Family Separation at the Border: US citizens are now being detained

[Wrangor]

There's a lot here to respond to and I will try to come back later, but two quick things.

1. While I agree with you that there are other arguments that could be used than moral ones with certain subsets of the population, I think it's shocking to a lot of people that you would need to go beyond the moral in this case. This isn't really a gray area. Using threats to little kids as deterrents, hostages, or bargain chips in negotiations, kidnapping them under the guise of "giving them a bath,"-- these things are morally abhorrent. There's an element of "how could you NOT think that way" that makes other arguments difficult to consider. Especially since this was a decision made by this administration that could be rescinded instantly. There is no law that requires this.

2. Where is the evidence that illegal immigration is a real problem that requires such drastic measures? It's not crime (despite the Trump racist fearmongering), because immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives do. It's not the economy: economists largely agree that MORE immigration, not less, would be the best thing economically, and the data don't support the "they're taking your jobs" rhetoric.

To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't try for reform. And we could argue about what exactly that would look like. But jeez, can't we all agree that the travesty at our borders this administration has caused isn't the answer?

1. If morality arguments worked, then the pro lifers would have banned abortion a long time ago. They don’t work because people operate on the assumption that they are on the right side of morality. So when shoo says that morality arguments are all you need, what he means is that MY morality arguments are right and yours are wrong. I will not say never, but the amount of times people take a political stance and willingly stand on the wrong side of morality has to be minuscule.

2. Clearly our admin was elected in large part because of his stance on illegal immigration. Thus it is a problem he will address. I tend to agree that our borders are too wide open (but also believe that our legal immigration system is archaic). But you saying it isn’t a problem is almost irrelevant. He was elected to address this issue. He is going to address it.

I wish we had more South American / Central American immigrants. I believe them to be a massive boost to our economy and country. I also think we should have them immigrate legally. But our system is broken and these people are desperate so they will do anything to get here. I get that. I would be doing the same thing. So I don’t blame them. I really blame our govt for not addressing this issue. Trump is abhorrent but this action is a symptom of the disease of inactivity. He is just the manifestation of years of pushing it down the road. I blame him and I also blame all the empty promises of Obama’s, Bush, Clinton, and the thousands of other politicians that claimed they were going to address this issue and never did (and don’t feed me the BS about Obama reducing illegal immigration...we all know that is complete crap).

So when we finally have someone who will do something it isn’t someone who is brave, it is someone who doesn’t give a flip about anyone and we end up with a shortsighted cruel policy. It’s sucks. But we need to keep our eyes on the root while lamenting the fruit.

The reality is that this will help his poll numbers. So congress better figure something out. I don’t see him backing off.

[dot com]

Have we checked Stephen Miller's basement?

[Louis Gossett Jr]

You use abortion to dismiss morality because you personally feel your side is correct and therefore if morality worked you would “win”. However abortion falls in the apples to oranges comparison since it’s not black and white because of viability, woman’s rights, science, and so on. It’s the reason why abortion is murder of children rings hollow from the same group because once that child is born where all agree it is a child it becomes who cares about that child. If your comparison holds true in this scenario where is the grey area of morality that makes it so that real living breathing human children being abused is an ok thing?

[myDeaconmyhand]

Every politician and official, Trump on down, who's complicit in this should be tried at the Hague. Seeking amnesty is not a fucking crime, and illegally crossing the border is a fucking misdemeanor. We're sperating families and using internment camps for only latin americans. This is ethno-nationalism. I feel sad for anyone who supports this, because their humanity and morality are broken.

[Demonwolverine]

Yeah, but at least those MS 13 gang mothers won't steal middle America's pearls from their clutched hands.

[WakeForestRanger]

[RJKarl]

Yeah, but at least those MS 13 gang mothers won't steal middle America's pearls from their clutched hands.

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump are exponentially more dangerous to America than MS 13 ever will be.

