My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
override367 on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
you keep demanding this and every time the response is "well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government that they don't have freedom of movement within" and you keep ignoring it. it is tedious. being smug about it doesn't make it less so. it does the opposite, which you definitely are aware of.
I also think it's really weird that you keep accusing people of "making stuff up" since any time any one suggests any solution to this problem other than a nicer-looking camp where the checks come on different letterhead, your response is to invent elements of that solution that are dumb and bad, which nobody ever said would be part of it:
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
Most people don't live in a government-run facility that can be tracked down.
+3
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
you keep demanding this and every time the response is "well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government that they don't have freedom of movement within" and you keep ignoring it. it is tedious. being smug about it doesn't make it less so. it does the opposite, which you definitely are aware of.
I also think it's really weird that you keep accusing people of "making stuff up" since any time any one suggests any solution to this problem other than a nicer-looking camp where the checks come on different letterhead, your response is to invent elements of that solution that are dumb and bad, which nobody ever said would be part of it:
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
So, the other suggestion was that we would put people in a hotel room. That's where my description came from. That's what a hotel room is, no?
"well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government" is not what a prison or a concentration camp are, not without more details. That's why I'm not ignoring it, I'm directly addressing it by saying that's not what those words mean. Not having freedom of movement within the place could be an important detail, is that the case? Are they confined to one room/small area in the facility? I wasn't aware of that, and that'd be a nice piece of evidence I was asking for! Can you link please? I'll grab a pitchfork right along with you.
This whole current discussion is about the HHS temporary migrant childrens shelter (as opposed to ICE) opened to handle the spike of unaccompanied minors. It seems to have spiraled off into a spasm of kneejerk emotion and arguments from soundbites.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
ICE detention centers meeting the definition of concentration camps was a settled matter years ago.
That has not changed now that Biden is sitting in the Oval Office.
Agreed. Thankfully this isn't an ICE detention center. Unless you're talking about something different, and not the facility that Biden re-opened which was closed a couple years ago and is run by HHS?
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
you keep demanding this and every time the response is "well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government that they don't have freedom of movement within" and you keep ignoring it. it is tedious. being smug about it doesn't make it less so. it does the opposite, which you definitely are aware of.
I also think it's really weird that you keep accusing people of "making stuff up" since any time any one suggests any solution to this problem other than a nicer-looking camp where the checks come on different letterhead, your response is to invent elements of that solution that are dumb and bad, which nobody ever said would be part of it:
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
So, the other suggestion was that we would put people in a hotel room. That's where my description came from. That's what a hotel room is, no?
"well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government" is not what a prison or a concentration camp are, not without more details. That's why I'm not ignoring it, I'm directly addressing it by saying that's not what those words mean. Not having freedom of movement within the place could be an important detail, is that the case? Are they confined to one room/small area in the facility? I wasn't aware of that, and that'd be a nice piece of evidence I was asking for! Can you link please? I'll grab a pitchfork right along with you.
so, in the hypothetical you're responding to, you assumed that there would be no freedom of movement or interaction with other people. that's interesting.
and then in the real-life situation, you're demanding that I issue you with a white paper to indicate that the camp run by the government for migrants and refugees, people historically not treated well by any government, and particularly this one (regardless of who happens to be president that year), will not have that same thing.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
The Gila River War Relocation Center was an American concentration camp in Arizona, one of several built by the War Relocation Authority (WRA) during the Second World War for the incarceration of Japanese Americans from the West Coast.
I think there's probably a pretty big psychological difference between a hotel and a government internment facility, having personally been confined to a hotel and a few varieties of government internment facility
I really hope I'm 100% wrong, but I would still prefer that teens be allowed to leave, given that we can track them with anklets and give them cell phones
we should try to make their lives as normal as possible as long as they are in the care of the United States Government, and appealing to the horrific nature of our criminal justice system to provide a contrast in conditions doesn't really alter my position
override367 on
+3
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
What is the scenario you are envisioning that is worse than imprisonment
Abduction, murder, rape, trafficking, susceptibility to crime or drug addiction, gang affiliation, beatings from bigots.
