7 ms·

One candidate supports separating children from their families for certain groups of illegal immigrants, kept those children in cages for some time, and has sin

by mewse 6y ago

One candidate supports separating children from their families for certain groups of illegal immigrants, kept those children in cages for some time, and has since lost track of around 500 of them; not reuiniting them with their families. This has all been extensively documented. And approximately seventy million people have voted for that candidate. Okay, so with all of that in mind, please provide the nuance you want to talk about. I’m very interested in this nuance that you claim will move us away from “crazy extremist”.

dbrueck 6y ago
The last thing I want to do is come across as defending Trump, because I didn't vote for him either time and am happy to see him go. But your reply is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about, and it is present on both sides of the equation (i.e. I'm going to point some things out, but please don't read that as meaning that I think this is a problem that only some people on one side participate in - both are incredibly guilt of it, generally speaking). So here goes: > One candidate supports separating children from their families This is objectively false. Nobody "supports" that position at all as a matter of policy - rather you have oversimplified a complex problem to the point of absurdity. A police officer pulls over a drunk driver and finds kids in the car. The driver is arrested. Do the kids go too? No, of course not. Is it correct to say that "the police support separating children from their families"? Only in the most technical and intentionally misleading sense. Is it their policy to find ways to separate kids from parents? Of course not. Are there sometimes situations in which the only practical solution is to separate some kids from their parents? Yep! > keeping them in cages Again, nobody "supports" keeping children in cages. (and do keep in mind that these so-called "cages" were used by earlier administrations too) But consider this situation: your country has a standing policy that when a refugee comes to your border, instead of turning them away, you let them in, you keep them in a temporary facility while you try to go through the legal process of evaluating their asylum claims or whatever because your country also has a standing policy that people just can't wander into the country unaccounted for. Most of the time, these two policies can be in harmony, but one day 20k people show up on your doorstep. Policy A says you don't turn them away, policy B says you don't let them loose into the country. What do you do? And I'm not talking about what would be the long term ideal, if we have unlimited time and money. I mean what do you do about this problem /today/? You're probably going to scramble and set up some temporary shelter while you get the policymakers to start figuring out a real solution, but you can't just call into existence beds, food, and furnishings. > and has lost track of 500 of them. The president obviously doesn't track them to begin with, so Trump obviously didn't lose track of them (any more than the 800,000 who are reported missing each year were personally lost by Trump - see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missing-children/missing-children-in-u-s-nearly-always-make-it-home-alive-idUSBRE83P14020120426 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missing-children/miss...). I'm not really interested in debating these specific policies, because the larger issue is that you can look at things one of two ways: 1) There are 70 million people who voted for an idiot. By extension, they must be terrible to some degree or another too. 2) The solution to any "interesting" problem - especially social problems - involves tradeoffs, conflicting objectives, pros and cons. If the solution really were trivial and simple, we wouldn't argue about it. The debate is because it's so complex, and with any really complex problem, you can have very reasonable and intelligent people draw different conclusions on how best to proceed. If you choose to see the U.S through the lens of #1, you may as well give up now, because it's hopeless - those people are barely people and are separated from you by an insurmountable gulf. OTOH lens #2 is hopeful - you see that ultimately everyone wants pretty much the same high level objectives, the debate is the path to get there and how to spend limited resources. With #1, nothing will get done. With #2, potentially everything is possible.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Nobody "supports" that position at all as a matter of policy Well except that the Trump admin explicitly changed from a policy of not separating families. > I mean what do you do about this problem /today/? Stop policy B. The executive has the power to do so. There is no law requiring that asylum seekers be kept in detention centers. Trump directly ended catch-and-release policies by executive order in 2017. These two things are things that Donald Trump explicitly and personally changed. The orders quite literally have his signature on them.
  - dbrueck 6y ago
    > Stop policy B. The executive has the power to do so. There is no law requiring that asylum seekers be kept in detention centers Right, except that there are good reasons against just letting in whoever claims asylum without properly vetting them; there are some very large downsides to what you're suggesting. Your position is that the risks are worth it, and that's fine, but others will argue that different approaches can solve the problem with less risk and less total harm. No single position is without tradeoffs, hence the debate. But again, the larger point here is that the oversimplification of a complex issue is nothing more than a way to take cheap shots by making opposing views into something sinister. It's a borderline ad hominem attack - my opponent is evil, therefore I can dismiss his concerns without ever really addressing them.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > there are some very large downsides to what you're suggesting Do you have any data to back this up? I don't remember the issue under the Obama admin. > No single position is without tradeoffs, hence the debate. There's a difference between a debate and an Executive Order. Donald Trump isn't "debating" putting people in cages. He is putting people in cages. He, personally, changed policy to put people who otherwise would not have been in cages. In fact, this policy was both so unpopular and legally tenuous that Trump was forced to roll much of it back due to intense pressure from, well, pretty much everyone else. Even the CBP said that the zero tolerance policy trump adopted was bad. > It's a borderline ad hominem attack - my opponent is evil, therefore I can dismiss his concerns without ever really addressing them. Yes well, if you don't want that, you shouldn't have Stephen Miller write your border policy.
