Why is it that the posts that analyze the problem are the ones that are responded to and those posts that offer solutions are disregarded? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not an expert on immigration policy, or an immigration lawyer, nor am I in any type of position to activate new immigration policies, so it's rather pointless. But I will say that we should provide immigrants who cross our borders, with good food, safe and comfortable shelter, therapists for those seeking asylum because I can't begin to imagine the horrors they faced in the Northern Triangle, while they undergo the process of being admitted into this country as all the evidence shows that immigrants are good for the country, rather than splitting their families apart and locking them in cages, and this administration is currently doing. Ultimately they should be treated with respect and dignity.

I'm actually embarrassed now because as I stated just earlier today, there's no point in paying attention to you. Your response only further validates my point. So stupid of me to forget that so quickly.

I'm going to coin the term "Google Search Conservative", that is, a conservative who establishes or defends his or her position through a quick google search.

It's stunning how little thought, how little research you've done on this subject. I've seen this trite video being passed around by several Facebook friends today, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haphazardly picked up this video from your social media friends, rather than actually engage in an iota of due diligence on this distressing topic.

First, there's no doubt that Obama's border policy was detestable. It's aim was to detain families (no longer than 21 days), and leverage that to deter additional undocumented immigrants, which as I explain early in this thread, are essentially doomed to fail. I don't think anyone, liberal or not, should defend Obama's immigration policy in this case, as it's arguably the platform on which Trump built his zero-tolerance fiasco (although I have no doubt the Trump administration would have orchestrated family separation either way).

Second, Clinton wasn't Secretary of State in 2014. I mean the goddamn news ticker on the video you provided even shows that she's the former Secretary of State. Again, it looks like you did a five second google search. She's on her 2014 Hard Choices book tour and basically being classic Hillary Clinton where she indecisively vacillates around ideas trying to appeal to both conservatives and liberals, because after Obama's 2012 reelection she was absolutely going to run again for the presidency. Anyway, Clinton's response is vague, with slivers of nuance, but poorly articulated, like her 2016 presidential campaign in a nutshell. She states that undocumented children should be sent back if it can be established that there are responsible adults that can care for them back in their respective countries, and that there are undeniable "concerns if all of them can be sent back", which to me indicates that if a responsible adult is in a precarious position due do cartel threats, etc. then that may not be a viable solution. Either way, it's super fucking vague, and not remotely comparable to Trump's zero-tolerance policy, because instead of ripping children away from their parents when they reach ports of entry or without announcing themselves, what Clinton is articulating is to send children back to their families who live in the Northern Triangle.

First, that article discusses undocumented immigrants, not documented ones. Second, the Heritage Foundation's research on undocumented immigration has been routinely criticized even by Republicans. They are a highly dubious source.

The most natural reason for economic growth is population growth. You don't need a study for this fact. — ssu

I'm sure the National Academies took such an obvious fact into account.

There is a lot of blame to go around, it's not reducible to one thing nor even a handful of things, and the blame isn't proportional.

The cost to the USA is $34,000 a year per immigrant. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

???

In 2016, The National Academies produced a 20-year study on the economic impact of immigrants in the United States. The study shows that while first-generation immigrants are generally most costly than native-borns (mostly at the state and local level), their children "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population." The study states that in the long-run, immigration creates an overall positive impact on economic growth.

Trump is a good thing. If he hadnt been elected he would have droned on and on for years about how the system was rigged against him, continuously eroding confidence in the US and the very idea of self determination upon which it's founded.

So he and his sort got to try out their ideas and that's as it should be. — frank

A fundamental concern is that Trump's approval rating, regardless of his inhumane policies, incoherent twitter outbursts, antipathy towards allies, or geniality toward enemies, etc. has never sunk below 35%. While there are degrees in which people intensely approve of him, in the abstract, ostensibly one-third of the country agrees with "Trumpism", which is likely to outlast Trump's presidency. There are people who earnestly approve of the tax cut, the wall, Trump's immigration policy, the America First foreign doctrine, racial animosity, etc. which will not cease simply because Trump is out of office, and which were essentially seen as "justified" in the first place because Trump was voted into the presidency.