Imprisonment implies that there is no way out for them. We all agree that their stay should be temporary, but without a path to citizenship or someone to take them in, how long do we expect them to stay anywhere until they're at least 18?
That's probably a good cutoff, once they're 18 or older (which could be difficult to verify depending on the lack of records), they could be transferred to something more akin to a hotel, halfway house, or community center
Do you think that every single hispanic teenager in America should be imprisoned until they turn 18? Maybe just the ones in foster care, or the ones who don't speak English?
We are specifically talking about unaccompanied undocumented minors. For the ones that have sponsors or relatives waiting for them, they can be transferred out quickly, but there are apparently thousands of them coming over per day.
What's your solution for the ones that don't? What's your solution for, or opinion of, border control to begin with?
At the 66-acre site, groups of beige trailers encircle a giant white dining tent, a soccer field and a basketball court. There is a bright blue hospital tent with white bunk beds inside. A legal services trailer has the Spanish word “Bienvenidos,” or welcome, on a banner on its roof. There are trailers for classrooms, a barber shop, a hair salon. The facility has its own ambulances and firetrucks, as well as its own water supply.
You know what else this describes almost perfectly, Manzanar.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
personally I think "we have to keep the teenagers in prison because teenagers don't follow rules" is the unserious position here
Lemme know when you have any evidence this is anything close to prison, kthx.
Making stuff up because it fits your narrative (a narrative that was accurately used for Trump) doesn't make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
you keep demanding this and every time the response is "well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government that they don't have freedom of movement within" and you keep ignoring it. it is tedious. being smug about it doesn't make it less so. it does the opposite, which you definitely are aware of.
I also think it's really weird that you keep accusing people of "making stuff up" since any time any one suggests any solution to this problem other than a nicer-looking camp where the checks come on different letterhead, your response is to invent elements of that solution that are dumb and bad, which nobody ever said would be part of it:
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
So, the other suggestion was that we would put people in a hotel room. That's where my description came from. That's what a hotel room is, no?
"well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government" is not what a prison or a concentration camp are, not without more details. That's why I'm not ignoring it, I'm directly addressing it by saying that's not what those words mean. Not having freedom of movement within the place could be an important detail, is that the case? Are they confined to one room/small area in the facility? I wasn't aware of that, and that'd be a nice piece of evidence I was asking for! Can you link please? I'll grab a pitchfork right along with you.
so, in the hypothetical you're responding to, you assumed that there would be no freedom of movement or interaction with other people. that's interesting.
and then in the real-life situation, you're demanding that I issue you with a white paper to indicate that the camp run by the government for migrants and refugees, people historically not treated well by any government, and particularly this one (regardless of who happens to be president that year), will not have that same thing.
That's true. I think I'm mostly thinking of Covid, in that you shouldn't just hang out in random people's hotel rooms, but hanging out with a group of people outside is entirely different.
If we ignore Covid, though, then sure, we can assume people can visit other people's hotel rooms. With equivalent rules, it's still probably not better than a larger place with lots of outdoor space.
But I think you're missing the point. I didn't call the hotel a prison, even in my maybe-too-extreme hypothetical. I didn't call it a concentration camp. That's the difference.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
MAGA chuds have already targeted migrant facilities.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
MAGA chuds have already targeted migrant facilities.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
MAGA chuds have already targeted migrant facilities.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
Angola is, according to Wikipedia, one of the largest prisons in the US? So maybe there are larger prisons than this place, yeah. I mentioned before, though, that there was a claim that movement within this immigration facility was heavily restricted? That's what I'd be curious about.
It does feel like we're not getting anywhere. Hopefully we get actual third-party accounts from this soon, so that we can stop making stuff up at each other :P
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
Social workers are not caregivers and expecting them to act that way is asinine and displays a lack of understanding of what their jobs entail.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
Angola is, according to Wikipedia, one of the largest prisons in the US? So maybe there are larger prisons than this place, yeah. I mentioned before, though, that there was a claim that movement within this immigration facility was heavily restricted? That's what I'd be curious about.
