3 ms·

> 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. >

> 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.

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.