cgriswald 6y ago
Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy. That’s exactly the lack of nuance that’s the topic of discussion. People who voted for Trump had two options: Trump and that policy or Biden who they found even more unpalatable. The nuance is there: Why do they find Biden more unpalatable than that policy?
- mewse 6y ago
  You tell me. If there’s nuance there, then I’m super interested to hear about it. What’s so bad that it outweighs breaking up families, or any of the other things Trump and his government have done over the past four years?
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Why don't you find someone who voted for Trump, ask, and listen with an open mind? There are pro-lifers who think that basically nothing outweighs the 'murder of unborn children' and can't fathom voting for a Democrat. You might have more in common with them than you think.
    - codegrappler 6y ago
      Was about to write this very thing. Also many people frightened that a defunded police will not be able to protect them.
    - mewse 6y ago
      I thought I was asking someone who voted for Trump and had been intending to listen to your reply. I don’t really require that particular “you should talk to people” lecture, thanks. I’m nowhere remotely close to the USA. I know very few people who are able to vote in the USA, and none of those people voted for Trump. Asking people online, as I did, is my only real option. Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. I’ll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
What makes you think those 500 kids came with their parents? The entire child crusade was caused by the Obama administration unilaterally changing asylum law to allow claims that are unrelated to a claimant's home nation state actions. Until then, being from a poor crime ridden country was not a valid ground for an asylum claim in any country. During the Obama administration, an immigration judge ruled that such a claim was valid, the Obama DOJ let the ruling stand (the DOJ can overrule immigration judges). As soon as this policy was recognized and promoted by NGOs, the flood gates opened, women and children first instead of working adults first. Also, until then absent congress made law for special cases, one could not travel through n-number of countries until eventually reaching the one you want to claim asylum in. Asylum is a remedy for people in danger because of state actions or state actors -- it must be made in the first reached neutral country, not four countries over because that country has better benefits. Trump's DOJ put things back to normal.
- comex 6y ago
  > What makes you think those 500 kids came with their parents? That’s what the family separation controversy is about - minors who arrived along with their parents but were then separated from them. Unaccompanied minors are a separate issue.
  - ksk 6y ago
    May I ask how you know that the children came in with their parents in every single case? After all, if we knew that they came with their parents, it would imply we have some documentation that points to who their parents are, and could potentially contact them. I admit, I haven't extensively researched this, but would like to collect more info and keep an open mind.
    - regularfry 6y ago
      The problem is entirely that sufficient documentation was not kept.
      - 6y ago
kortilla 6y ago
If you truly want learn something, first try learning why something that looks so obviously bad might be nuanced. Search for yourself to find out why the Obama-era policy of separating the children was put into place.
- enough90 6y ago
  Please return those goal lists to where they were. This NEEDS to stop. If you don't have an answer to why Trump et al thought it okay to permanently separate immigrant children from their parents and your stead yell "BUT OBAMA!", that's cheating. So do you actually have an answer or not?
  - ksk 6y ago
    You're turning on the TV and after missing out on half the game, and asking why a team is losing. You gotta watch the full match, my friend.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > permanently separate immigrant children from their parents "Permanently" is a new one on me, even Trump-haters don't go that far. This whole thing is about a temporary measure while confirming that the adults with the children really are their parents, and not some random person smuggling children across the border. The system is backlogged so it's definitely taking much longer than it should, but not permanently unless it's found the adult and child aren't related.
- arnoldsing 6y ago
  You seem offended by GGP.[0] Do you have a source for that sentiment? [0] facts (1) don’t care about your feelings (1) facts -> I
sagarm 6y ago
The family separations policy was applied to asylum seekers. Seeking asylum is an established legal process, so 'illegal immigrant' doesn't apply.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  That's worse, right? You get how that's worse.
  - sagarm 6y ago
    Yes, that was my point.
ksk 6y ago
One candidate supported bombings in the middle east that resulted in deaths of hundreds, thousands of civilians including children. I'm pretty sure killing children is worse than keeping them alive. Why would you support that candidate? You're playing a rhetorical game, rather than having an honest discussion.
- dlp211 6y ago
  Trump has committed more drone strikes than Obama. The only reason most people don't know this is because the Trump admin did away with all transparency requirements. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...
  - ksk 6y ago
    We're slipping into a whose worse argument. OK, Obama/Biden admin was largely style over substance, and I can't think of anything major they got accomplished. His whole "I'm going to change the way the game is played" was just bluster. Nothing came of it for eight years. He got incremental stuff done like any other president. Obamacare was a giant gift to the insurance industry. And he got a peace prize on top of that? Are you kidding me?
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25021317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25021317.