It does feel like we're not getting anywhere. Hopefully we get actual third-party accounts from this soon, so that we can stop making stuff up at each other :P
I mean you described it as "as far from a prison is in the US", citing the 60 acres. Did you mean in sone other way?
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
Angola is also not exactly a free range, roam as you will area. Incarcerated people aren’t wandering the full area of the prison grounds, they’re mostly staying in one building while being occasionally chaperoned between wings under various levels of supervision.
I’m not saying that the conditions we hold migrant children in should be anything less than what any child deserves, and that certainly isn’t what we provide, but land area and a fence doesn’t make a prison, the mission and the staff do.
You can make a group home for children that restricts some liberties while doing your best to keep them comfortable, safe, and accounted for. But we created a fucking mess and our priorities are terrible, so we don’t have a lot of those available anywhere, government or nonprofit, especially not at the numbers needed for what are likely ESL kids, at best.
Biden could do more, and should do more, but you can’t snap away the fact that caring for children of any age requires a lot of resources and a shit ton of oversight, which takes time.
I’m not comfortable essentially releasing a teenager to their own devices in a foreign country to make the best of it, though I admit I might have said differently a year ago. But now I don’t believe we have to choose between prison and gross negligence, unless we insist on acting immediately.
It’s a grave injustice every day these kids aren’t with family or a proper, caring guardian, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make it worse.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
Social workers are not caregivers and expecting them to act that way is asinine and displays a lack of understanding of what their jobs entail.
if you think that the current facilities have adequate personnel then this isn't a real criticism.
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
Social workers are not caregivers and expecting them to act that way is asinine and displays a lack of understanding of what their jobs entail.
I used it as a catch all for the various not medical or prison guard people whod be working with these kids. If you have some problem with that fine, but you understood me just fine. Seemed unnecessary to diffentiate between government baby sitters and people tracking down next of kin in this context.
I'm of the opinion that imprisonment is really bad for the emotional well being of people and we shouldn't see problems with not imprisoning as unassailable barriers
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
You're describing a large prison
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
Angola is, according to Wikipedia, one of the largest prisons in the US? So maybe there are larger prisons than this place, yeah. I mentioned before, though, that there was a claim that movement within this immigration facility was heavily restricted? That's what I'd be curious about.
It does feel like we're not getting anywhere. Hopefully we get actual third-party accounts from this soon, so that we can stop making stuff up at each other :P
I mean you described it as "as far from a prison is in the US", citing the 60 acres. Did you mean in sone other way?
I mean that I am assuming that most of the 60-acres are relatively open for people to go to when they want to. I described it as "a fence around the 60 acres," trying to imply that that was the main restriction-- you just can't leave the area. I don't think there are many prisons that fit that definition. It's more than just size, and I'm sorry if that was unclear before. I've tried to emphasize in my posts here recently that freedom of movement within the place is important.
Edit: freedom of movement as appropriate for kids/teens, which isn't, and shouldn't be, complete freedom. It isn't in our everyday, non-immigrant-facility lives.
My point is that there is a non-zero chance that the MAGA crowd are going to go and seek out these kids for harassment. Making sure you can keep said crowd away from the kids is important.
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
MAGA chuds have already targeted migrant facilities.
A friend of the dead man said she thought he wanted to provoke a fatal conflict, the Seattle Times reported, and described him as an anarchist and anti-fascist.
If you want to make a specific point find an article that supports it instead of maligning leftists due to being lazy.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
"You aren't allowed to leave this place" doesn't automatically make something a prison, no.
Edit: Nor a concentration camp, per the below post.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
Lots of highschools let kids leave campus. Often when they dont its because of some reasonable safety hazard. Mine was right alongside a highway. Id wager most restrictions are really about avoiding tardiness.
