3 ms·

You swapped from 'heinous human rights abuses' to 'abuse' when challenged on a point being framed in a rather extreme and partisan fashion. And that's not to mo

You swapped from 'heinous human rights abuses' to 'abuse' when challenged on a point being framed in a rather extreme and partisan fashion. And that's not to mock you or anything - it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Abuses are one thing, human rights abuses are another, and then human rights abuses so abnormally cruel that they deserve to be labeled as heinous? I mean are we talking about stuff like Unit 731 [1] here? I'm pretty sure we are not. Yet these echo chambers encourage people to use ever more hyperbolic and sensationalized language framing ever more actions as the most severe and consequential thing to ever happen, mostly just to rile people up (and get those votes in social media). This is why conversation, and free flow of information, from people of different worldviews is so critical for a functioning society and avoiding radicalism. And I have to say I'm still not certain what you're even talking about, whereas I assume you think literally every American knows exactly what you are trying to reference. But this is again an issue about bubbles, and what I was getting at with if you asked an average person about some trending talking point. On the overwhelming majority of issues, most people's response is going to be 'What are you even talking about?' [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

wat10000 1y ago
It’s shorthand. You don’t have to repeat the full phrase every time. I’m talking about things like CECOT. No, it’s not Unit 731. I think being sent to a horrible prison in another country without a trial qualifies as “heinous.” Maybe you don’t. But that’s missing the point. The point is the support for these actions, not their precise description. You say people don’t know about this stuff. My experience is otherwise. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think so.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Expedited removal [1] is a part of immigration law dating back to Clinton. People who are in the country unlawfully do not have all of the same rights as citizens or legal non-citizens. And support (or opposition) for immigration in no way whatsoever implies a position on how to deal with people who are in the country illegally. For instance Hispanics are less supportive of immigration than average, but more supportive than average of allowing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And I myself am quite supportive of immigration, but not at all a fan of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I even have very specific reasons for that, but my anecdotes are probably irrelevant here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Expedited removal does not require sending people to a hellhole third-world prison. Many of the people sent there were in the US legally. But thank you for illustrating the deflection I was talking about. This is how these conversations always go for me. First the ignorance, "I don't even know what you're referring to." Then the minimization, "it's not so bad," "you're being hyperbolic." Finally the justification, "this is nothing new," "they were all illegals anyway."
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      I'm not deflecting anything. Rather you've brought us down a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the initial issue of whether or not one supports immigration. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, but I'm not entirely sure what we're even debating at this point. So I suppose I'll just consider it a discussion, it's interesting in any case! The US does not get to dictate what happens to a person in a country once they're deported. That is up to the host country. El Salvador has been going through an extreme crackdown on gangs over the past several years sending them from one of the most dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, to a country with a homicide rate a fraction of the US' and one of the 10 safest countries in the world! [1] The deal between the US and El Salvador for hosting prisoners was for a relatively small number of deportees who were vile enough that even their home countries refused to accept them back, leaving them in a state of limbo. And the deportees were overwhelmingly not in the country legally. The media made this claim based on people who were admitted to the country via the CBP One app. But those admittances were all rescinded in April. At that point users of the App were notified of the change, the app was updated to 'CBP Home' and updated to work as a tool to help people self deport in a way that would not imperil their chance of legally applying for a visa or citizenship to the US in the future. Those who chose to stay in the US beyond that point were doing so illegally, and were informed that they would be arrested, deported, and permanently prevented from ever legally entering the US. https://www.gallup.com/analytics/356996/gallup-global-safety-research-center.aspx https://www.gallup.com/analytics/356996/gallup-global-safety...
      - 1y ago

wat10000 1y ago

It’s shorthand. You don’t have to repeat the full phrase every time. I’m talking about things like CECOT. No, it’s not Unit 731. I think being sent to a horrible prison in another country without a trial qualifies as “heinous.” Maybe you don’t. But that’s missing the point. The point is the support for these actions, not their precise description. You say people don’t know about this stuff. My experience is otherwise. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think so.

somenameforme 1y ago
Expedited removal [1] is a part of immigration law dating back to Clinton. People who are in the country unlawfully do not have all of the same rights as citizens or legal non-citizens. And support (or opposition) for immigration in no way whatsoever implies a position on how to deal with people who are in the country illegally. For instance Hispanics are less supportive of immigration than average, but more supportive than average of allowing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And I myself am quite supportive of immigration, but not at all a fan of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I even have very specific reasons for that, but my anecdotes are probably irrelevant here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
- wat10000 1y ago
  Expedited removal does not require sending people to a hellhole third-world prison. Many of the people sent there were in the US legally. But thank you for illustrating the deflection I was talking about. This is how these conversations always go for me. First the ignorance, "I don't even know what you're referring to." Then the minimization, "it's not so bad," "you're being hyperbolic." Finally the justification, "this is nothing new," "they were all illegals anyway."
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    I'm not deflecting anything. Rather you've brought us down a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the initial issue of whether or not one supports immigration. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, but I'm not entirely sure what we're even debating at this point. So I suppose I'll just consider it a discussion, it's interesting in any case! The US does not get to dictate what happens to a person in a country once they're deported. That is up to the host country. El Salvador has been going through an extreme crackdown on gangs over the past several years sending them from one of the most dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, to a country with a homicide rate a fraction of the US' and one of the 10 safest countries in the world! [1] The deal between the US and El Salvador for hosting prisoners was for a relatively small number of deportees who were vile enough that even their home countries refused to accept them back, leaving them in a state of limbo. And the deportees were overwhelmingly not in the country legally. The media made this claim based on people who were admitted to the country via the CBP One app. But those admittances were all rescinded in April. At that point users of the App were notified of the change, the app was updated to 'CBP Home' and updated to work as a tool to help people self deport in a way that would not imperil their chance of legally applying for a visa or citizenship to the US in the future. Those who chose to stay in the US beyond that point were doing so illegally, and were informed that they would be arrested, deported, and permanently prevented from ever legally entering the US. https://www.gallup.com/analytics/356996/gallup-global-safety-research-center.aspx https://www.gallup.com/analytics/356996/gallup-global-safety...
    - 1y ago