Biden still locks kids in cages

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,627
1,332
118
Country
United Kingdom
Exactly! So what happened to helping migrants survive the desert?
Uhrm... that would be the positive change they hope to bring about by changing US policy.

This is the equivalent of responding, "what happened to helping women?" when handed a suffragist pamphlet, because the pamphlet doesn't also talk about a bunch of other stuff also disadvantaging women that isn't to do with voting rights.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,473
582
118
Country
United States
Exactly! So what happened to helping migrants survive the desert?
Current US policy is what leads to immigrants desperately trying to cross the desert with too few supplies in the first place. Changing the policy would mean immigrants don't need to do attempt that anymore.

How are you not seeing that addressing the root cause solves the issue better than trying to treat the symptoms? This is like getting upset that a Type 2 Diabetes-focused non-profit promotes healthy living and diet rather than just giving info on how to get insulin injections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,473
582
118
Country
United States
God, they’re really just arresting parents and calling the kids unaccompanied, huh? Like, that’s the only way to have this rapid of a change in these conditions, right?
This was the purposely pursued policy under the Trump admin that they promoted as a "deterrent" to immigration.

Now, that's not to say it's a good thing; it's horrendous. Biden should have immediately removed it. It's not new or a change though.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,705
2,692
118
Country
USA
This was the purposely pursued policy under the Trump admin that they promoted as a "deterrent" to immigration.

Now, that's not to say it's a good thing; it's horrendous. Biden should have immediately removed it. It's not new or a change though.
Tripled over two weeks. Sounds more like it’s a category nobody got sorted into when they just jailed everyone and now they’re sorting every child into it because they have no other way to throw them in a cell.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
842
724
98
Country
United States
Because they're an advocacy group for a change in US policy. Obviously their communications are going to be about that. I honestly find this criticism utterly bizarre; it's like arguing that the suffragettes keep solely making pamphlets about opposition to voting law. "You might imagine that a group dedicated to improving society might have some pamphlets about other ways of improving society!"
Illegal border crossings as traditionally understood (taking a swim and a hike over dangerous territory), are in the big scheme of things a pretty tiny portion of undocumented arrivals -- when illegal crossings altogether are the minority source of undocumented immigrants. Visa overstays are still by far the biggest source, and even looking only at illegal crossings, almost all occur at ports of entry rather than overland and are trafficked into the US rather than finding their own way. Which is why I do, and still say, corporate regulation and labor rights reform are the most effective venue for solving for the US's immigration issues.

Not to be blunt about this, but how many more rental trucks full of dead Latin-Americans do we have to find in Wal-Mart parking lots before we figure out how undocumented immigration actually works? I'd wager most "illegals" end up stranded in the desert because they were dumped by coyotes, who caught wind of CBP or ICE patrols and decided to save their own ass. CBP/ICE ain't exactly lining up around the block to take on coyotes and cartels, who are the people they ought to be targeting if the federal government wants a long-term solution for this; they seem to be much happier justifying their own paychecks hitting soft targets like people who are already in this country minding their own damn business.

And no, liberals certainly do not get a pass on that, especially after that whole "coyote" debacle during the presidential debates. The wall was stupid, sure -- but so are the fences, motion detectors, patrols, and the like, because illegal immigration does not occur that way and has not for a long, long time.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,029
1,162
118
Australia
Illegal border crossings as traditionally understood (taking a swim and a hike over dangerous territory), are in the big scheme of things a pretty tiny portion of undocumented arrivals -- when illegal crossings altogether are the minority source of undocumented immigrants. Visa overstays are still by far the biggest source, and even looking only at illegal crossings, almost all occur at ports of entry rather than overland and are trafficked into the US rather than finding their own way. Which is why I do, and still say, corporate regulation and labor rights reform are the most effective venue for solving for the US's immigration issues.

Not to be blunt about this, but how many more rental trucks full of dead Latin-Americans do we have to find in Wal-Mart parking lots before we figure out how undocumented immigration actually works? I'd wager most "illegals" end up stranded in the desert because they were dumped by coyotes, who caught wind of CBP or ICE patrols and decided to save their own ass. CBP/ICE ain't exactly lining up around the block to take on coyotes and cartels, who are the people they ought to be targeting if the federal government wants a long-term solution for this; they seem to be much happier justifying their own paychecks hitting soft targets like people who are already in this country minding their own damn business.

