4 ms·

I think the problem is an attribution of intent. You see "white nationalism" but: > Making people sleep in cages There was a spike in the number of illegal i

I think the problem is an attribution of intent. You see "white nationalism" but: > Making people sleep in cages There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure. It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for children). > Limiting supplies / legal assistance There are a finite resources, especially when one party sees every penny spent on immigration matters as "racist". Politicians were sounding the alarms months before this reached crisis-levels, but the other side refused to release a single penny until after it reached critical levels. > Separating families When an adult and a child arrive illegally with no documents you have two major facts to deal with: the adult has just broken a law, and you cannot establish familial ties. Given the extent of child trafficking, would you rather just give any adult that says "that's my child" custody, or would you rather separate the child from the adult until you can establish if that is actually a parent? You are damned either way because your critics will say you're "separating families" or "you're a pedophile helping traffic children". Personally, I would rather be told I'm splitting families than enabling child trafficking, but I could see the argument against that preference. So at the end of the day none of these things are happening because of white nationalism. They are happening because of an inability to control illegal immigration rates, a lack of funding for facilities, materials, and legal aid; and in order to protect minors who may be trafficked. To me, that is the real problem. One side of the media/political spectrum has decided it's white nationalism. The other sees it as something that has to be done because the alternative is worst. And to be charitable, I am sure there is a tiny fraction of a percent of a segment of the population and people involved who are white nationalists, but to think that's the motivating force is to dismiss the vast majority of people who have good intentions. What is also exponentially annoying is that both sides have become so polarized that they will never work together on this.

annoyingnoob 7y ago
I didn't actually use the words 'white nationalism' and tried to make a different point about decency without blaming any one group other than maybe those that oppose immigration. There are other options besides putting people in cages, we could make it easier and much quicker to accept them legally for example. To me, its not so much about white people, its about how we choose to handle immigration. Current immigration rates are far from unprecedented, https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p.... We could choose to do things differently and treat people with the dignity and respect that we all deserve as humans. No matter the color of our skin.
CydeWeys 7y ago
How weird that you didn't mention asylum in this entire post, not even once. You keep talking about "illegal immigrants" and "breaking the law", completely ignoring the fact that claiming asylum is legal. Many of these people who were being caged are people who claimed asylum at the border points of entry; they were not illegal immigrants, nor did they try to sneak in. The correct thing to do in this situation of not having enough room would be to release them into the country pending their asylum hearing, rather than locking them up in substandard, inhumane, occasionally deadly accommodations.
- zaroth 7y ago
  About 20-30,000 people are granted asylum each year, versus about 60,000-100,000 people a month apprehended at the southern border by CBP. The vast majority of “inadmissibles” are not qualified refuges. > The asylum seeker must prove to the officer that there is a “significant possibility” he or she is eligible for asylum, and must also be subject to a credibility assessment. If the officer makes a positive finding, the asylum seeker is referred to an immigration court where they will have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge. If the individual does not meet the credible fear screening standard, he or she can be deported. That process ideally happens in a few days, but a system to designed to handle 5,000 people a month getting 100,000 requests a month is going to take longer. In the meantime, those applicants cannot simply be released into the interior. The onus is on Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to allow for expedited and humane treatment and proper facilities for processing the number of people who are crossing. As long as Congress refuses to provide the funds, the agencies are left to enforce the nations immigration laws without the proper resources, staffing, or even possibly basic sanitation, bedding, clothes, etc.
jrochkind1 7y ago
>> Making people sleep in cages > There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure. It is still going on. It is not okay. > It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for children). They are not keeping people until they "established their identity". There is not a process where they keep people asking for asylum locked up only until they establish their identity and no longer, that's just not how it works. These are weird excuses for taking people fleeing danger imprisoning them in truly abominable conditions, for the sin of asking for asylum. "These things" are happening because the government intentionally decided to treat people asking for asylum _as bad as they could_, in order to discourage people from doing it, and look good to those who just want to treat them bad. This is all well-documented. It was not some kind of forced hand, the level of asylum seekers and other migrants was not substantially different from the past couple decades. Whether it was because of "white nationalism" I suppose depends on what was in the hearts and minds of the decision-makers, but it's pretty darn clear they consciously decided to treat migrants like animals (worse than you are allowed to treat pets really) and it is disgusting, and it is TERRIFYING to me that so many Americans like you think it's okay, because if it's okay to treat anyone like that, why couldn't any of us be next? We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated. That's a lot of false confidence that nobody we know will ever be in that situation. More and more of us will be though.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>the level of asylum seekers and other migrants was not substantially different from the past couple decades. What's your source for this? This site[1] indicates otherwise (even the 10-year chart shows a huge growth in applications). And this article[2] states 800,000 people detained so far this year. I'm sure ICE and CBP's infrastructure and processes were never meant to handle populations of this size. Also, note that in [2] many of these people are asylum shopping. >>>We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated. The precedent has already been set: impoverished people the world over know that if they are willing to accept some risk, they can lie their way into the US and get free stuff. People are kidnapping kids so they can pretend they are family. Migrants from central Africa have NGOs providing them with French-language documents on not cooperating with ICE or the US government. These people are buying plane tickets to Brazil, then taking buses ALLLLLL the way up Central America (lots of places to stop and apply for asylum there) so they can illegally cross the border into the US. Who is paying the salaries for these NGOs? And WHY? Those are the hard questions that aren't being asked. The narrative is one that appeals to empathy in order to obscure deeper issues. Look at this article[4]. It tries to paint a picture that the rights of African migrants are somehow being infringed upon because Mexico is not enabling them to move onward to the US. But this is specifically discouraged once you are out of your country of origin and no longer in immediate danger.[5] So again, ask yourself, why is this narrative being pushed? And why now? [1]https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applications https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applicatio... [2]https://www.voanews.com/usa/immigration/us-bound-migrants-asylum-seekers-wait-out-policy-changes https://www.voanews.com/usa/immigration/us-bound-migrants-as... [3]https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM [4]https://prospect.org/power/african-asylum-seekers-u.s.-stuck-mexico-guatemala-border/ https://prospect.org/power/african-asylum-seekers-u.s.-stuck... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_...

