Moms and kids tear gassed at southern US border

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Meanwhile, while we chase the red herrings... Pictures are worth thousands of words. Such a sad situation:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/bigpicture/2018/11/26/chaos-border-mexico/m1Ze1NTyajTqBhwLZy2LvK/story.html

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

WTF does that have to do with anything? Whether or not I'd like to see criminal justice reform or immigration reform in the future has  no barrier on the events unfolding. You've been pushing a line of agrument that the caravan posed some sort of logistical challenge. They do not. Nothing additional to what has previously been in place over the last few years was required to manage the caravan. 

I don't think it is ever useful to placate trolls. In fairness I also don't think it is ever useful to respond to them at all so shame on me. 

***I am not implying you are troll. Just re-read my post and realized it could be taken the wrong way. 

I asked some questions. But I really haven't.

As usual, you are quick to assume.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK. Fair enough. Yes. I would expect that would be more of a logistical problem, though less critical than food, water, and of course waste management. Water for basic hygiene before showers.

 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again fair enough. Let's get to the big picture. Where is this set up and how long do they stay there? Is it kept secure? Are they essentially incarcerated, at least with regard to going further into the US? What happens to the ones that do not meet the bar for being accepted? Are they sent back across the border?

 

How long are they detained, on average? 

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

A few thousand is a lot. The fact that you have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the World does not make it any easier to absorb immigrants. There are no bulk discounts to apply from that.

 

 

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I asked some questions. But I really haven't.

As usual, you are quick to assume.

You have pushed that the caravan poses a logistical problems and merely surrounded it with fairly petty questions which work as a sort of Gish Gallop. 

The Caravan is a few thousand people. Our border and immigration infrastructure handles that volume pf people regularly on an ongoing basis. There is no crisis here other than the political one being created by POTUS and his supporters. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think it is ever useful to placate trolls.

I do not consider it placating. I see it as reducing their degree of freedom regarding their arguments. For example:

 

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you not think allowing more migrants through (and not detain them) would encourage more migrants to come?

Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers. Incidentally the same argument as from the WH, especially exemplified by the threat of removing children from their parents. However, detention is not supposed a mechanism to curb asylum seekers. It is one to process them. The only reason why they stay so long is due to the backlog of processing, which, as others noted, could be curbed by sending folks to process them rather than soldiers. 

Thus, it is neither case of logistics (except perhaps for misallocated logistics) nor one of discouraging asylum seekers. Of course one could just say what folks in the WH and many others really think. They just do not want them and realistically, any number would, eventually be cited as too high.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do not consider it placating. I see it as reducing their degree of freedom regarding their arguments. For example:

 

Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers. Incidentally the same argument as from the WH, especially exemplified by the threat of removing children from their parents. However, detention is not supposed a mechanism to curb asylum seekers. It is one to process them. The only reason why they stay so long is due to the backlog of processing, which, as others noted, could be curbed by sending folks to process them rather than soldiers. 

Thus, it is neither case of logistics (except perhaps for misallocated logistics) nor one of discouraging asylum seekers. Of course one could just say what folks in the WH and many others really think. They just do not want them and realistically, any number would, eventually be cited as too high.

I don't disagree. At least whether or not punitive treatment would or wouldn't discourage asylum seekers has an angle one can pawn off as personal opinion. Of course I think it is disgusting that one would view asylum seekers as something to discharge. What we (western democracies) should discharge is the oppressive govts which create conditions their citizens are seeking asylum from. If we put a tenth to political energy into cultivating better relationships the rest of the Americas as we do combating immigrants for partisan gain everyone would be a lot better off.  

 

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

They just do not want them and realistically, any number would, eventually be cited as too high.

I don't really believe in commenting on the present problem re the USA and its border decisions, but gee, the above is exactly the attitude in Australia taken by the conservative government...We have sent them off shore to various Islands, and somehow even achieved agreement of New Zealand and the USA to take some of what we have loosely described as boat people. Rather ironically, both the USA and Australia were built on Immigration.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

 

 

You have pushed that the caravan poses a logistical problems and merely surrounded it with fairly petty questions which work as a sort of Gish Gallop. 

