That's great, but the limits of who and what is/can be an asylum seeker are pretty narrowly defined internationally. Even a lot of Syrians are legally not recognized as asylum seekers in Europe. And if they are, they're technically supposed to apply in Turkey, not the EU. Yeah ,Turkey isn't safe....but safe enough for legal reasons!
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
You don't HAVE a Safe 3rd Country agreement with Mexico. I'm saying that's a reason that at a border wouldn't be happening, but that's not the case for Mexico. So I'm asking you where you read that "We're supposed to be taking them in at the port of entries for processing and decided we aren't going to do that anymore." Please link.
And if not, then everybody crossing "in the middle" is trying to circumvent the process because they're not eligible for that process. They're not refugees (UN definition above), they're just coming into your country illegally, and using the "magic words" to delay deportation.
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't care if they should be held or not. If they are being kept in US custody, then there is a moral and ethical responsibility to keep them in humane conditions. FULL STOP.
Where have you been the last few months?
This thread is full of links to that.
https://www.justsecurity.org/61544/happening-asylum-seekers-ports-entry-border/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=trump+port+of+entry+denial
OK, so you're in favor of more funding for your border guards to build more facilities then? Methinks if you google about funding, you'll see some other opinions...
But given the "defund them" rhetoric, they're not getting more money, even for more humane conditions, you say they can't be held. So therefore, let them in (Open Borders), or summarily deport? Which do you support Pez?
I very deliberately don't go in the "pure trump" thread. Maybe there?
First one has about how this started in 2016... when Obama was President. Obviously Trump at work... or not?
Other than that, it's a decent counterpoint, though other parts of this thread have about how the facilities are so at capacity with people that they cannot process them all. So again, more funding for the facilities seem justified to help process through the legitimate backlog.
Basically, you can't say they're deliberately slowing things down at the LEGAL border crossings by accusing the border people of lying and saying they're at capacity, while also believing what they're saying that holding facilities are also completely full (and that's not lying).
Maybe they're just not lying and it's completely full because of way too many trying to get in, most of them being NOT refugees under the UN definition of such. This is not a refugee problem. It's an Illegal Immigrant problem. Full Stop. Calling them refugees makes it harder for those fleeing certain death. You're doing a disservice to them.
figmentPez
Staff member
Well, first we'd have to deal with the rampant corruption in the prison industry to begin with. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to help if no amount of money can possibly make the current prison system humane.
And yes, I know I haven't addressed your questions. Because I'm sick of dealing with strawmen.
figmentPez
Staff member
This is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you'll be able to see my point.
Saying that "defund them" and "any detained prisoners must be treated humanely" are a contradiction is like saying "but your money is going to protect you! Who is going to protect you if you don't want your money going to the Mob?"
There are multiple, overlapping problems here. Being against ICE is not being against protection of our borders. Being against for-profit concetration camps is not the same as being against detainment of immigrants awaiting trial. There is a serious problem in the country at large with for-profit prisons, and the horrendous conditions in the concentration camps at the border are just the worst of the worst.
Saying that "defund them" and "any detained prisoners must be treated humanely" are a contradiction is like saying "but your money is going to protect you! Who is going to protect you if you don't want your money going to the Mob?"
There are multiple, overlapping problems here. Being against ICE is not being against protection of our borders. Being against for-profit concetration camps is not the same as being against detainment of immigrants awaiting trial. There is a serious problem in the country at large with for-profit prisons, and the horrendous conditions in the concentration camps at the border are just the worst of the worst.
You ever ask yourself why you chose to focus on that one sentence from that article that said they 1st documented stuff like that happening in 2016, even though it follows it up with the fact that it only started to happen all along the border in 2018?
Or, you know, they could just not bother staffing the processors, making sure the "legitimate" backlog means the facilities get full fast.
You know, how they separated families but forgot to actually document who the children they took away where with etc.
Mirriam Webster agrees with me.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration camp
Check and mate discourse. Your pedantry can't defeat me.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration camp
Check and mate discourse. Your pedantry can't defeat me.
Backlog was caused by budgetary fuckups. Be on the lookout for politicians with conspicuously bulgy pockets.
I know it's Godwin and all that, but literally even the people in German work camps got (lice-ridden, too-thin-in-winter) blankets and (too thin, straw) mattresses. Oh, and darkness at night.
(the image you're thinking of now is from the death camps, not the work camps. Conditions were still beyond horrible, obviously). Source: my own grandparents, one of whom still had the blankets they had been given when the British liberated them.
Just remember, in Nazi Germany, they were keeping people from leaving and putting them into Death camps. What you guys have is too many people trying to enter your country, and you putting them into overcrowded jails because there's not enough funding to actually build what capacity you need (and processing through it) for the volume coming in. There is quite a difference there.We've become the country we would have once investigated for human rights violations.
Solutions?
Less people trying to come in illegally (safe 3rd country agreements, walls, or making the destination seem less attractive)
More funding for the "system" to process people (you'd have to fund ICE and CBP)
Open borders
Some seem to be encouraging the 3rd, by rejecting the first two.
You're trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem we're talking about is our government is treating the people who are ALREADY HERE like vermin, and arguing that they are justified in doing so. Your argument is like trying to fix a fence after the herd has long since escaped. It's not going to help that three-year-old facing an immigration judge without any legal representation. Or that pregnant woman lying on a bare concrete floor without access to medical care.
And it makes you sound more than a little heartless, to be honest.