Had Clinton won, there is no doubt that Trump would have stoke outrage about a rigged system, corrupt political elites etc.. I believe it was Michael Wolff who wrote that Trump and his team, not believing that they would actually win, had plans to create some sort of Trump TV in partnership with Breitbart which would basically be an anti-Hillary, anti-liberal, anti-democratic platform. Considering how Fox News' viewership rose sharply during Obama's presidency, I don't doubt that Breitbart partnership would have been highly successful. But the alternative is that a Clinton win would have placed doubt in the viability of Trump's ideas because her election would be a public rejection of Trump, and they would have likely remained on the fringe, at least more so than now, where they are now public policy.

Regardless of turnout, it's clear that, at minimal, Trump's election as the Republican nomination signaled that there is something very rotten in the United States. Ultimately, I would have greatly preferred Clinton to be President while Trump just barks and growls like the mad dog he is on some heterodox network, because we would not have gotten this bourgeois tax cut, zero-tolerance immigration and ICE roundups, and all the various mistakes towards out foreign and domestic policy that are being too innumerable to count.

Creator of Godwin's Law:

No point in paying any attention to @raza or @wellwisher

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Exactly, and we are doing essentially the same thing today by turning away asylum seekers - men, women and children who are trying to escape abuse, cartel violence etc., only to ship them back to where it is likely they will be killed. — Maw

To expand on this point: this is essentially why deterrent-based policies are nearly always doomed to fail. Immigrants escaping the Northern Triangle are often faced with either rape and/or murder if they stay in their respective countries. Insofar as the US border policy provides a better fate than certain murder or rape, it will unlikely deter immigrants. Again, I will iterate that the new zero-tolerance policy has not been well communicated down into Latin America.

Ah well then I'm glad my words have made an impact.

What about — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh come on Tiff

In merely six weeks, nearly 2,000 children have been separated from their parents. The situation is already inhumane and unsustainable. If this practice isn't stopped immediately the crisis will grow exponentially to something near unfathomable.

I think you are delusional if you think the proportion of "bad intended" immigrants is anywhere near commensurate with asylum seekers. The fact is immigrants, documented or not, are less likely to commit crime. And if our entry ports are "being overwhelmed" then that's likely do to cuts in staff and closing entry ports.

Maw, that is a chilling link — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Exactly, and we are doing essentially the same thing today by turning away asylum seekers - men, women and children who are trying to escape abuse, cartel violence etc., only to ship them back to where it is likely they will be killed.

By the way, I have a great Uncle who is a Holocaust survivor, and he has been very vocal about certain parallels and affinities between Nazi Germany and Trump's America, this policy in particular.

With all due respect Jeremiah, you also brought up Hitler earlier in addition to slavery now and I am not going to compare the two. Not for fear of semblance but because I will not disparage what concentration camps victims and survivors have gone through. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Um....

No you misunderstand my point. To "own the libs" is a meme that makes fun of right-wing self-destructive, or self-debasing, or just plan stupid behavior in an attempt to "score points" over liberals. Punishing protesters with expulsion is an example of that.

And if you've abandoned defending Trump's heinous zero-tolerance policy, and it looks like you have, then I think we're done here.

And I think this Twitter thread, where Jacob Soboroff of MSNBC toured one of the larger immigration processing centers speaks for itself.

There are very few systems in place to help reunite parents with their child, and the onus is "largely on the parents to locate their children within government custody and seek their return," which is profoundly draconian given that the Government separated them in the first place. The information that they are given and the process is Kafkaesque. — Maw

Additionally

'I cannot convey enough how much utter chaos there is,' said Michelle Brané, director of migrant rights and justice at the Women’s Refugee Commission, a research and advocacy organization that monitors immigration issues. 'The government does not have a proper system in place to track families and coordinate.'

