[RD] Schumer Refuses to Endorse Legislative End to Family Separation

[stinkubus]

On a side note I would like to congratulate @BvBPL for finding a way to blame the Democrats for this.

Every thread this guy starts has a title which is a straight up lie.

 

[metalhead]

I was talking about the other thread when I said that I said nothing about Nazis, but since you ask - I think the concentration camps Trump is setting up now are not like Nazi concentration camps in that the inhabitants are clearly not being killed off or used up en masse - not yet anyway. I think it's likely there have been deaths in detention, and reports seem to indicate that cruelty and abuse is rampant, for example:

The Nazi's camps weren't death camps initially, either. When they started rounding up their political enemies and scapegoats in 1933 and putting them in camps, they weren't killing them. They were no doubt abusing them and some did die, but then, there is little doubt that abuses are going on in these concentration camps too.

So, the parallel is apt.

 

[Lexicus]

The Nazi's camps weren't death camps initially, either. When they started rounding up their political enemies and scapegoats in 1933 and putting them in camps, they weren't killing them. They were no doubt abusing them and some did die, but then, there is little doubt that abuses are going on in these concentration camps too.

So, the parallel is apt.

Well, yeah. Even at the beginning, though, the Nazis' camps were set up with much less concern for the well-being of the inmates than we're seeing here. That's true even accounting for the fact that what's really going on in these detention centers is almost certainly worse than we currently know.

The question, of course, is where we go from here, because only a fool would think we've already hit rock-bottom.

 

[metalhead]

Ethos of the time about treatment of prisoners and the fact that it was much easier to keep the particulars a secret would explain that, more than any moral differences between the Nazis and the current administration.

Probably not much different from the American concentration camps of the 1940s.

 

[Lexicus]

Ethos of the time about treatment of prisoners and the fact that it was much easier to keep the particulars a secret would explain that, more than any moral differences between the Nazis and the current administration.

Well, this isn't entirely true. The Nazis were violating the standards of the 1930s with their camps for politicals, which is why they had to engage in some degree of legal shenanigans to get around the Weimer Republic's protections of individual rights. I don't think the current administration is likely to set up gas chambers, exhaust vans, or to march around shooting men women and children and dumping them in mass graves, but I think a lot of people thought the same thing about the Hitler regime in, say, 1936.

Also, I think there are probably secrete sites now that aren't really known to the public, don't you?

Probably not much different from the American concentration camps of the 1940s.

From everything I know they're a lot worse than those. I don't know too much about Japanese internment though so that might be why I think that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Person A: "This apple is actually an orange"
Person B: "No, it's an apple"
Manfred: "Alternate views do not exist"

Oh shush you. If you're going to claim that someone explicitly supports a thing, whilst conveniently not mentioning that the person doesn't agree with you that the thing is what you say it is, then you're being deliberately dishonest. The fact that you pulled that out as a drive by in a different thread, and then immediately went with "this isn't the thread to discuss it", just highlights the fact that you were being dishonest further. And now you're pulling my reply back into the original thread that I never posted in. Why exactly?

 

[Lexicus]

Oh shush you. If you're going to claim that someone explicitly supports a thing, whilst conveniently not mentioning that the person doesn't agree with you that the thing is what you say it is, then you're being deliberately dishonest.

That's crap, I'm not being deliberately dishonest, I'm just not taking their disagreement seriously because the thing is plainly what it is.
You just don't agree with my opinion (presumably because you also support the concentration camps while being in denial that they are in fact concentration camps) and that's fine, but don't say that I'm being dishonest just because I have a different opinion.

and then immediately went with "this isn't the thread to discuss it", just highlights the fact that you were being dishonest further.

I replied in this thread because I wanted to keep the discussion going, but not in that other thread where it didn't belong. *shrugs*

Why exactly?

Why does anyone post anything on CFC?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's crap, I'm not being deliberately dishonest, I'm just not taking their disagreement seriously because the thing is plainly what it is.
You just don't agree with my opinion (presumably because you also support the concentration camps while being in denial that they are in fact concentration camps) and that's fine, but don't say that I'm being dishonest just because I have a different opinion.

No you are being dishonest. Even with the extreme example you gave, if someone said "I'm not eating that because I don't like oranges" whilst pointing to an apple, even if you were almost 100% certain that they must know it's an apple, you'd still be being dishonest if you later told other people that that person had stated that they didn't like apples. Especially if you then said "we don't need to discuss that now, let's get back on topic" if they tried to clarify what they'd actually said.

I'm not saying you're being dishonest because you've got a different opinion, I'm saying you're being dishonest because... well... because you're being dishonest. And the thing is, even though I'd not even been in this thread and hadn't seen the exchange in question, I just immediately knew you were lying when you said civver had said he didn't have a problem with children being put in concentration camps. It was just so obvious that he wouldn't have said that, and that he would just have disagreed with you that they were concentration camps in the first place. And lo and behold that's exactly how it turned out to be. Funny that I could guess that right?