And no, liberals certainly do not get a pass on that, especially after that whole "coyote" debacle during the presidential debates. The wall was stupid, sure -- but so are the fences, motion detectors, patrols, and the like, because illegal immigration does not occur that way and has not for a long, long time.
The Cartels are not CBP/ICE’s direct responsibility. Since they’re organised crime most of the counter on them is done by the FBI and I would imagine the Cartels are desperate to keep that classification because if they start being classified as terrorists then their situation can become very precarious. They will of course act on them if they bust them doing some nefarious shit but they still fall under the FBI’s umbrella as a rule. As far as I know anyway, they way departments and agencies merge and cooperate it’s becoming academic.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,593
1,096
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Illegal border crossings as traditionally understood (taking a swim and a hike over dangerous territory), are in the big scheme of things a pretty tiny portion of undocumented arrivals -- when illegal crossings altogether are the minority source of undocumented immigrants. Visa overstays are still by far the biggest source, and even looking only at illegal crossings, almost all occur at ports of entry rather than overland and are trafficked into the US rather than finding their own way. Which is why I do, and still say, corporate regulation and labor rights reform are the most effective venue for solving for the US's immigration issues.

Not to be blunt about this, but how many more rental trucks full of dead Latin-Americans do we have to find in Wal-Mart parking lots before we figure out how undocumented immigration actually works? I'd wager most "illegals" end up stranded in the desert because they were dumped by coyotes, who caught wind of CBP or ICE patrols and decided to save their own ass. CBP/ICE ain't exactly lining up around the block to take on coyotes and cartels, who are the people they ought to be targeting if the federal government wants a long-term solution for this; they seem to be much happier justifying their own paychecks hitting soft targets like people who are already in this country minding their own damn business.

And no, liberals certainly do not get a pass on that, especially after that whole "coyote" debacle during the presidential debates. The wall was stupid, sure -- but so are the fences, motion detectors, patrols, and the like, because illegal immigration does not occur that way and has not for a long, long time.
I don't think I agree with Pelosi and Schumer that much but in (I think) 2018 when they were saying that the wall money was better spent at ports of entry, I was agreeing with them
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,932
380
88
Country
USA
Uhrm... that would be the positive change they hope to bring about by changing US policy.

This is the equivalent of responding, "what happened to helping women?" when handed a suffragist pamphlet, because the pamphlet doesn't also talk about a bunch of other stuff also disadvantaging women that isn't to do with voting rights.
Other groups dedicate themselves to directly helping migrants who might otherwise die in the desert. They have well-made and maintained water stations with flags so people can find them.

The group giving you evidence that CBP is a menace trying to kill migrants at best left plastic water jugs directly in the path that CBP patrols without any way to find them from a distance, filmed it, and used it as their supporting evidence that border patrol is responsible for a huge amount of vandalism of water stations. Assuming the footage is really of border patrol agents, evidence still suggests they were putting the jugs there to be found by border patrol, not migrants. They are also a policy advocacy group whose case is helped by such footage.

I would not question a suffragette handing me a suffragist pamphlet, but I would question it if they spontaneously had footage of those against women's suffrage causing property damage. Like I don't question the people who advocate for legal marijuana, but I am going to question when those who do claim that pot cures cancer, ends global warming, and inspired all the great religion and philosophy the world over.

When the only evidence of something comes from a group whose purpose is helped by that evidence, you should be skeptical.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,627
1,332
118
Country
United Kingdom
Other groups dedicate themselves to directly helping migrants who might otherwise die in the desert. They have well-made and maintained water stations with flags so people can find them.

The group giving you evidence that CBP is a menace trying to kill migrants at best left plastic water jugs directly in the path that CBP patrols without any way to find them from a distance, filmed it, and used it as their supporting evidence that border patrol is responsible for a huge amount of vandalism of water stations. Assuming the footage is really of border patrol agents, evidence still suggests they were putting the jugs there to be found by border patrol, not migrants. They are also a policy advocacy group whose case is helped by such footage.

I would not question a suffragette handing me a suffragist pamphlet, but I would question it if they spontaneously had footage of those against women's suffrage causing property damage. Like I don't question the people who advocate for legal marijuana, but I am going to question when those who do claim that pot cures cancer, ends global warming, and inspired all the great religion and philosophy the world over.

