Literally everyone who calls the border detention centers "concentration camps" is an ignorant and despicable human being.
If conditions are so bad over here, why are thousands of people climbing fences and fording rivers to come sit in our terrible "concentration camps"?
Because they refuse to fund modern day concentration camps that are ineffective, inhumane, and the mere existence of which is a violation of human rights. Also, nice "whataboutism"Why have the Democrats refused to pass legislation that would've provided additional funding for the processing centers?
Because they are profiteering of the ineffective, inhumane, violation of human rights. If no vendors or companies were willing to support the camps, they could not exist.Why are liberals protesting Wayfair for providing beds to migrants?
Show me one that doesn't care. It's not that they don't care, they just don't agree with Trump and his administration's approach to dealing with the problem. Besides, the vast majority of migrants are not the disease-carrying violent gang members Trump claims them to be. Those people exist, but they are barely a rounding error compared to the number of non-violent refugees.Why do liberals not care about gang members sneaking over the border and killing Americans?
A pipe for your straw man to go with that hat from earlier? I never said any such thing. What I have said is that presenting one's self at the border to seek asylum is not a crime - yet those who do are being incarcerated in concentration camps, separated from their families, and their children are being lost in the system. The Supreme Court has ruled (Estelle v Gamble) that people incarcerated by the state are the responsibility of the state, that means it is the state's job to provide for their basic needs - including healthcare.The whole bleeding heart propaganda is complete bullshit that's disconnected from even a trace of logical reasoned thought. Let me guess, do you think that illegals deserve free healthcare and that crossing the border illegally shouldn't be a crime?
Citation needed, I couldn’t find any use of the word “holocaust” to describe a genocide other than WW2.
Again that is absolutely horrifying, though from what I understand it’s more an issue of good old governmental incompetence in identifying the families to be reunited. Doesn’t excuse it at all but does fall more in the “bumbling fool” sector
than “tyrannical dictator”
In pretty much every single civilized country on earth you have to either apply at the border, or physically cross the border in order eligible to apply for protection (asylum). This is universally agreed upon as a human right. Providing safety for persecuted people is a very old tradition, going centuries back.If you don't want to end up separated from your children [...] there's one very simple solution - DON'T CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALY! Literally just walk away.
Literally everyone who calls the border detention centers "concentration camps" is an ignorant and despicable human being.
And that is how it is supposed to work here too, at a port of entry. It is not a crime to enter through a port of entry and request asylum. But it is a crime to attempt to cross between ports of entry, which is why these people are being detained. Every year people die trying to cross illegally and it's the height of foolishness to encourage and incentivise such things. We also know that catch-and-release does not work. Only something like 10% of people show up for their court case and it's kinda tough to issue a warrant for someone's arrest when they have no social security number, no address, no phone number, etc. Combine that with sanctuary cities and we end up with a de-facto open borders system, and a permanent underclass, and that cannot be allowed to stand.In pretty much every single civilized country on earth you have to either apply at the border, or physically cross the border in order eligible to apply for protection (asylum). This is universally agreed upon as a human right. Providing safety for persecuted people is a very old tradition, going centuries back.
I consider fleeing imminent violence to be a perfectly viable excuse to claim asylum. The problem is once these people enter a country like Mexico, they should be reasonably safe from whatever violence they were in immediate danger from in their home country. I mean, we have stories of migrants from Africa, buying plane tickets and flying to Central America, and then making their way north and crossing between ports of entry into the US. I'm pretty sure the moment you put an entire ocean between you and your home country, you should be reasonably safe from whatever violence you were fleeing.Valid or not, it's a major motivating factor that can't be dismissed. The poverty is only part of the problem, there's also the corruption, violence, cartels, gangs, and countless other factors that are perpetual problems in the countries these people are fleeing. Hell, look at Venezuela right now - if you were there, you'd be doing anything you could to get out too, including risking illegal border crossings and indefinite detention for the small chance of a better life.
As far as I'm aware, people who cross legally through a port of entry and claim asylum are not breaking any laws, and are therefore not being held in any sort of detention facility. It's only the people crossing illegally that are being detained. That is my understanding anyway.The fact that we are caging asylum seekers and taking away their children is disincentivizing people from using the legal asylum process and pushing them to take their chances on entering illegally. When we treat both the same, there's a non-zero chance of getting through illegally and a zero chance of getting through legally, people will opt for the one that they see as being the best chance in their immediate situation.
Yes I know the word didn’t originate with Nazis (nor did the swastika) but it has come to mean one very specific event in human history.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust
If the want to be dictator didn't put forward the policy, the government would not need to undo it.
They can be screened for whether or not they have some contacts in the US that can house, support, and be responsible for them getting to court dates. If they have to be detained, the conditions in which they are housed have to be habitable and humane with access to services (yes, including healthcare), food, water, basic hygiene, and caseworkers or lawyers. Asylum claims need to be screened as impartially as possible - which is something Congress needs to take on, this can't be a standard that changes on the whim of an executive order. If someone is deported, that needs to be done quickly and with some kind of handoff back to the home nation's government; not just dumped at some port of entry.What should we do with asylum seekers while their claims are being reviewed and processed? Can't release them into the United States because they'll never turn up again; can't keep them at the border apparently... What should we do?