The Caravan is a few thousand people. Our border and immigration infrastructure handles that volume pf people regularly on an ongoing basis. There is no crisis here other than the political one being created by POTUS and his supporters. 

Ten oz. I realize you think you know better than I do about any agenda I might have, but I am actually the authority on it not you.

Insulting my questions does not change that fact.

I am not pushing that. I was merely asking questions on it. In particular with respect to the costs associated with it.

[John Cuthber]

Making America grate again.

[CharonY]

Just now, beecee said:

I don't really believe in commenting on the present problem re the USA and its border decisions, but gee, the above is exactly the attitude in Australia taken by the conservative government...We have sent them off shore to various Islands, and somehow even achieved agreement of New Zealand and the USA to take some of what we have loosely described as boat people. Rather ironically, both the USA and Australia were built on Immigration.

Indeed. One specific thing of the Australian system seems to be the out of sight out of mind kind of thing. While there are far fewer folks in detention, their average time in detentions seems currently to be over a year (though they may have different streams).

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do not consider it placating. I see it as reducing their degree of freedom regarding their arguments. For example:

 

Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers. Incidentally the same argument as from the WH, especially exemplified by the threat of removing children from their parents. However, detention is not supposed a mechanism to curb asylum seekers. It is one to process them. The only reason why they stay so long is due to the backlog of processing, which, as others noted, could be curbed by sending folks to process them rather than soldiers. 

Thus, it is neither case of logistics (except perhaps for misallocated logistics) nor one of discouraging asylum seekers. Of course one could just say what folks in the WH and many others really think. They just do not want them and realistically, any number would, eventually be cited as too high.

I think that is a valid argument. Do you disagree with that argument, or disagree? 

 

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think that is a valid argument. Do you disagree with that argument, or disagree? 

I disagree. The asylum system is there to provide folks who are eligible to escape from dire situations and to reject those that do not meet those criteria. It is not there to prevent folks from trying in the first place. As such, I think it is a horrible argument and an attempt to dismantle the asylum system in the first place.

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I disagree. The asylum system is there to provide folks who are eligible to escape from dire situations and to reject those that do not meet those criteria. It is not there to prevent folks from trying in the first place. As such, I think it is a horrible argument and an attempt to dismantle the asylum system in the first place.

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration?

I'm not advocating the use of detaining as a deterrent. But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that  currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or is a higher level acceptable?

You didn't ask me, but... Yes, I find it acceptable. The absolute numbers are larger, but as a share of population there are times in the past where it's been higher.

 

 

 

To repeat a point I made yesterday: 

19 hours ago, iNow said:

I see neighbors and friends and colleagues in these photos and I don’t wet my pants when a mommy fleeing violence with her babies walks across an arbitrary line looking to work hard and contribute, but YMMV

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

You didn't ask me, but... Yes, I find it acceptable. The absolute numbers are larger, but as a share of population there are times in the past where it's been higher.

 

 

 

To repeat a point I made yesterday: 

 

Thanks INow. It was higher back when you had a population close to Canada's present population. Canada's is presently well above your peaks around that time, currently 20+ percent. Not perfectly, but we seem to manage it, albeit with lower population densities overall. We also have an incarceration level 1/6 of what yours is, and less military spending.

Edited November 27, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We also have an incarceration level 1/6 of what yours is, and less military spending.

And legal weed plus universal healthcare. I think I like your priorities better 

Edited November 27, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

And legal weed plus universal healthcare. I think I like your priorities better 

...and maybe it's just wishful thinking up here in the cold...but we realize global warming is real...

But the point is how much immigration can be comfortably handled. Canada has less congestion and I would say less political and economic stress. Not saying it is easy, but I think that makes it easier. Sharing essentially just one border with one other Nation, that is generally as attractive to migrants or more so, helps as well.

Edited November 27, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

52 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration?

Your question is invalid. A "freer" border isn't determined by detention practices. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not advocating the use of detaining as a deterrent. But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that  currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

You are not advocating for it but are clearly implying it is working and without it levels would increase. Simply attaching question marks doesn't absolve from what's claimed in your posts. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration?