The whole reason any of those problems exist is too many people trying to enter without following the "normal" immigration process, be it by rushing the border, or hundreds of thousands claiming to be refugees (despite not meeting the UN definition of such). If the flow dropped to zero tomorrow, the backlog could be cleared and the rest of the issues cleared up. Or if there was sufficient funding of the border facilities, again, the things you mention would be less likely to happen (obviously prison stuff isn't that simple all the time).
Edit: If your plumbing is leaking and causing issues, the first thing to do is stop the water, not clean up where it's damaging.
You are NOT obligated to let anybody at your border in your country, to all the benefits of such. That's why there's an immigration process. If you're against all that, then just admit you're for open borders, and everything that comes with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Not to mention that thread earlier talks about how the government is in the process of abandoning perfectly functional ICE camps for military camps because they have less required oversight.
"Anybody" being quite different than "actual refugees by the UN definition of such"
Except realistically speaking the flow will never drop to zero. You might as well say if the amount of crimes committed drops to zero then the police can clear the backlog of unsolved crimes and everything will be fine going forward.
This is a false dichotomy. You're saying either America needs to keep doing things the way they are, or completely open the border, no other alternatives.
Well, yes, there is. You can keep setting limits on immigration, while still treating applicants more humanely than the current system. This may or may not involve declaring ICE & CBP not fit for purpose & defunding them in order to set up new organisations to do the job.
I am not putting a false dichotomy out there. Look further above:
So no, I'm not putting such a falsehood out there. If you think that it can be done well, with more funding, then OK. If you think that ICE & CBP are so bad that a complete overhaul needs to be done, then OK, that's a valid conversation to have. But please don't mis-characterize my position on this.
But the funding needs to come. And ANY more money towards CBP and ICE is being choked off right now. So who's fault is that?
We should probably get the Red Cross involved because they can set up tent cities in time of disaster. And with as many mistakes this administration makes, this can turn into a disaster.
Your first post of these two isn't logical. Is zero processing of claims being done? No, that's not consistent with reporting. So if you do the absurd (and it was framed that way by me originally as an extreme) thing of no new people in, then the backlog will be cleared. So saying that it'll still be happening is just not logical in the least.
I've at least proposed solutions. Nobody has really engaged with that. The problem is useful to a certain side of the isle's political views/agenda though. Ever think they don't want the problem to be solved? It helps the open borders agenda if it isn't.
So you're saying that intentionally letting people die is ok since they came here illegally? And it's ok to do to discourage asylum seekers? What's your point beyond "I don't have a problem with killing brown children but I understand that explicitly saying that makes me look like a piece of shit"?
You're refusing to address the issue of what the administration is *intentionally* doing to the people who have already crossed the border. Dealing with hypotheticals that may or may not try to cross that border in the future does nothing to help them.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
Once again, you're ignoring a larger, systemic problem. The system that encourages undocumented immigration has been in place for decades, and it's fueled by the large businesses that benefit from it. No amount of government agreements or walls is going to make a difference when the economy is dependent on the exploited labor of undocumented workers. The immigration system is intentionally broken because businesses, and their lobbyists, want it that way.
The concentration camps, the push to fund a wall that won't work? That's all a cruel bit of political theater, put on to gain votes from a racist core of voters. Not just those who are already frothing-at-the-mouth racist, but also to spread as much FUD about minorities as possible, so that as much of suburban and rural America as possible is frightened into voting for the Racist-in-Chief who is currently in office. The "backlog" is entirely manufactured.
The only way we ever stem the flow of undocumented immigrants is to acknowledge the fact that our economy is dependent on them, and make changes to businesses and the way we treat businesses that are profiting from the exploitation of this system they've been building up for decades.
Wow. I didn't know that I said that. *looks back up top* No I'm quite certain I didn't say that.
I'm saying that the problem ONLY gets worse because the input is overwhelmed. And I put forth ideas (more funding for CBP & friends) to try and alleviate it. I also put forth ideas for how to stem the tide so that this isn't a problem in the future either. And I didn't do it with false comparisons to Concentration Camps either.
Refugees, immigrants (illegal or otherwise), “border-jumpers,” whatever you decide to call them, they are still people and yes, you ARE obligated to treat them as such. It is entirely possible and doable to simultaneously have a “closed” border policy yet still treat any trespassers as human beings. Even as prisoners.
I mean, the eyewitness reports detail conduct which could conceivably fall under the Grave Breaches clause of the Geneva Conventions... EXCEPT for the fact that we are technically not actually at war with Mexico. And personally, I don’t believe a formal Declaration of War should be required before we can start treating these people like human beings.
—Patrick
Fine, you support more money for CBP? If not, then you're supporting treating them as they are...
No? Too dramatic? Look at what blots called me above.
Saying "just treat them better" ignores the realities of how you GOT to this in the first place. To treat them better requires money. To SOMEBODY. So talk about that, not just how I'm some supposed monster for saying such.
figmentPez
Staff member
1. We don't know it would take more money, because we don't know how badly misspent the money being paid right now is. There is rampant corruption in this system, and for all we know detainees could be humanely treated if we stopped lining the pockets of corrupt businessmen.
2. We don't know it would take more money to institute changes that would discourage businesses from employing undocumented workers. Making sure that businesses can't exploit workers might be a whole lot cheaper than increasing border patrol and enlarging prison camps.
3. You're still ignoring that this is a manufactured problem. This situation was created, on purpose, to sow FUD and get fearful people to support the Republican party (and also to make money off of the for-profit prisons). This problem was made to happen. You're advocating paying more money into a protection racket.
We've had illegal immigration and asylum for years. The family separation and longterm locking up of children (and adults) into these camps is new.