A hotel with some social workers is a bad solution
I'd argue it's a few hundred steps up from a concentration camp though, especially as a stop gap measure
Thankfully we're no longer putting kids in concentration camps.
Now theyre Child Mandatory Enrichment Facilties or whatever Psaki was calling them.
What would these hotels be referred to politically? Will the unaccompanied kids be allowed to or be capable of leaving these hotels?
If yes, that's a terribly stupid idea, and if not, don't the hotels become prisons or concentration camps by just another name?
well, which one do you think you would prefer
Being stuck in a single, small room with only a TV for company for days on end sounds pretty bad, not gonna lie. I don't know the condition of the new place that was opened, so can't really compare it accurately. I could make up something if you want, though? That seems to be popular here recently.
I agree thatd be bad. Government social workers should make sure they have more to do at the Best Western or whatever.
So.... if, in this hypothetical, we're already talking about a benevolent government, is there any reason a 60+ acre with a lot of outdoor space and opportunities to interact wouldn't just be better than a bunch of random hotels around the area? Again, we are in "the government wants to help" universe.
Theres a message being sent that matters. If we pick up kids and put them in out buildings surrounded by chain link we're sending a message to them and ourselves about what their place in our society is, no matter how nicely they are treated on the inside.
Putting them in the same kinds of buildings the rest of us stay in while traveling isnt a perfect solution but it at least makes it clear theyre a part of our society and not Others. All their specific needs can be met. They can still get supervision, engagement, etc. Its a better stop gap until a better foster system can be set up.
Will they be allowed to come and go as they please? If not, they'll get the message that they're being forced to stay regardless.
At least at a secure fenced-in site we can have a yard or playground for them to be outside as opposed to stuck in a single room with a TV.
I dont see any reason they should be generally more confined than any other teenager. Curfews, checkins, restrictions based on particular case by case situations etc.
This isn't a serious idea. Expecting teenagers to simply "follow the rules" is an absolute recipe for disaster.
You use this handwave too often. Your complaint here is more of a general parenting one than an actual immigration policy.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
Social workers are not caregivers and expecting them to act that way is asinine and displays a lack of understanding of what their jobs entail.
if you think that the current facilities have adequate personnel then this isn't a real criticism.
I don't think we do, no, and we'll have even less if we think we can just summon up several thousand more to act as babysitters or surrogate caregivers in addition to their standard duties.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
"You aren't allowed to leave this place" doesn't automatically make something a prison, no.
Edit: Nor a concentration camp, per the below post.
The size of a facility, and the amenities it provides, do not preclude it from still being a concentration camp.
If you really want me to, I guess I can go back to the Wikipedia articles and quote to you the amenities provided at previous American concentration camps. They didn't have televisions back then, I'll grant you that one.
I'm going to shoot down the hotel thing because IMO anyone pushing that is ignoring reality. First and foremost, the government cannot make hotels house these kids and before someone glibly states they should. Think long and hard about all the assholes you don't want to government being able to force you to house. You know like the whole thing where the Trump administration tried to force businesses to house the federal goons during the BLM protests. Second, as the post above with the article about the shitty MAGA fucker firebombing a migrant center illustrates, businesses can have some legit reasons for not wanting to house those kids. Sure some will be shitty and it'll be all about their fucking bottom line. Others won't want to do it because they know that their facility is woefully inadequate for such a task; especially, when you have racist fuckers that are intent on causing harm. Hell, let's also keep in mind that anywhere you have a concentration of children, is also going to be a location that will pique the interest some sick individuals. I think there is a very fair argument to made that it might actually be less ethical to put them in hotel rooms because you can't ensure both their safety and psychological needs. It is worth pointing out the vast majority of hotels aren't build with the idea of huge groups mingling.