No, you understand. I see that the WH is trying to use it as a deterrent. But if you look at the phrasing, I said "Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers". This is meant as that the mechanism should incorporate that mechanism. And my argument is that the system should not.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that  currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

A couple of more things over what iNow already mentioned, the number of asylum seekers is perhaps around 10% of overall immigration, thus curbing asylum does do little to change immigration numbers. That being said, I have seen few non-emotional evidence for curbing immigration to lower levels. Most studies that have looked at economic cost in the US for example show a net benefit in terms of immigration (if we ignore studies from lobbying groups). A recent NBER study has specifically looked at cost of relocation of refugees for example. This group is supposedly the most expensive one to resettle due to lower education and language skills than most other immigrants. Nonetheless if we look at long periods (over 20 years) each refugee pays 21k over the amount of money over their initial cost. So based on the economic impact, yes higher rates are absolutely acceptable.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

 

Do you not think allowing more migrants through (and not detain them) would encourage more migrants to come?

 

Here I am not making the argument that CharonY conveniently now claims I was making.

 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

Here the argument is made that detention should discourage asylum seekers. Incidentally the same argument as from the WH, especially exemplified by the threat of removing children from their parents. However, detention is not supposed a mechanism to curb asylum seekers. It is one to process them. The only reason why they stay so long is due to the backlog of processing, which, as others noted, could be curbed by sending folks to process them rather than soldiers. 

 

You were quoting me directly CY, in responding to the above. Don't try to weasel out of it. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here I am not making the argument that CharonY conveniently now claims I was making.

 

You were quoting me directly CY, in responding to the above. Don't try to weasel out of it. 

In that case I misunderstood you. So here my revised answer: a) I do not think so. The flow and ebb of asylum seekers seems to correlate better with economic hardships including famines and wars more than the ease to cross borders. b) Even if it did, it should not be used to steer or limit the ability of folks to request asylum. And addressing the topic of weaseling, why bring up the effect in the first place? Is there a point you wanted to make?

The reason being that (and please correct me if I am wrong) the only reason why that argument seems to be relevant is if increased asylum flux would actually be an issue. Thus the mechanisms should also be limiting somehow. But if you meant something else, please clarify, since it is not my intention to mischaracterize your position.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In that case I misunderstood you. So here my revised answer: a) I do not think so. The flow and ebb of asylum seekers seems to correlate better with economic hardships including famines and wars more than the ease to cross borders. b) Even if it did, it should not be used to steer or limit the ability of folks to request asylum. And addressing the topic of weaseling, why bring up the effect in the first place? Is there a point you wanted to make?

First point (understood that we disagree. You think no effect at all, and I think economic migrants will be more dissuaded. I think we can agree it will do nothing to change those fearing  for their lives)

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration?

I'm not advocating the use of detaining as a deterrent. But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that  currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

Second 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and maybe it's just wishful thinking up here in the cold...but we realize global warming is real...

But the point is how much immigration can be comfortably handled. Canada has less congestion and I would say less political and economic stress. Not saying it is easy, but I think that makes it easier. Sharing essentially just one border with one other Nation, that is generally as attractive to migrants or more so, helps as well.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

point is how much immigration can be comfortably handled.

Which is off topic since we’re talking about  the US tear gassing diapered children and their moms. 

Maybe a separate thread makes sense here?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Your question is invalid. A "freer" border isn't determined by detention practices. 

 

Nonsense.

In the context under discussion a border that allows you passage but requests you check in now and then is freer than one that detains you and won't let you in

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

You are not advocating for it but are clearly implying it is working and without it levels would increase. Simply attaching question marks doesn't absolve from what's claimed in your posts. 

It is "working". Very expensively, and with money that no doubt could be put to much better use. Do you, like CY, also believe that without it immigration levels would not increase?

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which is off topic since we’re talking about  the US tear gassing diapered children and their moms. 

Maybe a separate thread makes sense here?

