Is that what’s going on?
I work with a local childhood cancer support group. The following is an excerpt from an email we recently received, asking for some money for a client family:
“M. is being cared for by her grandmother (who has legal guardianship)
as her mother was deported to Mexico. M. will likely need a bone
marrow transplant. Grandmother has applied for Social Security for M, and
will have an appointment this month.”
Apparently, it’s fine to deport a lady whose child has cancer and is in need of a bone marrow transplant.
What possible reason, whose interests are served by mandating a certain number of prisoners? I can’t imagine what the debate might have sounded like for this law. (Most likely no one even read it)
Our for profit prison complex. In fact, this mandated minimum smells just like something they would have lobbied for. They already have gotten the government to treat them preferably by giving the for profit prisons the least troublesome inmates, and agreeing to take problem cases off the profit-driven prisons’ hands. Why not make the government promise to incarcerate a minimum number of people at any given time? Who cares if it’s probably the most undemocratic thing that a business could ask of a country? Slavery is damn lucrative, and we all know private corporations are hypnotically bound to keep their eye on the shiny silver dollar, no matter how many innocent lives it ruins, as long as those innocent lives aren’t those of US citizens… except when they are.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
This rather misrepresents the true wording of the quota, if not how it may be being implemented. The quota is to provide 34,000 beds, there is no mandate to fill them.
Um. Are you suggesting that people who have sick kids should be immune from the legal repercussions of their actions? Would this extend all the way down to preventing speeding tickets for people whose kids have the flu, or do you draw a line somewhere else?
Job security for some bureaucrat(s), and fun and profit for their friends. Few people in government actually care about the public interest.
Well, since every decision has to be made in black and white terms on broad generalizations, yes, it is a big problem to say that we should show some compassion to people.
Except we do generally let people off for speeding tickets when there’s some sort of medical emergency happening in the car, don’t we? Sometimes the police even help such people break the law by escorting them to make it safer! (Not for the Flu, obviously, because there’s not actually any benefit to anyone by not enforcing that one)
Because we recognize that sometimes people are more important than strict adherence to the law. Especially when it’s a law who’s breakage hurts no one, (or can be made to hurt no one) and its enforcement will hurt people badly.
Well, now that would be profoundly stupid, wouldn’t it? However, as any fool can see the two situations are ludicrously different, I don’t see as how it’s relevant.
That’s the problem with those “but… but… it’s the LAW!” people…
I am thinking about how much money the US could save by not deporting people who are keeping their children out of the social support system. Just think how much of your Social Security money will be squandered on this sick kid, now that her mom isn’t able to work a low-paying job!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.