There might definitely have been an kerfuffle putting them all up in 5* hotels.Is that actually what's going on?
Do you have some evidence otherwise?Is that actually what's going on?
Someone did the math on it a while ago. It would have been so much cheaper to put all the kids up in hotels (still have guards etc). Because they're spending a few thousand dollars a day per childThere might definitely have been an kerfuffle putting them all up in 5* hotels.
I'm not convinced of the necessity of bloody camps at all. This is a false choice.So you'd rather the kids just end up in the same camps as their parents?
Yet we absolutely can and have setup better facilities for refugees in the past rather than relying on glamorized concentration camps. Other counties have been able to implement better historically as well. Instead responsibility is being handed off to a facility and private contractor with a history of abusing children in this exact scenario that goes back years. We can split hairs about how it’s not actually “the same” as what occurred under Trump, but it remain absolutely unacceptable.There might definitely have been an kerfuffle putting them all up in 5* hotels.
If we take the basic assumption that immigrant children need to be temporarily put somewhere they can be looked after, a pre-existing immigration camp has the infrastructure to do so and thus makes sense to use. It might still look like a prison, but it's more important that they are treated well than their facility looks sweet.
It might be cheaper, but they'd raise a PR shitstorm of epic proportions.Someone did the math on it a while ago. It would have been so much cheaper to put all the kids up in hotels (still have guards etc). Because they're spending a few thousand dollars a day per child
I don't disagree. But the administration's only been in a month and a half. They can't just change things by clicking their fingers, so let's not judge too early.Yet we absolutely can and have setup better facilities for refugees in the past rather than relying on glamorized concentration camps. Other counties have been able to implement better historically as well. Instead responsibility is being handed off to a facility and private contractor with a history of abusing children in this exact scenario that goes back years. We can split hairs about how it’s not actually “the same” as what occurred under Trump, but it remain absolutely unacceptable.
I’m pretty certain that both of Trump’s most infamous immigration policies, child separation and the travel ban, had been implemented by this point in his presidency. At the very least the refugee suspension and travel ban had been.I don't disagree. But the administration's only been in a month and a half. They can't just change things by clicking their fingers, so let's not judge too early.
I believe misery is the desired outcomeIt might be cheaper, but they'd raise a PR shitstorm of epic proportions.
Apparently, nearly $800 per child per night, as opposed to under $300 for more reasonable accommodation in a less stupid location with their parents. People are suprisingly happy for the government to waste money as long it suits their idea of how things should be. An extra $500 per child per night, holding them as hostages and making their lives a misery as punishment for illegal immigrantion could be viewed as cheap.
And I'm pretty certain it takes more time to glue a vase back together than it does breaking it.I’m pretty certain that both of Trump’s most infamous immigration policies, child separation and the travel ban, had been implemented by this point in his presidency. At the very least the refugee suspension and travel ban had been.
If parents/guardians are located, are the kids allowed to leave?Do you have some evidence otherwise?
Thats because all you’re paying for is space and some chump to stand outside the door swiping left and right on Tindr and Grindr all day. All other costs are covered by the hotel.Someone did the math on it a while ago. It would have been so much cheaper to put all the kids up in hotels (still have guards etc). Because they're spending a few thousand dollars a day per child
No but a healthy dose of skepticism should be employed. The administration has changed but the people in charge of day to day operations of these facilities and the departmental heads of their agencies has very likely not. Cultural change in such organisations is glacial on a good day, and actively resisted on a bad one.As far as the official word goes yes and I am not about to go down the rabbit hole of tinfoil hats and assume everything said by a government official is a lie just because it is the gubmint.
From Trump’s perspective immigration was also a broken vase he had to glue back together.And I'm pretty certain it takes more time to glue a vase back together than it does breaking it.
I think we should keep focus on the issue but also acknowledge that it won't be fixed within a month.
Is that even precisely what they are saying?As far as the official word goes yes and I am not about to go down the rabbit hole of tinfoil hats and assume everything said by a government official is a lie just because it is the gubmint.
Lying is commonplace for the Biden administration.But I will send to the desk immediately a bill that requires access to citizenship for 11 million undocumented folks, number one. Number two, the first hundred days of my administration, no one, no one will be deported at all. From that point on, the only deportations that will take place are commissions of felonies in the United States of America.
Do you have evidence? I will not ask a third time.If parents/guardians are located, are the kids allowed to leave?
To be fair, the reason this is false is due to a DHS contract completed during the end of the Trump admin with ICE’s union allowing the union to overrule changes to their policies. To be balanced, Biden could just fire them all like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers.In any case, Biden has already lied about what his first hundred days would be like:
He’s the one asking you a question, why the hell do you need evidence from him to answer?Do you have evidence? I will not ask a third time.
Why is proof needed that nothing has changed, but no proof is needed that things have changed?Because Seanchaidh is basically "just asking questions". He is making an implied statement that nothing has changed but phrasing it as a question to put the burden of evidence on those that accept the official explanation, instead of delivering proof that nothing has changed.