In some cases, parents and children have gone weeks without being able to communicate with one another and without knowing each others’ whereabouts. From April 19 to May 31, a total of 1,995 children who arrived with 1,940 adults were separated from their parents, according to administration officials.

From that point, migrant parents and children become separate legal cases in the maze of government bureaucracy, and keeping them linked has proved challenging. Different legal protections are afforded to juveniles and adults in the immigration system, and as a result, reuniting families can take months or longer, several legal experts said.

“Once the parent and child are apart, they are on separate legal tracks,” said John Sandweg, who was acting director of ICE during the Obama administration.

Reunification becomes particularly difficult when a parent is deported without the child and is no longer on American soil, Mr. Sandweg said; in those cases, “there is a very high risk that parents and children will be permanently separated.”

It should be noted that Hilary Clinton forecasted, during one of the debates, what Trump's draconian immigration policy would look like.

The reason they were able to hold for 21 days was because at day 21, they were released, regardless if they have had their time in front of the judge or not. That was why the "catch and release" program was so popular. After being caught, held for 21 days, we legally had to release the illegal immigrant and they knew it. Our only way to abide by the law was to issue a court date, release those being held and contact them when their date came up in maybe 12 months, sometimes 2 years. As you can imagine the rate of appearing before the judge after being released was 30% at the highest. Where did the other 70% go?

Maw, logic this thru with me. Between the detention centers along Arizona's border with Mexico, we have the capacity to hold somewhere around 4k people within three detention centers. When we can handle the flow of those surrendering themselves to an entry point, asking for political asylum their stays were about 5 days. Now? We cannot even physically accommodate the asylum seekers AND follow the law we operate under in that we cannot hold anyone indefinitely. In other words, if a LARGE group of people present themselves at one time, it overwhelms our ability to process anyone as we normally would. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

None of this is relevant to the specific matter I'm discussing: Trump's zero tolerance policy. There is no excuse for separating a child from their parent. You can pontificate about the lacuna's of the 'Catch and Release' policy, but that does not justify the inhumane separation that is taking place.

Maw, please try not to go overboard in the idea that this is some form of genocide for it lessens the respect for those who were actually lost to genocide. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

History shows us that splitting families apart is often a prelude to genocide. The analogy is appropriate.

Here is your citation: here and here and here — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Daily Caller is not a legitimate source. Neither of the other two sources stat that immigrants are explicitly told their children will be separated from them prior to them arriving at the border. And I provided examples that makes that rather clear the policy is shrouded in deception.

Please provide a citation that suggests the separation is for an indefinite period of time — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There are very few systems in place to help reunite parents with their child, and the onus is "largely on the parents to locate their children within government custody and seek their return," which is profoundly draconian given that the Government separated them in the first place. The information that they are given and the process is Kafkaesque.

None of this is without pain for those children separated or for those caring for the kids. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Tragicomedy at its finest, Tiff.

So what is YOUR solution? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I am not talking about the whole issue of immigration Tiff. You continually try to digress from the specific Trump policy I originally addressed, to a much wider problem.

Maw, I get the loss of life and the reasons why and I assure you it is not lost on me. The actual death count is closer to 4,000 because of delayed and interrupted health care — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Right. Ergo, one of the worst US atrocities within the last 20 years.

Yes, of course they should be subject to those same standards. This was my point. — raza

Punishing protesters to own the libs. Got it.

So fucking what? What does any of that have to with the child separation policy?

You are correct in that the Trump administration "implemented" this policy but it was considered an option back in July of 2016 when we had tens of thousands of children being sent across the border without guardians. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

During this time, regarding the prior policy, families were held together for "no more than 21 days", after which both parents and child(ren) were released together. The new zero-tolerance policy was implemented because we have a xenophobic, racist, white supremacist administration that has continually demonstrated utter indifference to Latinos.

