Remember the FEMA camps conspiracy theories?

[ed]

It is on the parents, period.

BTW, RCC, is the idea of private property immoral too? May I keep people out of my home?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just an aside:

Can we now take it as given that the Russian collusion thing did not work?

[ed]

Yeah. Hoked up stories about kids are now the rage.

[gnome]

It is on the parents, period.

BTW, RCC, is the idea of private property immoral too? May I keep people out of my home?

I'll repeat my point, that "it is on the parents, period" translates to "any action we do in response would be justified".

I don't think you believe that. But the alternative means we must be willing to consider the appropriateness of our own actions, even if the parents have responsibility for getting them in that situation--we have a lot to say about what that situation is.

[WildCat]

I'll repeat my point, that "it is on the parents, period" translates to "any action we do in response would be justified".

I don't think you believe that. But the alternative means we must be willing to consider the appropriateness of our own actions, even if the parents have responsibility for getting them in that situation--we have a lot to say about what that situation is.

What do we do to American parents who intentionally put their children in life-threatening situations?

And still waiting for you to come up with a better alternative. Or are you like RCC in opposing borders on moral grounds?

[Witness]

Just an aside:

Can we now take it as given that the Russian collusion thing did not work?

[xouper]

I accept that you think borders are immoral. Although I do not agree with your position, I do not feel the need to viciously demonize you for that or call into question your motives or cognitive abilities (unlike what we often see in the mainstream media and elsewhere lately).

Things reach a point where civility is beyond the point. I fully question the cognitive abilities and moral integrity of those that defend the practice of putting children in detention centers as a default. Make no mistake.

I do a lot of work in the juvenile justice system, as well as the abuse and neglect system. If I'm not going to be civil with a judge for doing this shit to a far lesser degree, I'm not going to be civil here. What is going on isn't so much the imprisonment of children, as it is the psychological torture of toddlers and other small children. It is simply shameful, and fuck anyone who defends this.

I know of no one who defends the "the psychological torture of toddlers and other small children." I certainly don't.

I accept your assertion that such abuse sometimes happens. I reject your implied assertion that it is the norm.

Nonetheless, the solution is to fix the conditions under which these children are cared for, not toss immigration laws out the window and open the borders. It is indeed possible to remedy the problem you describe without opening the borders.



Analogy: When US children are separated from their parents because the parents are in jail for some crime they committed, we have to do something with the children, no? It would be irresponsible to just let the children of such criminals live on their own unsupervised. As you observed, sometimes the result is less than ideal. However, the solution is not to let the criminal parents out of jail. The solution is to fix the system that handles the children.

Anyway, if you want to get crude, I can play that game: Fuck those who defend letting unaccompanied illegal alien minors across the border who (sometimes) become members of MS-13 and kill innocent Americans, thus permanently separating American children from their parents. Fuck those who defend homicide (and rape) of Americans as a preferable outcome to "the psychological torture of toddlers and other small children" who were brought here illegally by illegal aliens. Fuck those who defend the homicide of Kate Steinle (and thousands of others killed by illegal aliens), which is a direct consequence of "sanctuary cities" and open borders.

Is this really where you want to take the conversation?

[WildCat]

https://amgreatness.com/wp-content/uplo ... 24x576.jpg

Smiling, giggling protesters: something never seen under an actual Nazi regime.

[ed]

It is on the parents, period.

BTW, RCC, is the idea of private property immoral too? May I keep people out of my home?

I'll repeat my point, that "it is on the parents, period" translates to "any action we do in response would be justified".

No, not at all. What it means is that social services is the agency that should be involved, not ICE and that if it can be shown that the parent endangered their kid, that should be provide the basis for expulsion.

Coming here when one could apply to Mexico for asylum shows reckless disregard.

[gnome]

I'll repeat my point, that "it is on the parents, period" translates to "any action we do in response would be justified".

I don't think you believe that. But the alternative means we must be willing to consider the appropriateness of our own actions, even if the parents have responsibility for getting them in that situation--we have a lot to say about what that situation is.

What do we do to American parents who intentionally put their children in life-threatening situations?

And still waiting for you to come up with a better alternative. Or are you like RCC in opposing borders on moral grounds?