by mewse 6y ago

dbrueck 6y ago

The last thing I want to do is come across as defending Trump, because I didn't vote for him either time and am happy to see him go. But your reply is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about, and it is present on both sides of the equation (i.e. I'm going to point some things out, but please don't read that as meaning that I think this is a problem that only some people on one side participate in - both are incredibly guilt of it, generally speaking). So here goes: > One candidate supports separating children from their families This is objectively false. Nobody "supports" that position at all as a matter of policy - rather you have oversimplified a complex problem to the point of absurdity. A police officer pulls over a drunk driver and finds kids in the car. The driver is arrested. Do the kids go too? No, of course not. Is it correct to say that "the police support separating children from their families"? Only in the most technical and intentionally misleading sense. Is it their policy to find ways to separate kids from parents? Of course not. Are there sometimes situations in which the only practical solution is to separate some kids from their parents? Yep! > keeping them in cages Again, nobody "supports" keeping children in cages. (and do keep in mind that these so-called "cages" were used by earlier administrations too) But consider this situation: your country has a standing policy that when a refugee comes to your border, instead of turning them away, you let them in, you keep them in a temporary facility while you try to go through the legal process of evaluating their asylum claims or whatever because your country also has a standing policy that people just can't wander into the country unaccounted for. Most of the time, these two policies can be in harmony, but one day 20k people show up on your doorstep. Policy A says you don't turn them away, policy B says you don't let them loose into the country. What do you do? And I'm not talking about what would be the long term ideal, if we have unlimited time and money. I mean what do you do about this problem /today/? You're probably going to scramble and set up some temporary shelter while you get the policymakers to start figuring out a real solution, but you can't just call into existence beds, food, and furnishings. > and has lost track of 500 of them. The president obviously doesn't track them to begin with, so Trump obviously didn't lose track of them (any more than the 800,000 who are reported missing each year were personally lost by Trump - see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missing-children/missing-children-in-u-s-nearly-always-make-it-home-alive-idUSBRE83P14020120426 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missing-children/miss...). I'm not really interested in debating these specific policies, because the larger issue is that you can look at things one of two ways: 1) There are 70 million people who voted for an idiot. By extension, they must be terrible to some degree or another too. 2) The solution to any "interesting" problem - especially social problems - involves tradeoffs, conflicting objectives, pros and cons. If the solution really were trivial and simple, we wouldn't argue about it. The debate is because it's so complex, and with any really complex problem, you can have very reasonable and intelligent people draw different conclusions on how best to proceed. If you choose to see the U.S through the lens of #1, you may as well give up now, because it's hopeless - those people are barely people and are separated from you by an insurmountable gulf. OTOH lens #2 is hopeful - you see that ultimately everyone wants pretty much the same high level objectives, the debate is the path to get there and how to spend limited resources. With #1, nothing will get done. With #2, potentially everything is possible.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Nobody "supports" that position at all as a matter of policy Well except that the Trump admin explicitly changed from a policy of not separating families. > I mean what do you do about this problem /today/? Stop policy B. The executive has the power to do so. There is no law requiring that asylum seekers be kept in detention centers. Trump directly ended catch-and-release policies by executive order in 2017. These two things are things that Donald Trump explicitly and personally changed. The orders quite literally have his signature on them.
- dbrueck 6y ago
  > Stop policy B. The executive has the power to do so. There is no law requiring that asylum seekers be kept in detention centers Right, except that there are good reasons against just letting in whoever claims asylum without properly vetting them; there are some very large downsides to what you're suggesting. Your position is that the risks are worth it, and that's fine, but others will argue that different approaches can solve the problem with less risk and less total harm. No single position is without tradeoffs, hence the debate. But again, the larger point here is that the oversimplification of a complex issue is nothing more than a way to take cheap shots by making opposing views into something sinister. It's a borderline ad hominem attack - my opponent is evil, therefore I can dismiss his concerns without ever really addressing them.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > there are some very large downsides to what you're suggesting Do you have any data to back this up? I don't remember the issue under the Obama admin. > No single position is without tradeoffs, hence the debate. There's a difference between a debate and an Executive Order. Donald Trump isn't "debating" putting people in cages. He is putting people in cages. He, personally, changed policy to put people who otherwise would not have been in cages. In fact, this policy was both so unpopular and legally tenuous that Trump was forced to roll much of it back due to intense pressure from, well, pretty much everyone else. Even the CBP said that the zero tolerance policy trump adopted was bad. > It's a borderline ad hominem attack - my opponent is evil, therefore I can dismiss his concerns without ever really addressing them. Yes well, if you don't want that, you shouldn't have Stephen Miller write your border policy.