There is also the cost end of things, which segues into the real problems. Congress gives the administration only so much money to deal with issues and these kids need some sort of shelter; especially, when the weather is piss poor. If you do find a hotel that is willing to house these kids, I guarantee they will not do it on the cheap and will demand a sizable chunk of the budget that has been doled out for these sorts of things. Probably to the point, where if you did go with it, you'd end up in a scenario where you no longer have enough money to take care of all the kids. A huge chunk of this shit show is a result of Congress no funding things adequately. We don't have good facilities or an adequate number of social workers because those things don't get get properly funded. Hell, social services in general are poorly funded to begin with, so there is no good fall back at all. I'll argue this is largely by design because most of the rich people that have had influence on this nation's government have both been racist assholes and also really hate the poor. So shit being piss poor and underfunded is by design.
Like this is a step up if it's not run by ICE, but most thing likely are a step up, once ICE, which is full of fascists shits, is cut out of the picture. These kids need supervision, if you state a 13-14 year old doesn't need supervision over a long term because we're not talking about leaving them alone for a few hours, then you really have no fucking clue on how to deal with kids and should read up on the matter. They need food. They need education because at some point they stop being kids and until something changing, most of the world is a capitalistic hellscape. Hell, even if it stops being a capitalistic hellscape, they'd still need an education to ensure they could be functioning adults. They need shelter, worth pointing about that Texas has had a number of deaths from hypothermia recently. They need protection from those that would do them harm. I think it's disingenuous to equate all large government facilities that house a large number of people as concentration camps. That would be implying that schools are such things. Such facilities are only a problem, in that they become concentration camps, if human dignity isn't respected and they are viewed as a temporary location for the individuals on them.
As Bum pointed out there is no easy solution to this, nor are there quick ones. This is before we get into how badly shit is broken.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
They are allowed to leave though. Once family or a long term caregiver is located. These locations are more for holding than confinement.
There are lots of luxury apartment complexes sitting unused.
Eminent domain for humanitarian purposes would be a nice change of pace but we haven't seized these complexes to care for the homeless during the confluence of a pandemic and disastrous weather conditions, so I realize this is just me wishing in one hand.
Its a facility in which kids are picked up by the government and not allowed to leave. I get that it has a dining tent, like a fancy wedding, but we're describing a prison.
They are allowed to leave though. Once family or a long term caregiver is located. These locations are more for holding than confinement.
Oh, well if we're just temporarily "holding" kids in prison for an indeterminate amount of time...
Posts
I... don't know if you've actually met any of these racists, but they tend to not be able to tell the difference between an American born cuban teenager or a migrant from Honduras
should we erect walls around every non white person in America for their own safety? It would dramatically cut down on hate crimes!
you keep demanding this and every time the response is "well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government that they don't have freedom of movement within" and you keep ignoring it. it is tedious. being smug about it doesn't make it less so. it does the opposite, which you definitely are aware of.
I also think it's really weird that you keep accusing people of "making stuff up" since any time any one suggests any solution to this problem other than a nicer-looking camp where the checks come on different letterhead, your response is to invent elements of that solution that are dumb and bad, which nobody ever said would be part of it:
Most people don't live in a government-run facility that can be tracked down.
Yeah, it's a "hand wave" because anyone with even remote experience with teenagers knows it's the truth.
Do you think the boys and girls should be allowed to be in eachother's rooms after a certain time at night? Or is the expectation that they'll fuck eachother because *of course they will* going to limit their freedom and make them feel like prisoners?
maybe work on solutions, maybe err on the side of not imprisonment if at all possible to do it safely
I mean that literally for violent criminals too, so my opinion on the idea of forced imprisonment of migrants is probably a lot more extreme than people who think that it is moral to imprison them
Im sorry, who's not being serious here? I think government social workers should exhibit as much control over these kids as we allow reasonable parents.
So, the other suggestion was that we would put people in a hotel room. That's where my description came from. That's what a hotel room is, no?
