4 ms·

You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes "better."

wang_li 7y ago
My idea of better is things like walls instead of chain link fences and beds instead of sleeping pallets. Is your idea of better actual cages and thin mattresses on the floor but with the cool president instead of higher quality conditions but the crass president? That seems quite self serving and inhumane.
- bovermyer 7y ago
  Making up a counter-argument and presenting it as if that was my suggestion is unethical and poor debate practice. I will not participate in a discussion with someone who does this. Good day.
- uoaei 7y ago
  >Is your idea of better actual cages and thin mattresses on the floor but with the cool president instead of higher quality conditions but the crass president? False dichotomy, intellectual dishonesty, etc. How about abolishing inhumane practices, period? How about not trying to placate victims to abuse by saying "oh it's not so bad, at least you have real beds"?
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    Victims of abuse? Do you honestly believe that people that show up at a lawful port of entry are instantly put into cages while they wait? The people that were talking about are the people that got caught trying to cross in the middle of the desert. We give them food and shelter after they just broke our laws and you call that abuse?
    - openasocket 7y ago
      Crossing into the US not at a lawful port of entry to apply for asylum is legal. According to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
      - wang_li 7y ago
        Not sure precisely what point you're making, but it's possible that you're saying that the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US. That's not what the law says. If you're not saying that, then what you wrote is not responsive to the person you replied to.
        openasocket 7y ago
        > the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum
        wang_li 7y ago
        Paragraph 8 from your link: > The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings. Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving. It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers illegally entering the US via the southern border are not refugees and do not qualify for asylum. This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.
        openasocket 7y ago
        > that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided Of course not, that's where bail hearings come into play. The state can't keep an asylum claimee detained indefinitely without providing due process and evidence this person is a flight risk. >This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras. Seriously? Mexico is hardly a safe place if you are trying to escape gang violence. Hell, the US currently has multiple travel warnings out against various parts of Mexico. The ACLU is currently filing suit fighting back against exactly this mentality.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    It's not a false dichotomy to compare the two things that were explicitly compared. My initial response was to someone who said that Trump got elected and ICE started with child separation, concentration camps, and racism. The objectively verifiable items in that list are child separation and concentration camps. The reality is that under Obama both of those things started and in the years since, both under Obama and under Trump, the child separation continues, but the detention facilities have improved. When I pointed this out, the first response was "you and I have different ideas of better." You are entitled to ask for a discussion of different policy choices, but the reality is that children were detained in shittier conditions under Obama than they are under Trump. There's literally only two possible reasons why a person would think that the worse conditions is better. 1- the person preferring the worse conditions is stupid. 2- they want a club to bludgeon Trump with, even if that club is suffering children. Which do you think better describes bovermyer? My post is neither a false dichotomy nor intellectually dishonest.
- openasocket 7y ago
  So, building a wall would have exactly zero impact on the influx of refugees, and I'm not sure why that isn't brought up more often. Border Patrol is still required to hear asylum claims and grant the person entry into the US if they pass a credible fear interview.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    We're talking about the detention facilities, not whether there should be a physical barrier on the border.

My idea of better is things like walls instead of chain link fences and beds instead of sleeping pallets. Is your idea of better actual cages and thin mattresses on the floor but with the cool president instead of higher quality conditions but the crass president? That seems quite self serving and inhumane.

bovermyer 7y ago
Making up a counter-argument and presenting it as if that was my suggestion is unethical and poor debate practice. I will not participate in a discussion with someone who does this. Good day.
uoaei 7y ago
>Is your idea of better actual cages and thin mattresses on the floor but with the cool president instead of higher quality conditions but the crass president? False dichotomy, intellectual dishonesty, etc. How about abolishing inhumane practices, period? How about not trying to placate victims to abuse by saying "oh it's not so bad, at least you have real beds"?
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  Victims of abuse? Do you honestly believe that people that show up at a lawful port of entry are instantly put into cages while they wait? The people that were talking about are the people that got caught trying to cross in the middle of the desert. We give them food and shelter after they just broke our laws and you call that abuse?
  - openasocket 7y ago
    Crossing into the US not at a lawful port of entry to apply for asylum is legal. According to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
    - wang_li 7y ago
      Not sure precisely what point you're making, but it's possible that you're saying that the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US. That's not what the law says. If you're not saying that, then what you wrote is not responsive to the person you replied to.
      - openasocket 7y ago
        > the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum
        wang_li 7y ago
        Paragraph 8 from your link: > The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings. Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving. It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers illegally entering the US via the southern border are not refugees and do not qualify for asylum. This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.
        openasocket 7y ago
        > that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided Of course not, that's where bail hearings come into play. The state can't keep an asylum claimee detained indefinitely without providing due process and evidence this person is a flight risk. >This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras. Seriously? Mexico is hardly a safe place if you are trying to escape gang violence. Hell, the US currently has multiple travel warnings out against various parts of Mexico. The ACLU is currently filing suit fighting back against exactly this mentality.
- wang_li 7y ago
  It's not a false dichotomy to compare the two things that were explicitly compared. My initial response was to someone who said that Trump got elected and ICE started with child separation, concentration camps, and racism. The objectively verifiable items in that list are child separation and concentration camps. The reality is that under Obama both of those things started and in the years since, both under Obama and under Trump, the child separation continues, but the detention facilities have improved. When I pointed this out, the first response was "you and I have different ideas of better." You are entitled to ask for a discussion of different policy choices, but the reality is that children were detained in shittier conditions under Obama than they are under Trump. There's literally only two possible reasons why a person would think that the worse conditions is better. 1- the person preferring the worse conditions is stupid. 2- they want a club to bludgeon Trump with, even if that club is suffering children. Which do you think better describes bovermyer? My post is neither a false dichotomy nor intellectually dishonest.
openasocket 7y ago
So, building a wall would have exactly zero impact on the influx of refugees, and I'm not sure why that isn't brought up more often. Border Patrol is still required to hear asylum claims and grant the person entry into the US if they pass a credible fear interview.
- wang_li 7y ago
  We're talking about the detention facilities, not whether there should be a physical barrier on the border.