 

[Lexicus]

No you are being dishonest. Even with the extreme example you gave, if someone said "I'm not eating that because I don't like oranges" whilst pointing to an apple, even if you were almost 100% certain that they must know it's an apple, you'd still be being dishonest if you later told other people that that person had stated that they didn't like apples.

It's not dishonest. I'm under no obligation to take seriously the delusion of someone who insists an orange is an apple. And I'm under no obligation to take seriously the delusion of someone who thinks that the concentration camps aren't concentration camps.

I'm not saying you're being dishonest because you've got a different opinion, I'm saying you're being dishonest because... well... because you're being dishonest. And the thing is, even though I'd not even been in this thread and hadn't seen the exchange in question, I just immediately knew you were lying when you said civver had said he didn't have a problem with children being put in concentration camps. It was just so obvious that he wouldn't have said that, and that he would just have disagreed with you that they were concentration camps in the first place. And lo and behold that's exactly how it turned out to be. Funny that I could guess that right?

Trump's administration is enforcing the law as written. I don't see a problem with that.

What's dishonest is claiming they're not concentration camps in an effort to keep a clean conscience.

 

[civvver]

That's crap, I'm not being deliberately dishonest, I'm just not taking their disagreement seriously because the thing is plainly what it is.
You just don't agree with my opinion (presumably because you also support the concentration camps while being in denial that they are in fact concentration camps) and that's fine, but don't say that I'm being dishonest just because I have a different opinion.

You just think everyone who disagrees on immigration is a racist white supremacist. That's stating things plainly alright.

Why does anyone post anything on CFC?

Entertainment.

Person A: "This apple is actually an orange"
Person B: "No, it's an apple"
Manfred: "Alternate views do not exist"



I was talking about the other thread when I said that I said nothing about Nazis, but since you ask - I think the concentration camps Trump is setting up now are not like Nazi concentration camps in that the inhabitants are clearly not being killed off or used up en masse - not yet anyway. I think it's likely there have been deaths in detention, and reports seem to indicate that cruelty and abuse is rampant, for example:

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/immigrant-children-forcibly-injected-with-drugs-lawsuit-claims/
https://www.thenation.com/article/immigrants-died-detention-fiscal-year-2017-year-since-2009/

These concentration camps seem to be just that: concentration camps, designed for indefinite detention of people because of who they are; they are not camps designed to work the inmates to death or just kill them off.

You can get into semantics but you know saying concentration camps is to get a rise out of people by evoking thoughts of gas chambers and ethnic cleansing.

The story about the shiloh facility is horrible, but that facility was contracted in 2013, under the Obama administration. According to the article in 2014 Rep Jackson Lee was calling for it to be shutdown. But it's ok, we shouldn't blame the administration who contracted the facility and didn't shut it down after reports of abuse, instead we should blame the following administration for detaining kids at this facility. Both are to blame. But the hypocrisy of democrats (I won't say the left because democrats are hardly the left in most cases) is astounding. None of these were issues until they lost the white house. Now they are all issues. Democrats don't care about fixing the issue, they are just as guilty as using the immigrants for political gain as the other side. If they really cared about the mistreatment of children they would've done something years ago. But they don't, they just want to paint trump's administration as white supremacist in hopes of winning the mid terms. Part of why is because the economy is chugging along nicely (though that may change as tariffs keep rolling in) so they don't have a lot of other issues to campaign on.

Of course no one would be in favor mistreatment of children, nor did I ever say I was. I only said if children may be separated while their parents are processed. It's the same thing that happens to normal criminals when they are detained assuming no family can claim the children. They become wards of the state. The state should take better care of their wards, but that's not the point being discussed, you want the families and children to not be detained at all, ie open borders with no controls. Democrats seem to have an exclusive or proposition, either we have open borders or we mistreat all immigrants.

If their parents plead no contest and leave the country they are processed in around a day and get their children back quickly. It's when they claim asylum the cases take longer. So where does the blame lie truly? I don't blame people from poor countries for wanting to come to a rich one with more opportunity, but you can't break the law to do that and there are consequences. We need better legal systems of immigration, but that's not what's being discussed here, we are discussing enforcement of the current system.

 

[Lexicus]

You just think everyone who disagrees on immigration is a racist white supremacist. That's stating things plainly alright.

That's not entirely true. But yes, almost all of the arguments used by people who are against immigration boil down to "I am racist and don't like large numbers of non-white immigrants." There is plenty of social sciences literature demonstrating that racist views correlate very strongly with anti-immigrant views.

You can get into semantics but you know saying concentration camps is to get a rise out of people by evoking thoughts of gas chambers and ethnic cleansing.

