Some history that may be informative as to how trustworthy the media is likely to be on this issue:
JFC, it’s Halliburton all over again.
It seems that the media was not alone in believing the Nazi propaganda; the rumors of the Holocaust were too horrific to imagine it was really happening until the liberation of the camps for many.
And to add to that, people who cross the border seeking asylum are literally doing what they’re supposed to do - asking for asylum has to be done in the country where it’s being sought. That this administration is pretending they’re committing even civil violations of the law is dangerously disingenuous (and, ironically, violating international law themselves).
Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” for 1938 was one Mr. A. Hitler.
We’ve never done it before, at least not on this scale, so let’s do that. That’s the fucking obvious proposal, and given that people are fleeing murder and rape, the human response. Studies of the crimes and economic damage done by migrants, lawful and otherwise, suggest it’s not a problem, unless you don’t have another way to scare people into voting for you.
Also asylum seekers, those people who get in line, despite the fact that by doing so they are more likely to be deported and risk themselves and their children being raped and murder, are also being separated, though not as often.
If you were in a country where family members were being frequently murdered, and you feared for the life of yourselves and your children, what would you do? If our crime rate went up five or ten times, and Canada stayed the same, and it seemed like things were getting worse. Yeah, it’d be spiffy if you could change that country, but as one individual, would you judge ever man and woman who went to Canada?
So, in conclusion, I propose fucking not doing the inhumane thing.
Which is all the argument that anyone should need.
But, for the ethically challenged amongst us, there’s also the point that doing the inhumane thing doesn’t fucking work.
Inhumane treatment of immigrants does not substantially influence immigration rates. Immigration flows are primarily driven by factors that are unrelated to the destination country’s policies.
See this thread for details:
Sure, but solving problems is not the change’s intended goal. The goal is to garner votes to gain/stay in power. If it solved the situation, then everyone would be happy about it and it’d no longer give the more draconian side a voting advantage.
The argument that the Trump administration’s immigration policies are okay because they are legal is only partially valid and entirely misses the point. These policies may be legal, but they are not right. A country where morality and legality are identical is not a country where I want to live. But when the law is used to commit acts that are immoral, the law needs to be changed.
Indeed. The problem with right-wing authoritarian followers is that they don’t consider the morality of laws they feel won’t affect them personally, even though those chickens always come home to roost one way or another:
I’d bet on the latter. Imagination and originality are not the hallmarks of nativists.
I’d also be happy with ‘immoral’.
While our foster care system is not always well run, that’s miles beyond sticking them in internment camps (and ignores the fact most children end up with relatives instead). But hey, if you’re all for it, then by all means let’s make this a requirement for ALL criminals in the country. Break the law, you get sent to jail, your kids get sent to a prison camp. Good on you for being so equitable.
I propose: How about we simply keep doing what we were doing, which was working fine? Since the Trompe l’oeil admin instituted this policy, illegal immigraton has risen again. So, not very effective it seems. Oops.
Illegal immigration isn’t the biggest problem our country faces. You should already know that. Wasting time, money, and our good name on policies like this when there are bigger problems (opiod epidemic for one) to handle is a pathetic attempt to shore up his popularity among the racist base.
Indeed. And as others above have alluded to by referring to asylum seekers … economic migrants may be ‘illegals’ (hate that term), but asylum seekers are NOT illegal immigrants. They are LEGAL immigrants, seeking asylum, and are owed civilised treatment until their claim is tested and allowed (they remain legal) or proved wanting (they become illegal and are deported). This is how it works all over the world. I am not going to comment on the US’s process/track record on allowing asylum claims (not familiar) but hope (against hope) it is better than UK’s where there are examples of clear asylum cases being declined and people deported back to face their (likely unpleasant) fate.
What you were doing was very much not “working fine”. It was already a murderous and inhumane system.
Most of what Trump is now doing is not fundamentally different in kind from what was done by the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations. It’s just louder and more obvious.
If you’re thinking of effectiveness in terms of “does this policy reduce immigration?”, no policy is going to be effective.
Immigration is primarily driven by events in the source country (“push factors”), not laws in the destination country (“pull factors”).
The murderous border policies of the last thirty years were security theatre, same as the TSA nonsense in airports. The lives of countless border crossers were sacrificed for nothing but domestic votes. This was a bipartisan crime.
Gee, it’s like someone is either trolling really badly, or they’re actively trying to show the forum what a terrible person they are.
The State Department spokeswoman who touted our long relationship with Germany’s government on D-Day may not have been misspeaking so much as reaching back across time for common cause.
Also, we’re also separating families who cross over legally to ask for asylum. So we’re now doing this to families where the parents have broken no laws. So there’s that, too.
You could buy a beachouse for that sort of money.