"well it's a big fenced-in facility operated by the government" is not what a prison or a concentration camp are, not without more details. That's why I'm not ignoring it, I'm directly addressing it by saying that's not what those words mean. Not having freedom of movement within the place could be an important detail, is that the case? Are they confined to one room/small area in the facility? I wasn't aware of that, and that'd be a nice piece of evidence I was asking for! Can you link please? I'll grab a pitchfork right along with you.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I agree, so let me know when they are in a prison and I'll be right with you yelling about it. "There is a fence around the 60 acres" doesn't, in my mind, meet that bar of a prison. I wish US prisons could be described that way.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
You're describing a large prison
That has not changed now that Biden is sitting in the Oval Office.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm describing something that is so far from what a prison is in the US (or any country?) that the word nearly ceases to have meaning if you start applying it to that.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Agreed. Thankfully this isn't an ICE detention center. Unless you're talking about something different, and not the facility that Biden re-opened which was closed a couple years ago and is run by HHS?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
so, in the hypothetical you're responding to, you assumed that there would be no freedom of movement or interaction with other people. that's interesting.
and then in the real-life situation, you're demanding that I issue you with a white paper to indicate that the camp run by the government for migrants and refugees, people historically not treated well by any government, and particularly this one (regardless of who happens to be president that year), will not have that same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gila_River_War_Relocation_Center
2.4 square miles is 1536 acres
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I really hope I'm 100% wrong, but I would still prefer that teens be allowed to leave, given that we can track them with anklets and give them cell phones
we should try to make their lives as normal as possible as long as they are in the care of the United States Government, and appealing to the horrific nature of our criminal justice system to provide a contrast in conditions doesn't really alter my position
We are specifically talking about unaccompanied undocumented minors. For the ones that have sponsors or relatives waiting for them, they can be transferred out quickly, but there are apparently thousands of them coming over per day.
What's your solution for the ones that don't? What's your solution for, or opinion of, border control to begin with?
You know what else this describes almost perfectly, Manzanar.
60 acres isnt a terribly large prison. Thats about .01 square miles. Angola is 30 square miles as I recall.
That's true. I think I'm mostly thinking of Covid, in that you shouldn't just hang out in random people's hotel rooms, but hanging out with a group of people outside is entirely different.
If we ignore Covid, though, then sure, we can assume people can visit other people's hotel rooms. With equivalent rules, it's still probably not better than a larger place with lots of outdoor space.
But I think you're missing the point. I didn't call the hotel a prison, even in my maybe-too-extreme hypothetical. I didn't call it a concentration camp. That's the difference.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
MAGA chuds have already targeted migrant facilities.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/14/man-dies-as-police-shootout-follows-firebomb-attack-on-immigration-centre
Decentralized and non insitutional options might help, by putting less of a target on them than these Mandatory Fun Centers are.
Good for integration and overall emotional burden, as well. It's not good being utterly surrounded by other traumatized people.
Angola is, according to Wikipedia, one of the largest prisons in the US? So maybe there are larger prisons than this place, yeah. I mentioned before, though, that there was a claim that movement within this immigration facility was heavily restricted? That's what I'd be curious about.
It does feel like we're not getting anywhere. Hopefully we get actual third-party accounts from this soon, so that we can stop making stuff up at each other :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Social workers are not caregivers and expecting them to act that way is asinine and displays a lack of understanding of what their jobs entail.
I mean you described it as "as far from a prison is in the US", citing the 60 acres. Did you mean in sone other way?
Angola is also not exactly a free range, roam as you will area. Incarcerated people aren’t wandering the full area of the prison grounds, they’re mostly staying in one building while being occasionally chaperoned between wings under various levels of supervision.
I’m not saying that the conditions we hold migrant children in should be anything less than what any child deserves, and that certainly isn’t what we provide, but land area and a fence doesn’t make a prison, the mission and the staff do.
You can make a group home for children that restricts some liberties while doing your best to keep them comfortable, safe, and accounted for. But we created a fucking mess and our priorities are terrible, so we don’t have a lot of those available anywhere, government or nonprofit, especially not at the numbers needed for what are likely ESL kids, at best.
Biden could do more, and should do more, but you can’t snap away the fact that caring for children of any age requires a lot of resources and a shit ton of oversight, which takes time.