What Trump is doing is ethnic cleansing.

The story about the shiloh facility is horrible, but that facility was contracted in 2013, under the Obama administration. According to the article in 2014 Rep Jackson Lee was calling for it to be shutdown. But it's ok, we shouldn't blame the administration who contracted the facility and didn't shut it down after reports of abuse, instead we should blame the following administration for detaining kids at this facility. Both are to blame. But the hypocrisy of democrats (I won't say the left because democrats are hardly the left in most cases) is astounding. None of these were issues until they lost the white house. Now they are all issues. Democrats don't care about fixing the issue, they are just as guilty as using the immigrants for political gain as the other side. If they really cared about the mistreatment of children they would've done something years ago. But they don't, they just want to paint trump's administration as white supremacist in hopes of winning the mid terms. Part of why is because the economy is chugging along nicely (though that may change as tariffs keep rolling in) so they don't have a lot of other issues to campaign on.

This is just moronic on multiple levels. Obama may have constructed that facility but so what? It's like saying that if I build a house and then someone murders someone inside that house, the murderer and I are equally to blame. Sorry, but no. The abuses going on under the Trump administration are the Trump administration's fault, not Obama's fault. Meanwhile I of course criticized Obama for many of the same things as I'm now criticizing Trump for. Obama was bad, Trump is worse. But really, the human rights abuses on the border go back much further. Trump's - and Obama's - abuses fit right in with a tradition that goes all the way back to the founding of the country, and the violence done to those on and just outside our borders.

Of course no one would be in favor mistreatment of children, nor did I ever say I was.

Trump's administration is enforcing the law as written. I don't see a problem with that.

The Trump administration is demonstrably in favor of mistreating children, as it is mistreating thousands of children at its own discretion (and in fact in defiance of more than one court order).

If their parents plead no contest and leave the country they are processed in around a day and get their children back quickly. It's when they claim asylum the cases take longer. So where does the blame lie truly?

Easy, the blame truly lies with the government that's kidnapping children to blackmail people into giving up their asylum claims, in defiance of international law.

 

[stinkubus]

You just think everyone who disagrees on immigration is a racist white supremacist. That's stating things plainly alright.

That's because there does not exist an argument against liberal immigration policies that isn't built on racist/bigoted premises.

 

[Quintillus]

I put 100% of the blame for this on Donald Trump specifically, and the executive branch generally. Trying to shift blame to Democrats is exactly what Trump wants you to do (source: his own tweets). Schumer is right. This is an entirely-executive-branch problem, and was not a problem until Trump decided to play politics with the lives of children. Don't let him weasel out of it by passing the blame.

And the executive branch did eventually magically fix the problem. Turns out no legislative action was necessary after all. So... if you want to prevent legislation now to prevent him from doing it again, fine. But make sure you include language condemning the previous action in the bill.

 

[metalhead]

Well, this isn't entirely true. The Nazis were violating the standards of the 1930s with their camps for politicals, which is why they had to engage in some degree of legal shenanigans to get around the Weimer Republic's protections of individual rights. I don't think the current administration is likely to set up gas chambers, exhaust vans, or to march around shooting men women and children and dumping them in mass graves, but I think a lot of people thought the same thing about the Hitler regime in, say, 1936.

Yep, and this is the point I keep making to all the people out there who think the Nazis are somehow unique in history. The only thing unique about the Nazis is that they succeeded on a scale never seen before or since. They're hardly the only fascists to ever set up shop and then engage in genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Also, I think there are probably secrete sites now that aren't really known to the public, don't you?

I know there are, because it was only through journalists that we learned of some of the locations where children ate being held. No doubt there are more.

 

[Berzerker]

They're detention centers under Obama and concentration camps under Trump

 

[metalhead]

That's because the Obama administration had plans to do something with the kids they housed. And they only detained kids who showed up unaccompanied, they never separated families at the border for punitive/deterrence reasons.

 

[Berzerker]

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html

President Barack Obama separated parents from their children at the border.

 

[metalhead]

If you read the article, you find that it only says this:

"Fresco said there were cases where the administration held fathers who were carrying drugs or caught with other contraband who had to be separated from their children.

"ICE could not devise a safe way where men and children could be in detention together in one facility,” Fresco said. “It was deemed too much of a security risk.""

So, only in cases where contraband was found, for security reasons. As I said before, to be ignored then and probably ignored again, this is quite different from a blanket policy to separate families for the purpose of deterrence/punishment.

 

[Lexicus]

It's different, but it's not like Obama has clean hands on this. Obama was the one who decided to treat the humanitarian crisis in central America as a national security crisis.

 

[stinkubus]

The situation for undocumented persons in the US has steadily deteriorated since Reagan signed off on amnesty back in the 80s.