Possibly. Are we not all looking for ways this tear gassing of children can be best avoided? Looking for better outcomes?

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are we not all looking for ways this tear gassing of children can be best avoided? Looking for better outcomes?

Perhaps, but from my perspective it doesn’t seem like that’s what’s happening here. 

I respect the argument you’re making, but feel that you’re trying to address something that isn’t the actual root cause. 

What is the root cause? Delaying processing of valid asylum claims. Failing to send more immigration lawyers and judges to help. Refusing to recognize the fellow humanity in these people and empathize with their plight. Not helping address the violence and poverty in their home countries. Etc. 

Focusing on immigration volumes strikes me as well intentioned, but misguided... tangential to the actual problem under discussion. 

Is that fair?

[Raider5678]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

What exactly about the logistics concerns you? That we won't be able to figure out how much water per day? Or how to transport tents to the border? Or where they will get that many towels and bars of soap? Possibly it is determining which roads the supply trucks should take on the way to the border. We mobilized Desert Storm from Illinois. I suspect we could arrange showers and cots. Hell, church groups in Mexico provided showers and even CLOTHES to the migrants. Citing "logistic concerns" feels like someone searching for problems rather than solutions. Especially given that we are discussing humanitarian efforts, violence, and international relations.

1

100,000 people pass through that border a day. If you start housing them, there will be a backlog. Further, into this thread, you say "as long as it takes to rest their tired feet." What about when it becomes months? The backlog, if it lasts for just 10 days, could mean housing up to a million people. That is a major logistical concern, as it could me housing a relatively sized area like a city. Do you want to know what happens when you put more than a million people in tents? 

People die. Sanitary measures don't work so well living in tents. You know what else happens? Human trafficking. I don't know about you but I'd rather not see kids being taken out of tents to be trafficked because we couldn't secure it well enough. Tents don't stack. You're talking about thousands of acres of land if you want to do tents. That's not something that's simple to secure. Additionally, what about waste management? Millions of people can pose a serious risk of massive infection. You think it's bad shooting tear gas? Wait until they're dying by the thousands due to a rampant disease that we were not prepared to take care of. Showering isn't something simple either. You need to sanitize them to a degree that you would not believe to prevent the risk of things like foot fungus, etc, which will be especially prevalent due to your brilliant idea of tents.

I brought up a valid point. If we want to house them, we need to do it right. You're free to treat me like some jackass who doesn't care about anyone and is just making up excuses, but frankly, that doesn't change the fact that if your idea is a stupid one I should point it out. 

You say we need to treat them better by giving them food, water, shower, and a place to rest.

I point out that to give them a place to rest we're going to have logistical issues.

Your immediate response is to say I'm just trying to search for problems rather than solutions and to become ridiculously defensive and say we should just screw them all because of me simply mentioning the fact that there will be logistical issues in doing that. Grow up. This is the real world. I'm sorry, but if your grand idea is to house them in tents it's a ridiculous one and I'm going to tell you. It'll kill and ruin the lives of far more people then it'll prevent from being tear gassed. 

I think it should be done. But quite frankly I don't care if it looks to you like I'm just searching for problems and it pisses you off that I don't automatically jump on board with your idea and say it's great without first working out some reasonable details. I'll continue to "search for problems" if it means doing it the right way, regardless of how much it may offend you that I do so.

 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

90,000 people on average cross the San Yside border into San Diego everyday. There are no logistical issues. The families at the border pose no appreciable spike in the amount of traffic officials at the border deal with on a regular basis. This year CBP as a whole has detained an average of 50,000 people a month. The logistics clearly are already in place. The current crisis level atmosphere is politically manufactured. Trump is using it to rally his base. That is all. 

50,000 people a month is much less than 1,000,000 people a day with hundred thousand leaving and a hundred thousand coming every day, with the backlog ever growing by thousands of people a day. A magnitude of 60,000% more people(total number of people and the difference in the time). And keeping large groups of people doesn't scale up linearly, it becomes exponentially more difficult. God forbid if I simply mention this fact without me suddenly becoming a naysaying trump loving immigrant racist.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Raider5678