No, I do not feel the same way.

My alternative is, for each case turn them away together or detain them together. For the argument that children do not belong in a jail, I would say that the conditions do not need to be as a jail.

Possibly allow some legal temporary residency while waiting.

[WildCat]

No, I do not feel the same way.

My alternative is, for each case turn them away together or detain them together. For the argument that children do not belong in a jail, I would say that the conditions do not need to be as a jail.

Possibly allow some legal temporary residency while waiting.

I doubt the courts will allow detainment together. And if you let them out of custody they will disappear. perhaps the answer is to process them more quickly and deport more quickly?
Let's face it, these are economic refugees not genuine asylum seekers.

[gnome]

If I may point out, the flaw in logic is still the same.

As long as the argument of "if you don't want this to happen, don't bring your kids here" is made, that logic makes no distinction as to what "this" is.

The same argument could be said, "If you don't want your heads mounted on pikes and displayed on the border as a warning to others, don't come here."

Obviously, we're not doing that. But if we did, you could make the same argument. See the problem?

[WildCat]

If I may point out, the flaw in logic is still the same.

As long as the argument of "if you don't want this to happen, don't bring your kids here" is made, that logic makes no distinction as to what "this" is.

The same argument could be said, "If you don't want your heads mounted on pikes and displayed on the border as a warning to others, don't come here."

Obviously, we're not doing that. But if we did, you could make the same argument. See the problem?

Then we're back to the question of if you want immigration laws enforced or not. It sets a horrible precedent if you exempt those with kids from the laws.

So do you want to enforce immigration laws or not? It's obvious that for the vast majority of Democrats the answer is "no", as they oppose any and all enforcement of the laws.

[gnome]

I do want enforced laws about immigration.

That doesn't redeem the validity of the argument. It should be abandoned.

[WildCat]

I do want enforced laws about immigration.

That doesn't redeem the validity of the argument. It should be abandoned.

You want to enforce immigration laws without arresting and jailing anyone? I don't see how that is even possible.

[xouper]

It is on the parents, period.

I'll repeat my point, that "it is on the parents, period" translates to "any action we do in response would be justified".

That would be one of several possible translations.

Who here is making the argument that "any action we do in response would be justified"? Perhaps I missed it.

In any case, I agree with your point that we are not justified in taking any action whatsoever in response to criminal activity. That does not mean we should take no action whatsoever, so I guess I'm not getting what bigger point you are trying to make here.

[gnome]

My point is that the discussion should center around what that action is and its effects and consequences compared to alternatives, not around whether the offenders can "Just not do that". If people are there with me then I can let it drop.

[xouper]

My point is that the discussion should center around what that action is and its effects and consequences compared to alternatives, not around whether the offenders can "Just not do that". If people are there with me then I can let it drop.

Perhaps the two points of discussion are not mutually exclusive?

[Anaxagoras]

The best example to use is Vietnam. For all the wrong USA did to them they are doing well economically and want friendly relations with USA.

Yeah. In Vietnam the commies won, and some decades later (after a war with China) they decided that this communism model isn't working out very well and maybe it would be better to have a friend in the US.

Central America was different. Other than Cuba, the commies never really won in the countries that are the biggest problems now with gangs: El Salvador (MS-13) and Honduras (according to some information I've seen the highest murder rate in the world, with El Salvador not far behind). IIRC these are both countries that we were involved in in the 1980s. I'm not saying we caused it, or that things would be any better if we had let nature take its course. I don't know if things would be better, worse or the same.

[ed]

Apropos the preceding discussion, I have been getting invites like the following for a few weeks now. It's a trade show, basically, that they are trying to get us to attend.

Vietnam to host 3rd edition of its Defence, Security, and Police Exhibition: Govt. of Vietnam is going to Host 3rd edition of its only Defence and Security in association with Nexgen Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. on 3rd & 4th Oct. 2018 at I.C.E. Hanoi, Vietnam. Senior officers from Army, Navy, Air Force, Police, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Public Security, Defence organization etc are going to attend the exhibition. Read more...

http://vn.homesecexpo.com/index.php

Think about it ... fucking Hanoi. If you didn't come of are during Viet-Nam it probably doesn't resonate but ... fuck, Hanoi.