3 ms·

I just did a quick google search on the matter, and according to the top link[1] this is not possible in practise for people in "detention facilities" to leave

I just did a quick google search on the matter, and according to the top link[1] this is not possible in practise for people in "detention facilities" to leave them. [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... this is not

simonh 7y ago
That's what detention means, right? I'm not sure what point of mine you are referring to.
- askmike 7y ago
  > however they have access to legal due process and their rights are guaranteed in law. There certainly have been abuses and violations, but these have frequently been reported in the medial and successfully challenged in courts of law. This point! According the the link in practise they do not have the ability to leave. So I guess that's the standard "we" should hold "them" to? > The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though. I very much agree, but at the end of the day these choices were made by people - they should be held accountable. Don't hold a politicial system accountable.
  - simonh 7y ago
    >According the the link in practise they do not have the ability to leave... That's a rally weird and kind of irrelevant technical point. In that specific case 'leave' means pay for their own flight back to their own country, instead of being deported there by the US government. It does not mean simply walk out of the detention centre. They are in violation of US law and in US custody. The argument is about their humane and fair treatment. I'm in no way saying the western system is perfect, it's been terribly abused, and still is. My point is that independent journalism, an informed public and independent judicial review are powerful things and do make a difference. It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China. As for political systems, they are created by people. When I say 'China' or 'The Chinese Government' I mean the individuals in power in the Chinese government. They are accountable.
    - askmike 7y ago
      Apologies, I got many replies at the same time (a minute after I posted my initial message). My point was against: > Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse. Which you didn't type but deogeo. > It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China. Agreed with this and everything else you say. My initial point was shifting the conversation away from "pro democratic or anti democratic" into holding people accounting for human right violations. If a political system makes it hard to hold people accountable than that's what we should talk about. Which one is worse is a bikeshedding discussion which I didn't intend to start with my initial comment.

simonh 7y ago

That's what detention means, right? I'm not sure what point of mine you are referring to.

askmike 7y ago
> however they have access to legal due process and their rights are guaranteed in law. There certainly have been abuses and violations, but these have frequently been reported in the medial and successfully challenged in courts of law. This point! According the the link in practise they do not have the ability to leave. So I guess that's the standard "we" should hold "them" to? > The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though. I very much agree, but at the end of the day these choices were made by people - they should be held accountable. Don't hold a politicial system accountable.
- simonh 7y ago
  >According the the link in practise they do not have the ability to leave... That's a rally weird and kind of irrelevant technical point. In that specific case 'leave' means pay for their own flight back to their own country, instead of being deported there by the US government. It does not mean simply walk out of the detention centre. They are in violation of US law and in US custody. The argument is about their humane and fair treatment. I'm in no way saying the western system is perfect, it's been terribly abused, and still is. My point is that independent journalism, an informed public and independent judicial review are powerful things and do make a difference. It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China. As for political systems, they are created by people. When I say 'China' or 'The Chinese Government' I mean the individuals in power in the Chinese government. They are accountable.
  - askmike 7y ago
    Apologies, I got many replies at the same time (a minute after I posted my initial message). My point was against: > Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse. Which you didn't type but deogeo. > It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China. Agreed with this and everything else you say. My initial point was shifting the conversation away from "pro democratic or anti democratic" into holding people accounting for human right violations. If a political system makes it hard to hold people accountable than that's what we should talk about. Which one is worse is a bikeshedding discussion which I didn't intend to start with my initial comment.