[Gorefest]

Tapper, on 28 November 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

Because they are desperate and don't want to be seperated from their children in case they get arrested?
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Take them with you: they suffer what you suffer but at the least they are with you. Don't take them with you: you leave them at the mercy of others in the caravan, possibly forever if you are arrested/expatriated back to your country of origin. In their shoes I'd name the first option as the lesser evil every single time, gambling on the humanity of the border police/ the US bureaucracy.

I fully appreciate that, but then you cannot push all the responsibility in the USA's shoes for the outcome, which is what seems to be happening now. The logical escalation of such reasoning if it were successful is that everyone will just take kids along in their next dash because it will keep them safe from repercussions. I'm not saying the US border police were right in using tear gas, but neither is it right for illegal migrants to use children as a human shield. Just adding some nuance to some of the posts and comments. And no, I'm not a Trump fan. It is tragic, it is sad, and pointing fingers in either direction isn't really going to solve anything.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 28 November 2018 - 03:31 PM

[Mentalist]

worry, on 27 November 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

First off, I just wanted to say in my previous post when I said "All due respect" I meant it -- I would usually concede to you, or HD, or Amph, etc. in matters of law. On these matters in particular though, even for a layman, I think I'm relatively plugged in. Also I want to say that I used the word "you" pretty freely, sometimes you-you and sometimes the general you without really making it clear, so I hope it didn't come across that I was ascribing too much to you-you.

I guess my point to your first thing is that while I see what you're saying, I'm saying there is a very simple delineation in the law for how that is done, and the Trump administration is deliberately blocking it. Maybe it seems like semantics at that point, but the distinction between "the pipeline is broken" vs. "men in body armor are blocking the entrance to the pipe" is important imo.


The second paragraph, I'm not quite sure if you're making an affirmative argument or just explaining your view of things as they are, so to speak, but all I can say to that really is that things as they are aren't set in stone and aren't always going to be that way. Lots of awful things were just they way it was, and then people changed them. And I probably don't need to make this argument, but you know a "significant percentage" of people don't believe in climate change or evolution either, but that has to change, and this has to change too. And it doesn't have to be all or nothing -- I mean, I don't want people moving more cane toads to Australia or anything like that, but we can have that without the other.

To the third thing, I guess I fear repeating myself, and I'll try not to, but again: the violence was the blockade, before anyone tried to get through it, before the tear gas. The violence is in the CBP shutting down of ports of entry or simply refusing people outright (which they have been doing, repeatedly, along the border). I would also say that the caravan has traveled thousands of miles over many months, and they don't necessarily have all the information you or I have. Maybe they think children are still being stolen from their parents at ports of entry (and with good reason, because they are). Maybe they think that once you're in the custody of the Dept. of Homeland Security -- and you will be because Trump has explicitly called for the halt of releases -- you maybe aren't treated so nice. All that said, it takes too much credulousness -- that this admin, that DHS, that CBP haven't earned -- to believe this was anything beyond one more desperate act by a fraction of a fraction of a desperate and weary group of refugees, that was met with extreme and brutal force by wolves who smelled blood.


To the fourth thing, I think -- and hope -- that after family separation, kids in cages, and concentration camps, people aren't so easily falling for the official line. But who am I to argue against paranoia?

The point I was trying to make in my second paragraph, as also noted by HD is that there is no real way to enforce the supposedly "universal" mobility rights. Your analogy with the Southern diner owners falls apart, because they were violating the (Federal) laws on equality set by the US government when they abolished slavery country-wide. The government had the power to enforce its laws.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great moral guideline. But the UN isn't really a "world government". It has no intrinsic power to enforce anything that does not align with the national interests of the member states.

I am not saying you are wrong to believe that mobility rights should be universal- it's a laudable goal. But starting the discourse with this presumption as if it's common sense is counter-productive, imho, because the current state of the world (read: ongoing existence of, and support for, of national borders) disproves that presumption. Universal mobility rights are NOT a given. Starting the argument from the position that they are (rather then first explaining why they should be ) makes the Trump detractors in this case sound like they are placing unreasonable demands on his govt-because they are holding the US to a higher standard than what's commonly accepted worldwide in terms of mobility rights.

Nothing above should be taken as excusing any inhuman excesses we've been talking about in this thread. But since everything to do with Trump ends up revolving around how the discourse is prevented, I, (like Gorefest) feel it's important to point out that there shouldn't be a starting presumption that the refugees have an intrinsic "right" to be where they were. Because by current international practice, they don't.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 28 November 2018 - 04:24 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Primateus, on 28 November 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

https://www.thedaily...llion-in-income

D'awww, isn't that sad?

I felt warm and fuzzy reading that.

[worry]

Sorry if I sound a little frustrated here, I'm more just trying to be as direct and clear as possible (so please don't take my italics/emphasis as harshness): what I'm saying about the right to seek asylum, and the very legal language I quoted, wasn't international law, it is U.S. federal law. Every argument you're making about the UN or universal human rights is simply not pertinent to what I'm saying because I'm not citing international law, and so your assertion that I'm making 'presumptions' is just not accurate. I am not presuming anything, I am not wishing asylum law into being as an imaginary "given" -- it is already the plain language of U.S. Code, Title 8. Now do I think there is a moral component to this situation, on top of the legal one? Of course, how could one not? But I'm not conflating them.


There are exceptions spelled out in the law as well -- for instance, people only have one year from date of arrival to submit their asylum petitions, unless they can successfully argue for a waiver. But to be clear, the notion mentioned by Cause -- that asylum seekers have to settle in "the first safe country" -- isn't one of those exceptions in U.S. law, at all. Maybe it exists in some other country -- I'm seeing Trumpsters claim it online, so they must have got it somewhere. But the only thing that comes remotely close in the U.S. is an exception where the Attorney General can remove individual aliens to another safe country by bi- or multi-lateral agreements to that effect.