When the only evidence of something comes from a group whose purpose is helped by that evidence, you should be skeptical.
Alright, so you have a problem accepting the videos of CBP agents damaging water stations (because they might be set-up or unrepresentative), but you have no problem accusing No More Deaths of.... stealing uniforms, dressing up as CBP agents and acting the whole thing? What, exactly? You're giving so much benefit of the doubt to one group-- to the extent that you won't even believe videos of uniformed members doing something on-screen-- but at the same time you'll presume another group is guilty of conspiracy and falsifying evidence. Even when CBP themselves didn't dispute the footage, just saying they'd have difficulty identifying "what agent was responsible". Not "whether an agent of ours was responsible"; "what agent".

On a side-note, no, this is not the only evidence. Hell, the report itself we're talking about wasn't even just produced by that one advocacy group, and has a lengthy list of citations.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,932
380
88
Country
USA
Alright, so you have a problem accepting the videos of CBP agents damaging water stations (because they might be set-up or unrepresentative), but you have no problem accusing No More Deaths of.... stealing uniforms, dressing up as CBP agents and acting the whole thing? What, exactly? You're giving so much benefit of the doubt to one group-- to the extent that you won't even believe videos of uniformed members doing something on-screen-- but at the same time you'll presume another group is guilty of conspiracy and falsifying evidence. Even when CBP themselves didn't dispute the footage, just saying they'd have difficulty identifying "what agent was responsible". Not "whether an agent of ours was responsible"; "what agent".

On a side-note, no, this is not the only evidence. Hell, the report itself we're talking about wasn't even just produced by that one advocacy group, and has a lengthy list of citations.
Shall we do another analogy?

Let's say, purely hypothetically of course, and anti-abortion advocate used a hidden camera to capture Planned Parenthood leadership discussing the sale of aborted fetuses in pieces. And then they put the footage with a whole bunch of documentation of how bad Planned Parenthood is. Would you think "alirght, they're the bad guys, shut 'em down, video says it all", and not question it?

I know you're not dumb, I know you understand skepticism of biased sources. I'm not taking an irrational position here.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,800
1,383
118
Country
United States of America
Shall we do another analogy?

Let's say, purely hypothetically of course, and anti-abortion advocate used a hidden camera to capture Planned Parenthood leadership discussing the sale of aborted fetuses in pieces. And then they put the footage with a whole bunch of documentation of how bad Planned Parenthood is. Would you think "alirght, they're the bad guys, shut 'em down, video says it all", and not question it?
Fantastic.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,627
1,332
118
Country
United Kingdom
Shall we do another analogy?

Let's say, purely hypothetically of course, and anti-abortion advocate used a hidden camera to capture Planned Parenthood leadership discussing the sale of aborted fetuses in pieces. And then they put the footage with a whole bunch of documentation of how bad Planned Parenthood is. Would you think "alirght, they're the bad guys, shut 'em down, video says it all", and not question it?

I know you're not dumb, I know you understand skepticism of biased sources. I'm not taking an irrational position here.
I don't know where to start with this.

I wouldn't believe any unrelated claims in the document they produced. I wouldn't say "shut them down". But so long as the people in the video were recognisable, I'd believe that the event in the video occurred. And if there was external evidence that similar occurrences are commonplace, even if there wasn't direct evidence that the same people were responsible, I'd consider it worth investigation as to the extent, since it constitutes evidence of a perpetrator, though not necessarily the sole perpetrator.

This seems to be more than you're willing to believe, though you're simultaneously happy to assume elaborate conspiracy on the part of No More Deaths.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,932
380
88
Country
USA
I don't know where to start with this.

I wouldn't believe any unrelated claims in the document they produced. I wouldn't say "shut them down". But so long as the people in the video were recognisable, I'd believe that the event in the video occurred. And if there was external evidence that similar occurrences are commonplace, even if there wasn't direct evidence that the same people were responsible, I'd consider it worth investigation as to the extent, since it constitutes evidence of a perpetrator, though not necessarily the sole perpetrator.

This seems to be more than you're willing to believe, though you're simultaneously happy to assume elaborate conspiracy on the part of No More Deaths.
a) The event I described did actually occur
b) I'm arguing with people who do say "shut CBP down"
c) I doubt you would be satisfied if the investigation into the extent was purely statistical
d) None of you would trust any investigation into CBP done by any entity that doesn't condemn them
e) Again, I'm perfectly willing to say abuses have been committed by CBP agents. But I don't trust No More Deaths, faked or deliberately incited video evidence is not an outlandish suggestion requiring an elaborate conspiracy, and I've only suggested the possibility of that which is far short of just assuming.

