3 ms·

I'm going to put alternative arguments below to try and show there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this topic. My actual views are more complex. >I do

I'm going to put alternative arguments below to try and show there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this topic. My actual views are more complex. >I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities, aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. >separate them from their children, A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. >and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent. Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. We're not talking about criminals who are being removed, or the morality of immigration being a criminal act at all. People trying to enter the country under asylum claims have not committed any crimes. Furthermore, indefinite detention without a trial is clearly unconstitutional, even for non-residents. Companies weren't quitting government contracts during the Bush or Obama administrations, so we're clearly not talking about the normal actions taken by immigration authorities. > A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. Again, asylum seekers haven't committed any crime, appeared before a magistrate, been indicted, or been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, yet their rights have been roundly violated by the Trump administration. They ended it only after being caught, investigated, and even then, only begrudgingly. > Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule. This is patently untrue. Beyond the recent case, there is also the ICE official who decided he was the emperor of who in ICE custody could receive an abortion. There are wide-spread reports of neglect, and a lack of medical care and unsanitary living conditions, in stark contrast to your claim of world class care being rendered. Even if you believe these people deserve this treatment (they don't.) — our jails and prisons experience all of these same issues, so to your earlier point - we should also be making our jails more humane places too.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? But I'll also address some of the counterpoints raised above: -The supreme court ruled in 2018 on some aspects of detention hearings and of course their ruling is being followed by ICE[1]. So to say that its unconstitutional seems at the very least up for debate, and at the most already settled affirmatively. -Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-health-care-report/2020/09/21/270a64f4-fc1e-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-hea...
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    > Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? About immigration laws, yes. About civil rights, no. > Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. I wasn't accusing them of being evil. Your original point was that people should keep politics out of business on grey issues. The Trump administration has moved this from a grey issue where good people could look the other way on incompetence-related failures to a black-and-white issue where it's tough to tell where the incompetence ends and the malice begins. Since the government is incapable of doing anything useful right now, it shouldn't be that surprising when people with a voice seek redress in the areas they have power. Corporations are at zenith of their power and influence right now, so it follows that people would take advantage of that.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? Not on the child prisoner treatment by ICE, since nobody thinks that has been or was handled properly, regardless of political party affiliation. You don't seize children and then "lose them in the system", or put them on concrete floors to sleep, or fail to provide classes, or the dozens of other things they were subjected to, as reported by both the media and visiting doctors. You can read about the infamous Romanian orphanages fiasco to understand the long-term impact of this kind of treatment on children. (Textbooks had to be re-written on child psychology problems after that.) For those unaware, ICE also holds adult detainees in tents out in the middle of the desert without adequate AC, from what I've read. If you're 100% healthy you would live a while, but not if you're ill in any way. Regarding the VA failures, at least the patients were old enough to advocate for themselves, unlike children. tuna-piano: Why are you attempting to defend something that can't be defended, and is actively harmful to children? Are your writings sophistry, were you bribed, or what is the story exactly?

arrosenberg 6y ago

> aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal. We're not talking about criminals who are being removed, or the morality of immigration being a criminal act at all. People trying to enter the country under asylum claims have not committed any crimes. Furthermore, indefinite detention without a trial is clearly unconstitutional, even for non-residents. Companies weren't quitting government contracts during the Bush or Obama administrations, so we're clearly not talking about the normal actions taken by immigration authorities. > A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families. Again, asylum seekers haven't committed any crime, appeared before a magistrate, been indicted, or been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, yet their rights have been roundly violated by the Trump administration. They ended it only after being caught, investigated, and even then, only begrudgingly. > Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule. This is patently untrue. Beyond the recent case, there is also the ICE official who decided he was the emperor of who in ICE custody could receive an abortion. There are wide-spread reports of neglect, and a lack of medical care and unsanitary living conditions, in stark contrast to your claim of world class care being rendered. Even if you believe these people deserve this treatment (they don't.) — our jails and prisons experience all of these same issues, so to your earlier point - we should also be making our jails more humane places too.

tuna-piano 6y ago
Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? But I'll also address some of the counterpoints raised above: -The supreme court ruled in 2018 on some aspects of detention hearings and of course their ruling is being followed by ICE[1]. So to say that its unconstitutional seems at the very least up for debate, and at the most already settled affirmatively. -Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v._Rodriguez [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-health-care-report/2020/09/21/270a64f4-fc1e-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainees-hea...
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? About immigration laws, yes. About civil rights, no. > Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil. I wasn't accusing them of being evil. Your original point was that people should keep politics out of business on grey issues. The Trump administration has moved this from a grey issue where good people could look the other way on incompetence-related failures to a black-and-white issue where it's tough to tell where the incompetence ends and the malice begins. Since the government is incapable of doing anything useful right now, it shouldn't be that surprising when people with a voice seek redress in the areas they have power. Corporations are at zenith of their power and influence right now, so it follows that people would take advantage of that.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not? Not on the child prisoner treatment by ICE, since nobody thinks that has been or was handled properly, regardless of political party affiliation. You don't seize children and then "lose them in the system", or put them on concrete floors to sleep, or fail to provide classes, or the dozens of other things they were subjected to, as reported by both the media and visiting doctors. You can read about the infamous Romanian orphanages fiasco to understand the long-term impact of this kind of treatment on children. (Textbooks had to be re-written on child psychology problems after that.) For those unaware, ICE also holds adult detainees in tents out in the middle of the desert without adequate AC, from what I've read. If you're 100% healthy you would live a while, but not if you're ill in any way. Regarding the VA failures, at least the patients were old enough to advocate for themselves, unlike children. tuna-piano: Why are you attempting to defend something that can't be defended, and is actively harmful to children? Are your writings sophistry, were you bribed, or what is the story exactly?