annoyingnoob 7y ago

I didn't actually use the words 'white nationalism' and tried to make a different point about decency without blaming any one group other than maybe those that oppose immigration. There are other options besides putting people in cages, we could make it easier and much quicker to accept them legally for example. To me, its not so much about white people, its about how we choose to handle immigration. Current immigration rates are far from unprecedented, https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p.... We could choose to do things differently and treat people with the dignity and respect that we all deserve as humans. No matter the color of our skin.

CydeWeys 7y ago

How weird that you didn't mention asylum in this entire post, not even once. You keep talking about "illegal immigrants" and "breaking the law", completely ignoring the fact that claiming asylum is legal. Many of these people who were being caged are people who claimed asylum at the border points of entry; they were not illegal immigrants, nor did they try to sneak in. The correct thing to do in this situation of not having enough room would be to release them into the country pending their asylum hearing, rather than locking them up in substandard, inhumane, occasionally deadly accommodations.

zaroth 7y ago
About 20-30,000 people are granted asylum each year, versus about 60,000-100,000 people a month apprehended at the southern border by CBP. The vast majority of “inadmissibles” are not qualified refuges. > The asylum seeker must prove to the officer that there is a “significant possibility” he or she is eligible for asylum, and must also be subject to a credibility assessment. If the officer makes a positive finding, the asylum seeker is referred to an immigration court where they will have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge. If the individual does not meet the credible fear screening standard, he or she can be deported. That process ideally happens in a few days, but a system to designed to handle 5,000 people a month getting 100,000 requests a month is going to take longer. In the meantime, those applicants cannot simply be released into the interior. The onus is on Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to allow for expedited and humane treatment and proper facilities for processing the number of people who are crossing. As long as Congress refuses to provide the funds, the agencies are left to enforce the nations immigration laws without the proper resources, staffing, or even possibly basic sanitation, bedding, clothes, etc.

jrochkind1 7y ago

>> Making people sleep in cages > There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure. It is still going on. It is not okay. > It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for children). They are not keeping people until they "established their identity". There is not a process where they keep people asking for asylum locked up only until they establish their identity and no longer, that's just not how it works. These are weird excuses for taking people fleeing danger imprisoning them in truly abominable conditions, for the sin of asking for asylum. "These things" are happening because the government intentionally decided to treat people asking for asylum _as bad as they could_, in order to discourage people from doing it, and look good to those who just want to treat them bad. This is all well-documented. It was not some kind of forced hand, the level of asylum seekers and other migrants was not substantially different from the past couple decades. Whether it was because of "white nationalism" I suppose depends on what was in the hearts and minds of the decision-makers, but it's pretty darn clear they consciously decided to treat migrants like animals (worse than you are allowed to treat pets really) and it is disgusting, and it is TERRIFYING to me that so many Americans like you think it's okay, because if it's okay to treat anyone like that, why couldn't any of us be next? We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated. That's a lot of false confidence that nobody we know will ever be in that situation. More and more of us will be though.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>the level of asylum seekers and other migrants was not substantially different from the past couple decades. What's your source for this? This site[1] indicates otherwise (even the 10-year chart shows a huge growth in applications). And this article[2] states 800,000 people detained so far this year. I'm sure ICE and CBP's infrastructure and processes were never meant to handle populations of this size. Also, note that in [2] many of these people are asylum shopping. >>>We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated. The precedent has already been set: impoverished people the world over know that if they are willing to accept some risk, they can lie their way into the US and get free stuff. People are kidnapping kids so they can pretend they are family. Migrants from central Africa have NGOs providing them with French-language documents on not cooperating with ICE or the US government. These people are buying plane tickets to Brazil, then taking buses ALLLLLL the way up Central America (lots of places to stop and apply for asylum there) so they can illegally cross the border into the US. Who is paying the salaries for these NGOs? And WHY? Those are the hard questions that aren't being asked. The narrative is one that appeals to empathy in order to obscure deeper issues. Look at this article[4]. It tries to paint a picture that the rights of African migrants are somehow being infringed upon because Mexico is not enabling them to move onward to the US. But this is specifically discouraged once you are out of your country of origin and no longer in immediate danger.[5] So again, ask yourself, why is this narrative being pushed? And why now? [1]https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applications https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applicatio... [2]https://www.voanews.com/usa/immigration/us-bound-migrants-asylum-seekers-wait-out-policy-changes https://www.voanews.com/usa/immigration/us-bound-migrants-as... [3]https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM https://youtu.be/mJlOmMj21uM [4]https://prospect.org/power/african-asylum-seekers-u.s.-stuck-mexico-guatemala-border/ https://prospect.org/power/african-asylum-seekers-u.s.-stuck... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_...