To broaden the view back out rather than just respond to specifics, I think the evidence supporting the claim that CBP has vandalized many water stations in the desert is able to be called into question, and I think it's insufficient evidence even if it weren't questionable. If people insist on presenting widescale destruction of this kind perpetrated by CBP as settled fact, I'm going to dispute them on those grounds.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,627
1,332
118
Country
United Kingdom
a) The event I described did actually occur
This affects none of my argument, I know.

b) I'm arguing with people who do say "shut CBP down"
You're also arguing against any arguments that merely say they did what was in the video.

c) I doubt you would be satisfied if the investigation into the extent was purely statistical
You'd be right there. Thankfully, the report isn't purely statistical, as anyone can see.

d) None of you would trust any investigation into CBP done by any entity that doesn't condemn them
An assumption based on your personal political disagreement with me and absolutely fuck-all else.

e) Again, I'm perfectly willing to say abuses have been committed by CBP agents. But I don't trust No More Deaths, faked or deliberately incited video evidence is not an outlandish suggestion requiring an elaborate conspiracy, and I've only suggested the possibility of that which is far short of just assuming.
"Suggested the possibility" as a direct counter-argument to the video, without addressing the documented abuse itself at all.

To broaden the view back out rather than just respond to specifics, I think the evidence supporting the claim that CBP has vandalized many water stations in the desert is able to be called into question, and I think it's insufficient evidence even if it weren't questionable. If people insist on presenting widescale destruction of this kind perpetrated by CBP as settled fact, I'm going to dispute them on those grounds.
The report itself states that not all destructions are down to the CBP, and it's patently obvious that an exhaustive tally is impossible.

But we have video evidence of one perpetrator, and your sole concern seems to be deflecting blame.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,932
380
88
Country
USA
But we have video evidence of one perpetrator, and your sole concern seems to be deflecting blame.
I don't particularly care about that one perpetrator. My disagreement is with the conclusion that border patrol is out perpetrating widespread vandalism. You've used video of this perpetrator as supporting evidence for the broader claim I'm disputing, saying that's the one we have video of, so why would we not assume CBP is responsible for more.

Not only is there not good documentation of who and what is actually in that video, I linked you to the social media of another migrant support group. In just the year before they stopped posting, they had 3 posts of documented cases of vandalism at their water stations. One on video, one convicted in court, and the third was the convicted guy openly admitting to draining the water online. None of them had anything to do with CBP.

No More Deaths is against CBP. If CBP committed no crimes, abused no people, vandalized nothing, and did only the tasks they are assigned, No More Deaths would still oppose CBP. They are fundamentally in conflict with CBP, regardless of vandalism. This one group that's against CBP started producing reports and publicizing videos pointing blame for vandalism at CBP at the same general period this guy was doing stuff:

They might be really, really full of crap. Or their evidence might be real, but do you really want to start condemning people based on it?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,627
1,332
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't particularly care about that one perpetrator. My disagreement is with the conclusion that border patrol is out perpetrating widespread vandalism. You've used video of this perpetrator as supporting evidence for the broader claim I'm disputing, saying that's the one we have video of, so why would we not assume CBP is responsible for more.
Three videos (1 of kicking them over, 1 of removing the blanket, 1 of pouring it out and mocking the cameraman).

There is, unavoidably, going to be an element of extrapolation. A large number of drops are destroyed, and it's physically impossible to link them all to their individual perpetrators. But really, use an element of deductive reason-- how likely is it that the vast majority are going to be caused by wildlife or lone-actor criminals? It defies reason.

They might be really, really full of crap. Or their evidence might be real, but do you really want to start condemning people based on it?
It's one source. It's not as if it's the sole source for abuse by border patrol agents. Other rights and campaign groups provide documentation constantly.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,800
1,383
118
Country
United States of America
No More Deaths is against CBP. If CBP committed no crimes, abused no people, vandalized nothing, and did only the tasks they are assigned, No More Deaths would still oppose CBP.
why do you believe that is?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,932
380
88
Country
USA
why do you believe that is?
Because they see border enforcement as the cause of migrant issues, rather than the circumstances they are fleeing.
It's one source. It's not as if it's the sole source for abuse by border patrol agents. Other rights and campaign groups provide documentation constantly.
And I'm not denying that abuse happens, particularly when arresting people. I'm skeptical of specifically the claim about vandalizing water stations, and so far as I have found, everything accusing CBP of being responsible for that traces back to No More Deaths.