cgriswald 6y ago

Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy. That’s exactly the lack of nuance that’s the topic of discussion. People who voted for Trump had two options: Trump and that policy or Biden who they found even more unpalatable. The nuance is there: Why do they find Biden more unpalatable than that policy?

mewse 6y ago
You tell me. If there’s nuance there, then I’m super interested to hear about it. What’s so bad that it outweighs breaking up families, or any of the other things Trump and his government have done over the past four years?
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Why don't you find someone who voted for Trump, ask, and listen with an open mind? There are pro-lifers who think that basically nothing outweighs the 'murder of unborn children' and can't fathom voting for a Democrat. You might have more in common with them than you think.
  - codegrappler 6y ago
    Was about to write this very thing. Also many people frightened that a defunded police will not be able to protect them.
  - mewse 6y ago
    I thought I was asking someone who voted for Trump and had been intending to listen to your reply. I don’t really require that particular “you should talk to people” lecture, thanks. I’m nowhere remotely close to the USA. I know very few people who are able to vote in the USA, and none of those people voted for Trump. Asking people online, as I did, is my only real option. Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. I’ll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

What makes you think those 500 kids came with their parents? The entire child crusade was caused by the Obama administration unilaterally changing asylum law to allow claims that are unrelated to a claimant's home nation state actions. Until then, being from a poor crime ridden country was not a valid ground for an asylum claim in any country. During the Obama administration, an immigration judge ruled that such a claim was valid, the Obama DOJ let the ruling stand (the DOJ can overrule immigration judges). As soon as this policy was recognized and promoted by NGOs, the flood gates opened, women and children first instead of working adults first. Also, until then absent congress made law for special cases, one could not travel through n-number of countries until eventually reaching the one you want to claim asylum in. Asylum is a remedy for people in danger because of state actions or state actors -- it must be made in the first reached neutral country, not four countries over because that country has better benefits. Trump's DOJ put things back to normal.

comex 6y ago
> What makes you think those 500 kids came with their parents? That’s what the family separation controversy is about - minors who arrived along with their parents but were then separated from them. Unaccompanied minors are a separate issue.
- ksk 6y ago
  May I ask how you know that the children came in with their parents in every single case? After all, if we knew that they came with their parents, it would imply we have some documentation that points to who their parents are, and could potentially contact them. I admit, I haven't extensively researched this, but would like to collect more info and keep an open mind.
  - regularfry 6y ago
    The problem is entirely that sufficient documentation was not kept.
    - 6y ago

kortilla 6y ago

If you truly want learn something, first try learning why something that looks so obviously bad might be nuanced. Search for yourself to find out why the Obama-era policy of separating the children was put into place.

enough90 6y ago
Please return those goal lists to where they were. This NEEDS to stop. If you don't have an answer to why Trump et al thought it okay to permanently separate immigrant children from their parents and your stead yell "BUT OBAMA!", that's cheating. So do you actually have an answer or not?
- ksk 6y ago
  You're turning on the TV and after missing out on half the game, and asking why a team is losing. You gotta watch the full match, my friend.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > permanently separate immigrant children from their parents "Permanently" is a new one on me, even Trump-haters don't go that far. This whole thing is about a temporary measure while confirming that the adults with the children really are their parents, and not some random person smuggling children across the border. The system is backlogged so it's definitely taking much longer than it should, but not permanently unless it's found the adult and child aren't related.
arnoldsing 6y ago
You seem offended by GGP.[0] Do you have a source for that sentiment? [0] facts (1) don’t care about your feelings (1) facts -> I

sagarm 6y ago

The family separations policy was applied to asylum seekers. Seeking asylum is an established legal process, so 'illegal immigrant' doesn't apply.

freeone3000 6y ago
That's worse, right? You get how that's worse.
- sagarm 6y ago
  Yes, that was my point.

ksk 6y ago

One candidate supported bombings in the middle east that resulted in deaths of hundreds, thousands of civilians including children. I'm pretty sure killing children is worse than keeping them alive. Why would you support that candidate? You're playing a rhetorical game, rather than having an honest discussion.

dlp211 6y ago
Trump has committed more drone strikes than Obama. The only reason most people don't know this is because the Trump admin did away with all transparency requirements. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...
- ksk 6y ago
  We're slipping into a whose worse argument. OK, Obama/Biden admin was largely style over substance, and I can't think of anything major they got accomplished. His whole "I'm going to change the way the game is played" was just bluster. Nothing came of it for eight years. He got incremental stuff done like any other president. Obamacare was a giant gift to the insurance industry. And he got a peace prize on top of that? Are you kidding me?

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25021317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25021317.