they can make border enforcement aware of their name and photo and they can be brought before a court instead of released on their own. Arresting everyone who crosses the border because some of then may have violent intentions borders on collective punishment.

    They are getting arrest for illegal entry... Like, if the next time fly back into the US, instead of waiting in the customs line at O'Hare, I just try and hoof it out through a fire exit or something, my natural born citizen ass is going to be arrested.

    Lots of people in this thread seem to be arguing for a system of "well these are the laws, but any consequence for violating them or enforcement of them is wrong" Which like fine, just argue for Open Borders then, we can have that debate honestly. But if there is any sort of system for gaining legal entry into the country. There also needs to be a law enforcement function for the people who circumvent those laws, otherwise they don't exist.

    Im not sure how to engage with you when you call a system in which courts still deport people for illegal entry "open borders". You have the ideal opponent youd like to argue with and whatever they're actually saying be damned.

    You seem to arguing that, it is wrong for the government to arrest them at all... Which like yeah they can be bonded out for later court dates, but they still need to be arrested for that process to happen.

    When I break the speed limit Im not arrested.

    I have been. There is speeding and then there is SPEEDING. The main difference is that say 10 over is a civil violation...more over is a criminal violation.

    Tinwhisker for Christ’s sake you know what the analogy here is.

    You’re so preoccupied with the idea that they violated a border by crossing it without papers or at a designated checkpoint that its blinding you to the fact nearly every one of them are non violent and of no actual risk yet you are still coming down on the side of the idea that they need to be treated to the nightmare of our carceral system for coming over the wrong way

    EDIT: as well to Sleep and that post. You all are smart enough to understand the point being made here, you don’t have to try and find gotchas in a goddamn analogy

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DarkPrimusBloodsheedKristmas KthulhuDee KaeMan in the Mists
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    I have had this discussion with a lot of people like tinwhiskers, and the arguement generally always gets stuck around the "they broke the rules!" point, and it's REALLY difficult to get past that. They'll acknowledge a law is unjust, but still claim people should suffer the punishment if they violate it because "it was the law".

Sign In or Register to comment.