Just bear in mind that the parents entering illegally are aware of this policy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Tiff, you need to provide a citation for this claim. Personally, I'm unfamiliar with the publication you provided, and am skeptical at some of it's broader claim of greatly increased immigration when Latin American immigration has been steadily decreasing since the recession. It is perfectly feasible, that there have been an increase in asylum seekers and an increase in border arrests without an overall increase in immigration. Given that this is a new policy, I find it difficult to believe that immigrants who may have been traveling for thousands of miles were well-informed about it prior to reaching the border. In fact, in some instances, border agents lied to the parents and the children in order to separate them without incident. In one case, a father killed himself while in a detention cell after learning his child was taken away. There have also been cases in which immigrants, following US law, have announced themselves for asylum, and yet were separated from their child for several months. This policy has been implemented with subterfuge and callous lies and reeks of a prelude to genocide.

The fucking idea I am "on about" is that the average wait time is up to 20 days. Have you ever gotten a really bad sunburn from a day at the beach? It would be not just traumatic to the children to leave them out in the elements but it would be down right deadly for anyone. That is what I am "fucking" going on about. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Tiff , what is the connection between the forced and indefinite separation of families and not "leaving children out in the sun"? I'm certainly not advocating that families be left in the blistering heat while a slow churning bureaucracy screens them, but separating families indefinitely in no way solves this.

Ultimately, immigration policy in this country has been shoddy, and I am not a proponent of Bill Clinton's, Bush's, Obama's approaches. But Trump's policy takes a defective system and dials up the inhumanity, and the forced separation, the deceit, and the rabid language and inhumane treatment is inexcusable.

There is no correlation Maw. One is an act of Mother Nature and the other is the choice of free will. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh Lord. No. The Trump administration's blithe indifference to Puerto Rico greatly impacted the high number of fatalities, despite the Government's original 64 death toll estimate. According to a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, "one third of the deaths were attributed to delayed or interrupted health care."

The privilege is that everyone else's problems are identity politics. While "my" problems are simply politics.

Jordan Peterson criticises identity politics, and I think he is broadly right to, although some vulnerable groups do need collective representation. What are your thoughts? — bert1

Identity politics have existed since the Roman Republic. They have since been vital in supplying universal suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, woman's rights, etc. Criticizing identity politicstout court, as Peterson often does, is crap, and done from a privileged vantage point of being a white male.

What kind of crap poll is this where 'Yes' isn't even an option?

That policy was in affect during the Obama administration as well. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This is simply incorrect. This policy was implemented by the Trump administration, and it can be reversed by the Trump administration. Trump, surprise surprise, is lying.

When we have people seeking political asylum, in the numbers that we are, what do you expect? For us to leave them out in the sweltering heat? Have you seen what the temps are here in the desert? Have you seen the Wal*Mart Super centers that these kids are residing in? Do you really equate the two? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No fucking clue what point you are trying to drive here Tiff. I don't desire families to be left out in the "sweltering heat", nor do I desire families split up with parents being deported back to their home countries, while their young children are left in Walmart. Wise-up if you think these are the only two viable options for immigration.

You do know that these people presenting themselves for political asylum KNOW that they might be separated and are coached repeatedly throughout their journey? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Given that this is a new policy, no. This is simply false.

I have a hard time seeing that as being on the same level as "the worst US atrocity since the War in Iraq". But please, do expand your correlation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Actually, you are right here. I meant to correct myself earlier. This is the worst atrocity since the Trump administration's callous approach to the Puerto Rico hurricane. And that was the worst atrocity since Hurricane Katrina. No real "correlation" to draw from here, except the indifference Republican administrations seem to have for American minorities.

So how would these, you have listed above, impinge upon, say, a so-defined left leaning speaker?