[WakeForestRanger]

[Highland Deac]

Back up to the low 40s

The two latest polls to be released (yesterday), CNN and CBS, show Trump 13 and 10 points underwater, respectively. The Gallup poll that got conservatives so excited was taken mostly before the Korean and G7 summits, and before this immigration hot mess erupted as a national story. Even that poll showed Trump at just 45%. Most polls don't do daily tracking (except for Rasmussen, which is consistently conservative-leaning), so it may be at least few more days before we see the effects of this immigration fight reflected in national polling. I don't think conservatives like Ted Cruz, who are up for re-election this year, would be showing some signs of panic if they thought this fight would clearly work in their favor. At this point, taking immigrant kids from parents and locking them into cages appears to be angering and stirring up the liberal, Democratic base more than the Trumpite one, and worse for the GOP, moving them to active protests and other forms of political activity. Ginning up Trump's base on this issue won't help the GOP much if it just works up the Democratic base as well, or to an even higher level of anger and motivation.

[birdman]

The idea that we can create a deterrent at the southern border is probably flawed. I encourage you all to listen to the radiolab short series, "the border trilogy", it explores how we got to where we are today with the situation on the southern border. In short, Bill Clinton initiated a massive strategy to create an illegal immigration deterrent on the southern border by forcing illegal crossings out of the cities and into the wilderness. The idea was that forcing people to walk hundreds of miles across one of the harshest environments on the planet, the Sonora desert, would be a massive deterrent to illegal immigration. The journey is awful and, despite official government estimates in the 100s, there are probably 1000's of moralities annually, most of which go undetected and recorded by government record keepers because decomposition takes mere days. Before the migrants even get to desert, some travel 1000s of miles from Central or South America (El Salvador, Colombia) and endure hunger, squalor, abuse and some even rape. So before they even get to the border and find a wall or a mean white man who yells at them, threatens them and turns them around, a lot of them have already been though hell. For a lot of these folks being separated from their children is probably just, one more thing to endure for a chance at safety and freedom. Our immigration policy is either grossly over estimating the effectiveness of border deterrents or is grossly underestimating the awful conditions these people are fleeing in their homes.

[vadimivich]

Our immigration policy ... is grossly underestimating the awful conditions these people are fleeing in their homes.

It's this one. The average American (or European) has no idea and cannot even begin to comprehend how awful life is in the places that asylum seekers are fleeing from.

Deterrence policies are completely ineffective because there is nothing we are capable of doing that is more horrible than what they have already seen.

[myDeaconmyhand]

...
Deterrence policies are completely ineffective because there is nothing we are capable of doing that is more horrible than what they have already seen.

We'll see if they're up to the challenge.

[birdman]

The idea that we can create a deterrent at the southern border is probably flawed. I encourage you all to listen to the radiolab short series, "the border trilogy", it explores how we got to where we are today with the situation on the southern border. In short, Bill Clinton initiated a massive strategy to create an illegal immigration deterrent on the southern border by forcing illegal crossings out of the cities and into the wilderness. The idea was that forcing people to walk hundreds of miles across one of the harshest environments on the planet, the Sonora desert, would be a massive deterrent to illegal immigration. The journey is awful and, despite official government estimates in the 100s, there are probably 1000's of moralities annually, most of which go undetected and recorded by government record keepers because decomposition takes mere days. Before the migrants even get to desert, some travel 1000s of miles from Central or South America (El Salvador, Colombia) and endure hunger, squalor, abuse and some even rape. So before they even get to the border and find a wall or a mean white man who yells at them, threatens them and turns them around, a lot of them have already been though hell. For a lot of these folks being separated from their children is probably just, one more thing to endure for a chance at safety and freedom. Our immigration policy is either grossly over estimating the effectiveness of border deterrents or is grossly underestimating the awful conditions these people are fleeing in their homes.

BTW, here is are link to the three parts of the radiolab series:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bo...rilogy-part-1/
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bo...rt-2-hold-line
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bo...3-what-remains

[RJKarl]

It's this one. The average American (or European) has no idea and cannot even begin to comprehend how awful life is in the places that asylum seekers are fleeing from.

Deterrence policies are completely ineffective because there is nothing we are capable of doing that is more horrible than what they have already seen.

This is so accurate. People are willing to take a chance on dying and going to jail before they even leave their homelands to come to America. They travel two thousand miles and more with little more than the clothes on their back. People were will to leave Haiti and Cuba on rafts and boats that had little chance of making FL, because their lives were so bad. People knew the chances of dying were great when they got on boats in Libya and Syria but still tried to get to Europe.

These aren't people sitting in Starbuck's deciding on whether or not to go on a road trip.

[Wrangor]

It's this one. The average American (or European) has no idea and cannot even begin to comprehend how awful life is in the places that asylum seekers are fleeing from.

