5 ms·

This law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

shadowgovt 7y ago
And what judicial ruling from the day in court of the people you claim are breaking that law justifies their internment in mass camps in conditions substandard to people who have been found guilty of breaking a law? You're forgetting that law enforcement officers aren't judge and jury; they may arrest, but a person has presumption of innocence until their day in court (even if border patrol physically observed them clambering through a hole in a fence). You may also note that the penalties for breaking the law you've cited include limits on the term of incarceration. So while we hold these people on suspicion of breaking these laws, are we letting them out after 6 months or 2 years? The answer is no. They have not had their day in court; the US is holding people indefinitely under suspicion of having committed crimes, on purpose, in probable violation of habeas corpus, to maximize people's fear of crossing the US border. It's industrial-scale terror and the US can and should do better.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  People are regularly detained until their day in court. That's how it's always worked. You realize there's not a country on the planet that won't detain you if you sneak across their border right? The fact is we don't allow unfettered open immigration for many reasons.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    None of those constraints justify keeping people in cages and substandard conditions.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      A detention facility is not a “cage”. These are people that entered the country illegally so yes, they will be detained in some fashion. Do you expect them to be kept in single family homes?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        That's certainly an option if people were to offer. There are several charities that do offer such things. This administration will not entertain that suggestion because the goal is to maximize the pain inflicted on immigrants and refugees in an ill-conceived attempt to stem the tide via fear. So instead... https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/07/08/18/us-border-migrant-facility.jpg https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag...
        malvosenior 7y ago
        The goal is to minimize illegal immigration. And yes, that looks like a pretty standard detention facility to me. Every person in there knew the risk before deciding to break the law.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        > Every person in there knew the risk before deciding to break the law. That's a delightful lie Americans can tell themselves to try and absolve their personal consciences of responsibility for their part in their country making people miserable on purpose. It falls apart pretty quickly with any investigation (I'm sure that shoeless toddler on the left weighed all the pros and cons before crossing the border), but even if it didn't, it acknowledges the goal is to make people miserable on purpose to deter them from seeking a better life. Used to be, the United States stood for more than that. At least, it aspired to. No wonder Github has employees walking over the company voluntarily buying into that shitty behavior.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        Most people have the capacity to do basic math and know that we can't support millions of refugees flooding into the country. You can blame that toddler's parents for making the decisions that put them in that position btw.
        7y ago

And what judicial ruling from the day in court of the people you claim are breaking that law justifies their internment in mass camps in conditions substandard to people who have been found guilty of breaking a law? You're forgetting that law enforcement officers aren't judge and jury; they may arrest, but a person has presumption of innocence until their day in court (even if border patrol physically observed them clambering through a hole in a fence). You may also note that the penalties for breaking the law you've cited include limits on the term of incarceration. So while we hold these people on suspicion of breaking these laws, are we letting them out after 6 months or 2 years? The answer is no. They have not had their day in court; the US is holding people indefinitely under suspicion of having committed crimes, on purpose, in probable violation of habeas corpus, to maximize people's fear of crossing the US border. It's industrial-scale terror and the US can and should do better.

malvosenior 7y ago
People are regularly detained until their day in court. That's how it's always worked. You realize there's not a country on the planet that won't detain you if you sneak across their border right? The fact is we don't allow unfettered open immigration for many reasons.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  None of those constraints justify keeping people in cages and substandard conditions.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    A detention facility is not a “cage”. These are people that entered the country illegally so yes, they will be detained in some fashion. Do you expect them to be kept in single family homes?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      That's certainly an option if people were to offer. There are several charities that do offer such things. This administration will not entertain that suggestion because the goal is to maximize the pain inflicted on immigrants and refugees in an ill-conceived attempt to stem the tide via fear. So instead... https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/07/08/18/us-border-migrant-facility.jpg https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag...
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        The goal is to minimize illegal immigration. And yes, that looks like a pretty standard detention facility to me. Every person in there knew the risk before deciding to break the law.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        > Every person in there knew the risk before deciding to break the law. That's a delightful lie Americans can tell themselves to try and absolve their personal consciences of responsibility for their part in their country making people miserable on purpose. It falls apart pretty quickly with any investigation (I'm sure that shoeless toddler on the left weighed all the pros and cons before crossing the border), but even if it didn't, it acknowledges the goal is to make people miserable on purpose to deter them from seeking a better life. Used to be, the United States stood for more than that. At least, it aspired to. No wonder Github has employees walking over the company voluntarily buying into that shitty behavior.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        Most people have the capacity to do basic math and know that we can't support millions of refugees flooding into the country. You can blame that toddler's parents for making the decisions that put them in that position btw.
        7y ago