Trump immigrant family separation policy

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1014185248068755458



I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to explain how this is perfectly fine, and anyway it's their parents' fault.

<RW Twitter comment section rant on>
Of course its fine.

They aren't citizens and therefore have no rights - not to due process, not to a lawyer, etc.

And if their "parents" didn't want the family separated then they shouldn't have tried to come to this country. Obviously, they don't love their children the same way we do.

Praise Jesus!
<RW Twitter rant off>

Those are toned down from some of the rants there, in addition to the "Fake News" and "Obama did it too" vomitings.
 
Kids have obviously been coached, how could they not have their own lawyer, who do they deal with in regards to their trust funds or if they want to purchase a new house or something?
 
Kids have obviously been coached, how could they not have their own lawyer, who do they deal with in regards to their trust funds or if they want to purchase a new house or something?

All MS-13 gang members are given legal training. By the time they're 3 most of these animals have passed the bar exam, killed at least 4 people and smuggled several tons of cocaine. I, for one, am glad America is locking up this infestation.
 

*The* author who wrote *the* book? Looks like *an* author who wrote *a* book. What is it that makes her supremely authoritative on the subject, in your mind?

I note she's a journalist. That's fine. I'm reading a book about Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, written by one of the journalists who covered the campaign. Do you recommend that I think of it as *the* definitive work on the campaign, even of being the authority on the thoughts and motives of the candidate and her staff?
 
You're right.

I guess we should stick with "Summer Camp".

"Welcome to the camp.
I guess you all know why you're here"​

Nice new, clean cages and tents in the summer desert.

All the kool kids are gonna want to go.

Have you considered just describing the detention facilities accurately, and fairly calling out the real problems you see in them?

It seems like that would be a lot more productive (not to mention more skeptical) than saying "concentration camps!" and then trying to attack anyone who challenges your choice of terminology.
 
Have you considered just describing the detention facilities accurately, and fairly calling out the real problems you see in them?

It seems like that would be a lot more productive (not to mention more skeptical) than saying "concentration camps!" and then trying to attack anyone who challenges your choice of terminology.


What "attack" are you referring to?

Did you consider the post you quoted to be an "attack"?

Looked more like a response to me. A reasonably calm one. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's an attack.

If you are concerned about people employing terms too loosely you aren't setting a very good example.
 
Last edited:
Some Historical perspective on the term "Concentration Camp"

British concentration camps refers to internment camps operated by the British in South Africa during the Second Boer War in years 1900–1902. The term "concentration camp" grew in prominence during this period.


Just because the term has Nazi connotations later in history, doesn't make the term inappropriate.

The term is broader than that. The Nazi implementation was more like a death camp. Yet like the Brits and the Boers, ethnicity was the determining factor.
 
Last edited:
Have you considered just describing the detention facilities accurately, and fairly calling out the real problems you see in them?

It seems like that would be a lot more productive (not to mention more skeptical) than saying "concentration camps!" and then trying to attack anyone who challenges your choice of terminology.
Ok. They're tents, in El Paso Texas. Temperatures hit 90 degrees F by 0900, and 105 F by 3 PM. Humidity reaches almost 15 percent. Shade is non-existent, except where man-made. Wind velocities are either zero (dead calm) or 40mph with concurrent airborne particulate silica in high concentrations. Water must be pumped from below ground, except for a few days(>2, <7) in August, when the 12 inch annual accumulation occurs.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Some Historical perspective on the term "Concentration Camp"




Just because the term has Nazi connotations later in history, doesn't make the term inappropriate.

The term is broader than that. The Nazi implementation was more like a death camp. Yet like the Brits and the Boers, ethnicity was the determining factor.

I think the later usage has overshadowed this meaning. Besides, the history of the term doesn't explain the people who clearly intend it as an indictment of the policy.
 
I think the later usage has overshadowed this meaning. Besides, the history of the term doesn't explain the people who clearly intend it as an indictment of the policy.

I fully understand it is intended as an indictment of the policy. Whether it's meaning has been overshadowed is a matter of perception. Are we to modify the dictionary due to perception? Should the term be retired, ala niggardly, gypped, or any other term that might be perceived as offensive?
 
I think the later usage has overshadowed this meaning.

I'm glad you admit that the problem lies with you, rather than with the accurate term.

Besides, the history of the term doesn't explain the people who clearly intend it as an indictment of the policy.

This is only true if you think that only the Nazis were wrong to put innocent people in concentration camps en masse without trial.
 
I think the later usage has overshadowed this meaning. Besides, the history of the term doesn't explain the people who clearly intend it as an indictment of the policy.
I am finding this a bit of a distraction. In some respects it isn't the way the children are accommodated that is the problem (although obviously the conditions should be good and I am not convinced that they are). The problem is the policy of separation of families. That shouldn't be happening and if it wasn't happening then there would be no need to consider the conditions. QED.
 
I am finding this a bit of a distraction. In some respects it isn't the way the children are accommodated that is the problem (although obviously the conditions should be good and I am not convinced that they are). The problem is the policy of separation of families. That shouldn't be happening and if it wasn't happening then there would be no need to consider the conditions. QED.

I don't think you can really separate the two. If the kids had been shown being settled into nice accomodation, with plenty of comfortable furnishings, toys, and so on I think the public "outrage" wouldn't have been as strong.
 
I am finding this a bit of a distraction. In some respects it isn't the way the children are accommodated that is the problem (although obviously the conditions should be good and I am not convinced that they are). The problem is the policy of separation of families. That shouldn't be happening and if it wasn't happening then there would be no need to consider the conditions. QED.

Not quite? There's also, among other things, a problem with suddenly and simply imprisoning asylum-seekers, even if they pass all the security and safety tests that are employ with regards to parole. Changing the status quo from paroling over 90% to roughly 0% means that taxpayer money is being wasted at massive levels, quite frankly, on top of the ethical issues and flat out violation of official policy. The unwarranted and effectively illegal separation of families (it very much violates the intent of the actual laws, consistent application of the law, and lots and lots and lots of precedent) is a very important issue, but it's only one of many serious problems that the Trump Administration is intentionally causing in relation to immigration. It's hard to tell how much is ideology, though, and how much is a cynical political ploy to rally the Republican base. Either way, that party is embracing things that are practically the same as what Lincoln himself warned against.

“Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines in conflict with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence,” he declared in 1858, “if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated in our charter of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the revolution. Think nothing of me—take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever—but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles.”

***

“Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.”

Oh how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
 
Last edited:
Not quite? There's also, among other things, a problem with suddenly and simply imprisoning asylum-seekers, even if they pass all the security and safety tests that are employ with regards to parole. Changing the status quo from paroling over 90% to roughly 0% means that taxpayer money is being wasted at massive levels, quite frankly, on top of the ethical issues and flat out violation of official policy. The unwarranted and effectively illegal separation of families (it very much violates the intent of the actual laws, consistent application of the law, and lots and lots and lots of precedent) is a very important issue, but it's only one of many serious problems that the Trump Administration is intentionally causing in relation to immigration. It's hard to tell how much is ideology, though, and how much is a cynical political ploy to rally the Republican base.

Both I think are in action but also sheer incompetence, lack of intelligence and willful ignorance by Trump
 

Back
Top Bottom