Is it not the same for any invited speaker from anywhere? Is that not an example equality? Same rules for everyone? — raza

The question isn't about equality of punishment, it's about the punishment itself. And campus protests aren't exclusive to Left activists. Law enforcement protested the rapper, Common, successfully pulling him as a commencement speaker. Democratic politician Luis Gutierrez was shouted down by a conservative group while giving a speech. Conservatives at Texas Tech tried to ban Angela Davis from speaking at their school about mass incarceration. Fact is, the Right does their fair share of protesting speakers they don't like, to the point of disruption. Should these right winger protesters also be subjected to theoretical suspension or expulsion because they protest speakers who are likely relatively wealthy, and have alternative platforms with which to present their opinions?

Although, to correct you, not "immigrant" families. Immigrants do not cross borders illegally. — raza

No, these are immigrants regardless. And immigrants who announce themselves to border patrol agents, which is not illegal, have been separated from their children too.

Apparently this was an Obama policy that has yet to be altered which democrats have been invited to meet with the current administration in order to improve it.

Apparently celebrity democrat supporters also tweeted photos of cage-like areas holding undocumented border jumpers, but deleted their tweets once it was pointed out that the photos were taken in 2014. — raza

Did you simply do a five second google search? This is not an Obama or Democratic policy. The no-tolerance policy of separating children is a new policy put in place by the Trump administration. The "holding cells" from 2014, which I am certainly not defending, were for minors, generally teenagers, who crossed the borders themselves in order to escape cartel violence, poverty, abuse, or to unite with family in the States. Obama, in many respects, created perverse authoritarian immigration policies, providing him the epithet, "Deporter in Chief". While this is a legacy that liberals (and everyone) need to grapple with, it is nevertheless distinct from the Trump policy of separating families who cross the border, often times without a structured plan of reuniting them.

It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.

It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.

It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself.

If I wanted to hear another vacuous complaint regarding Leftist "intolerance" of campus free speech, then I could just pop on over to the NYT's op-ed section. More importantly, would you like to provide your thoughts on the Trump administration's policy of separating immigrant families?

This is what you found objectionable in more detail; — raza

Yes I certainly find some of these (vague) planks objectionable, particularly given that they are from an Institute named after Barry Goldwater, which receives millions of dollars from Republican donors including the Mercer family, and the Kochs.

It is not against the 1st amendment for those institutions to control student behavior. — raza

It is when:

Republican-led state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina have imposed similar policies on public colleges and universities, and bills to establish campus speech guidelines are under consideration in at least seven other legislatures. These efforts, funded in part by big-money Republican donors, are part of a growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the cross hairs of the American right.

"Uncivil" protesting (e.g. shouting down speakers) is protected under the First Amendment. It is a form of free speech, even if it may be considered "juvenile" by some (depends on the speaker, for me). But when Republican-backed legislation cracks down on protests through policies that include expulsion, then that is a literal infringement on freedom of speech, and is undeniably hypocritical.

I literally provided a link.

Also the policy of separating immigrant parents (illegal and legal alike) from their children is, to my mind, the worst US atrocity since the War in Iraq. Not really sure why I'm the only one commenting on it here.

Highly ironic that members here claim the Left is stifling the First Amendment when conservatives are doing that in the literal sense.

Indeed that's what a number of polls over the course of 2016 found, but I wonder how much of that was due to the overreaction of the email scandal.

According to the report Comey, "numerous times", used a personal email while conducting official FBI business, the content of which was "unclassified". This practice is "inconstant with Department policy", but nevertheless so not as egregious as Clinton's case, but still absurd.

The overarching issue is that using personal email can expose important, classified documents and yet despite being practiced by Comey, Trump, Trump's children, etc. Clinton was continually berated by the media, Trump, etc. over it, and was investigated by Comey. This played a huge role in outcome of the election.

Absolutely absurd how what is clearly a fairly common practice was used exclusively against Clinton as a decisive factor in determining the election.