To address "America can't just let everyone in" I will just say it's not an argument, any more than is "One doctor can't remove everyone's appendix." I mean sure, true, but who's asking them to? When would that ever be a real thing? And does that really address what they are responsible for? In terms of the "don't blame refugees" thing I am with you there, Cause, but maybe it would help to note that while we talk about refugees and asylees pretty interchangeably, they actually have a pretty important distinction in the law. Refugees inherently apply from outside the U.S., and like most countries we have (ever-shrinking) maximum #s, while asylees make it to the U.S. first and apply from within (at a port of entry or not, doesn't matter, and the law is clear there). And there's a reason for that: the law acknowledges that situational differences matter. Would I argue that there's a moral component to the reduction of refugee numbers the U.S. is taking in? Yes I would. But when it comes to asylees, I don't have to, because there are no numbers in the law. The morality of accepting asylum seekers and hearing their claims, at least, is baked in.

This post has been edited by worry: 28 November 2018 - 08:44 PM

[Mentalist]

My phone's bugging out, so I'll reply when I get home, but we appear to be talking at cross-purposes here.

[worry]

That may very well be. For my part, I guess I'm just not sure why you're talking about universal (as in global, I take it) mobility rights at all.

Here's something, not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but is more generally pertinent (and while anecdotal and specific, not necessarily atypical):

Spoiler

And to be clear, that's not a random find, it's from a private imm. law group on FB so that's why no name is attached. And degrees are in Fahrenheit.

[QuickTidal]

Some things (<----guy who used to do Trumps taxes), may (More Cohen reveals tying DIRECTLY to Trump by name) be (crazy asshole admits to lying to Congress as well) in the offing (massive raid of DeutcheBank).

I have a feeling shit is hitting the fan, or Trump's drawers...either way. *Grabs popcorn*

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 29 November 2018 - 06:49 PM

[worry]

I haven't read all that yet, and I speak as a non-parent, but fewer things on God's green earth are more beautiful than a bank being raided.

[Vengeance]

worry, on 29 November 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

I haven't read all that yet, and I speak as a non-parent, but fewer things on God's green earth are more beautiful than robbing a bank.

Fixed

[Tiste Simeon]

Vengeance, on 29 November 2018 - 09:18 PM, said:

worry, on 29 November 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

I haven't read all that yet, and I speak as a non-parent, but fewer things on God's green earth are more beautiful than robbing a bank.

Fixed

So your name is Vengeance yes? *Nonchalantly notes that down*

[Gorefest]

Some food for thought for those who want a bit of light reading: https://www.theguard...he-new-populism

[worry]

^^^^Speaking of the increasing distrust of elites and institutions, I refuse to believe any of this:

[Primateus]

So, uh, Cohen pleads guilty. Huh? I guess all that evidence that the so-called "trumpists" has spent two years claiming didn't exist is about to come out...

We shall see, oh yes, we shall see!

[worry]

This is well worth reading from top to bottom: https://www.houstonc...on-13418679.php

Quote

When the Salvadoran mother was finally reunited with her skinny, soft-spoken daughter, whose favorite recollection of home was going to school, the girl was altered. “Why did you sign me away?” were her first words to her mother. “Why did you give me to a shelter?” U.S. border officials had told her that her mother abandoned her. For two months she had no choice but to believe them.


At late-night dinners all that week, my co-workers described similar stories. One talked to a small boy who said he was told by guards to sign a paper he couldn’t read or have his fingers chopped off. Another interviewed an 8-year-old who watched guards kicking a teenager over and over in the ice box room. Child welfare workers and lawyers have documented thousands of similar reports.


...While unauthorized crossings overall dropped sharply in the past 20 years, the number of migrant children in U.S. custody has skyrocketed to the highest levels ever, from an average of 4,000 two years ago to more than 14,000 today. Extreme vetting rules mean far fewer of these children are being released to family and friends. And the government has now proposed new rules allowing detention of migrant children indefinitely, in facilities free of state supervision.

That's just part of it I thought was worth highlighting, but the article covers several dimensions to this man-made hell (including the mental health of the boots-on-the-ground tasked with maintaining it -- not necessarily an empathetic leap I'm willing to make, but some might find that moving too).

[Aptorian]

Bush Senior passed away, 94 years old.

https://www.cnbc.com...-at-age-94.html

Does this mean one of Dick Cheney's Horcruxes have been destroyed?

[Tiste Simeon]

I honestly hope Trump dies soon. It might solve a whole lot of problems...?

[Aptorian]

Not if he became a martyr. Not if you get Pence as a replacement.

You'd go from arrogant idiot, to ignorant bigot. Imagine all of Trump's stupid decisions, only they're all religious in nature.

I'd prefer Trump and his entire family to go through 5 years of trials and then have Trump wither away in Prison.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 01 December 2018 - 05:09 PM

[worry]

But Trump is an outlier, an aberration. Mainline GOPers would bring back normalcy, ethics, and rule of law. Like these good folks...

[worry]

Good question. Maybe a European boarder will recall the lore better than I do, but IIRC it's supposed to be open casket so clergy can officially confirm before witnesses that there's a true wooden stake through the heart and the head has been fully removed.

[Primateus]

worry, on 03 December 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

Good question. Maybe a European boarder will recall the lore better than I do, but IIRC it's supposed to be open casket so clergy can officially confirm before witnesses that there's a true wooden stake through the heart and the head has been fully removed.

Close, but no cigar! The open casket is so a stake can, at the funeral itself, be driven into the heart and the head cut off and held up before the cheering villagers.