Deterrence policies are completely ineffective because there is nothing we are capable of doing that is more horrible than what they have already seen.

This is a great point.

[Wrangor]

You use abortion to dismiss morality because you personally feel your side is correct and therefore if morality worked you would “win”. However abortion falls in the apples to oranges comparison since it’s not black and white because of viability, woman’s rights, science, and so on. It’s the reason why abortion is murder of children rings hollow from the same group because once that child is born where all agree it is a child it becomes who cares about that child. If your comparison holds true in this scenario where is the grey area of morality that makes it so that real living breathing human children being abused is an ok thing?

I’m not for either abortion or what is going on. But you make my point perfectly. You have defined morality how you see fit...one that fits your worldview. That is the M.O. of every other human being. Just calling some immoral is never going to be a convincing argument.

You have to provide a better path to accomplish the goal. The problem here is immense. First democrats don’t feel there is a problem. They are in large part pretty much fine with status quo. So solving the problem is a non starter.

Secondly even if someone agrees that there is a problem, the solution is so complex that it makes it difficult to approach. So Instead we have a caveman approach of Trump because no one is offering better solutions. Trump is getting everyone to look at the shiny object which is something he does very well. Meanwhile, his base (who feels that illegal immigration is a problem and are glad someone is doing SOMETHING) is encouraged and his poll numbers rise.

[PhDeac]

This is a great point.

Along with that point, if there is a "moral argument" for the US to one-up El Salvadorian gangs in terms of human cruelty, the US has no moral high ground.

[PhDeac]

I’m not for either abortion or what is going on. But you make my point perfectly. You have defined morality how you see fit...one that fits your worldview. That is the M.O. of every other human being. Just calling some immoral is never going to be a convincing argument.

You have to provide a better path to accomplish the goal. The problem here is immense. First democrats don’t feel there is a problem. They are in large part pretty much fine with status quo. So solving the problem is a non starter.

Secondly even if someone agrees that there is a problem, the solution is so complex that it makes it difficult to approach. So Instead we have a caveman approach of Trump because no one is offering better solutions. Trump is getting everyone to look at the shiny object which is something he does very well. Meanwhile, his base (who feels that illegal immigration is a problem and are glad someone is doing SOMETHING) is encouraged and his poll numbers rise.

Just because someone believes there is a problem doesn't there actual is a problem. It definitely doesn't mean we need to take drastic measures to find a solution. That's what our nation has done to the "Indian problem," the "slave problem," the "freed slave problem," the "Chinese problem," the "Japanese problem," and the "Negro problem."

[birdman]

I’m not for either abortion or what is going on. But you make my point perfectly. You have defined morality how you see fit...one that fits your worldview. That is the M.O. of every other human being. Just calling some immoral is never going to be a convincing argument.

You have to provide a better path to accomplish the goal. The problem here is immense. First democrats don’t feel there is a problem. They are in large part pretty much fine with status quo. So solving the problem is a non starter.

Secondly even if someone agrees that there is a problem, the solution is so complex that it makes it difficult to approach. So Instead we have a caveman approach of Trump because no one is offering better solutions. Trump is getting everyone to look at the shiny object which is something he does very well. Meanwhile, his base (who feels that illegal immigration is a problem and are glad someone is doing SOMETHING) is encouraged and his poll numbers rise.

Morality is an ineffective way to make they case against this policy that Trump has implemented. Moral codes are fluid and can be adjust to meet societal or individual desires. The effective argument is to perhaps appeal to people's empathy and to think about their own children or how they would feel if they were separated from the parents when young, but the more effective argument here is to consider the probability of this strategy actually having any effect on over all illegal immigration rates, which it won't in any sustained to measurable way.

As for the bolded...what does this mean? are you asserting that Democrats do not see illegal immigration as a problem?

[Wrangor]

You make my point PH. I agree completely. Hence no solution offered from people who share your POV.

But the problem is that the previous two democrats presidents have both stated that there is a problem and then not done anything about it. Empty promises create discontent. Discontent with empty promises leads to leaders like Trump. So now in large part because of the failure of Washington the past 3 decades to address this issue (that every president has acknowledged to be a problem) we have the one person who doesn’t mind being hated enacting his plan. It should be no surprise that it isn’t a very wise or compassionate plan.