I’m not comfortable essentially releasing a teenager to their own devices in a foreign country to make the best of it, though I admit I might have said differently a year ago. But now I don’t believe we have to choose between prison and gross negligence, unless we insist on acting immediately.
It’s a grave injustice every day these kids aren’t with family or a proper, caring guardian, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make it worse.
if you think that the current facilities have adequate personnel then this isn't a real criticism.
I used it as a catch all for the various not medical or prison guard people whod be working with these kids. If you have some problem with that fine, but you understood me just fine. Seemed unnecessary to diffentiate between government baby sitters and people tracking down next of kin in this context.
I mean that I am assuming that most of the 60-acres are relatively open for people to go to when they want to. I described it as "a fence around the 60 acres," trying to imply that that was the main restriction-- you just can't leave the area. I don't think there are many prisons that fit that definition. It's more than just size, and I'm sorry if that was unclear before. I've tried to emphasize in my posts here recently that freedom of movement within the place is important.
Edit: freedom of movement as appropriate for kids/teens, which isn't, and shouldn't be, complete freedom. It isn't in our everyday, non-immigrant-facility lives.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
That wasn’t a MAGA chud, as the article states.
If you want to make a specific point find an article that supports it instead of maligning leftists due to being lazy.
"You aren't allowed to leave this place" doesn't automatically make something a prison, no.
Edit: Nor a concentration camp, per the below post.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Or a concentration camp.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I don't think we do, no, and we'll have even less if we think we can just summon up several thousand more to act as babysitters or surrogate caregivers in addition to their standard duties.
The size of a facility, and the amenities it provides, do not preclude it from still being a concentration camp.
If you really want me to, I guess I can go back to the Wikipedia articles and quote to you the amenities provided at previous American concentration camps. They didn't have televisions back then, I'll grant you that one.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There is also the cost end of things, which segues into the real problems. Congress gives the administration only so much money to deal with issues and these kids need some sort of shelter; especially, when the weather is piss poor. If you do find a hotel that is willing to house these kids, I guarantee they will not do it on the cheap and will demand a sizable chunk of the budget that has been doled out for these sorts of things. Probably to the point, where if you did go with it, you'd end up in a scenario where you no longer have enough money to take care of all the kids. A huge chunk of this shit show is a result of Congress no funding things adequately. We don't have good facilities or an adequate number of social workers because those things don't get get properly funded. Hell, social services in general are poorly funded to begin with, so there is no good fall back at all. I'll argue this is largely by design because most of the rich people that have had influence on this nation's government have both been racist assholes and also really hate the poor. So shit being piss poor and underfunded is by design.
Like this is a step up if it's not run by ICE, but most thing likely are a step up, once ICE, which is full of fascists shits, is cut out of the picture. These kids need supervision, if you state a 13-14 year old doesn't need supervision over a long term because we're not talking about leaving them alone for a few hours, then you really have no fucking clue on how to deal with kids and should read up on the matter. They need food. They need education because at some point they stop being kids and until something changing, most of the world is a capitalistic hellscape. Hell, even if it stops being a capitalistic hellscape, they'd still need an education to ensure they could be functioning adults. They need shelter, worth pointing about that Texas has had a number of deaths from hypothermia recently. They need protection from those that would do them harm. I think it's disingenuous to equate all large government facilities that house a large number of people as concentration camps. That would be implying that schools are such things. Such facilities are only a problem, in that they become concentration camps, if human dignity isn't respected and they are viewed as a temporary location for the individuals on them.
As Bum pointed out there is no easy solution to this, nor are there quick ones. This is before we get into how badly shit is broken.
They are allowed to leave though. Once family or a long term caregiver is located. These locations are more for holding than confinement.
Eminent domain for humanitarian purposes would be a nice change of pace but we haven't seized these complexes to care for the homeless during the confluence of a pandemic and disastrous weather conditions, so I realize this is just me wishing in one hand.
But it is possible to do.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh, well if we're just temporarily "holding" kids in prison for an indeterminate amount of time...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar