PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Regarding US migrant detentions
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:46 am    Post subject: Regarding US migrant detentions Reply with quote

Anyone else been watching the latest bullshit from America on the detaining of illegal migrants?

Especially, the Oscar winning performance from the establishment shill Rachael Maddow who "broke down in tears" on her US news program at the news of children and adults being placed into age appropriate detention facilities while their migrant status was being processed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKuIjT-k-C8

Regarding other bullshit like the following being bandied about on social media and elsewhere:

"Babies in Cages! Family Separations! It's a human rights travesty! It's immoral!"

Simply claiming something is "morally wrong" does not resolve the issue - this is deliberately reductionist language deployed to bypass the long weeds of this issue - and it ignores the real legality here, but also ignores the very real question of whether it's "morally right" or even responsible for a migrant parent (if they are indeed the parents, many are not) to bring these 'poor children' through Central America and Mexico, across the Sonora Dessert and into a situation where they are sneaking into a country illegally knowing full well they may be caught and detained?

Then ask the real question:

Why are so many economic migrants all trying to sneak into the USA? Answer: this is a multi-million dollar human trafficking industry and foster care racket (some of which is run by Christian NGOs) run for profit. That's what's driving a major portion of this.

Other underlying issues are predatory colonial US government, corporate and IMF economic policies and CIA drugs policy for Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador (these are the majority of migrants across southern US border). So as you can see, just like Europe's 'migrant crisis'. The liberal virtue signallers do not really care about the reality nor the causes of these 'crises'. They only care about appearing to be 'moral' and against the Evil Trump/Evil Orban/Evil Putin/Evil fascists/Evil Brexiteers etc. This kind of shallow, Rachel Maddow-esque level of discourse is beyond stupid now.

The fact is, whatever one thinks of the wider sins of the USA (and they are many and voluminous) the USA is a nation-state. Nation-states have borders. If adults attempt to enter a nation-state illegally with children in attendance, that nation-state has the following options; (1) allow them to continue to illegally enter, unhindered - in turn, effectively dissolving the nation state, (2) place both the adults and children into an adult detention facility while deportation/leave to stay arrangements are processed or (3), place the adults and children in age appropriate detention facilities while deportation/leave to stay arrangements are processed. So, in the real world where real people have to make real decisions on these and many other morally difficult issues, which of these options would the liberal virtue signallers recommend then?

Additionally, something else occurs to me. It seems to me that the liberal media (which is currently driving this "news"), as exemplified by the likes of Rachael Maddow, is very happy to push the line that separating illegal immigrant families, for the purpose of processing their migrant status, is bad, but bombing the shit out of them (or selling arms to despotic regimes to bomb the shit out of them), as Maddow has previously explicitly advocated in the case of Syria and elsewhere, is okay.

This is more of the usual propaganda, designed to emotionally fire up the ill-informed.

As usual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 6723
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conditions certainly looked harsh, but AFAIK the children and parents could be reunited almost instantly IN MEXICO.
The forced separation was only a consequence of attempted illegal entry into the USA.

Despite all the criticism of America, it must in fact be a wonderful place, judging by the risks and privations that are willingly accepted in attempts to gain entry.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 4752
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:


Despite all the criticism of America, it must in fact be a wonderful place, judging by the risks and privations that are willingly accepted in attempts to gain entry.
Consider the family that works at the nearest dairy farm to me. They came from a village in Mexico where there is still no grid electricity or running water. Here they live in a trailer provided by the farmer with bathroom laundry, and satellite TV. They have two SUVs (used but not junk) in the drive way. Three of their five kids are in the local school and the bus picks them up at the end of the drive. The two youngest will go as soon as they are old enough. The husband can walk to the barn to start his day in two minutes. His hardest adaptation has been learning to drive heavy farm equipment as there was very little of that to practice on back in Mexico.
They are far from rich but they are a world ahead of where they came from.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8828
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
Conditions certainly looked harsh, but AFAIK the children and parents could be reunited almost instantly IN MEXICO.
The forced separation was only a consequence of attempted illegal entry into the USA.

Despite all the criticism of America, it must in fact be a wonderful place, judging by the risks and privations that are willingly accepted in attempts to gain entry.


The US is totally f*cked up in many ways. However...Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are the most f*cked up places in the Americas.

Also, it should be noted (stevecook) that a lot of these people aren't just economic migrants. They are escaping serious crime and chaos. In one case, a mother was fleeing with her 3 children and 18 month toddler. She had a job in Acapulco. Her 14 year old son was being threatened with death unless he agreed to deal drugs for their gang, and 3 of his classmates had already been disappeared for refusing. They reported the threat to the authorities, who told them to flee. This is outside the scope of the usual debate on this. They aren't refugees fleeing from political, religious or racial persecution, but they aren't economic migrants either. What is actually required is a discussion of the ethics of that situation. Not simply "it's so terrible, what would you do?" This will come up again, as more and more parts of the world descend into anarchy. If we are going to say "if you're fleeing from crime so bad that your life is under direct threat and the authorities in your locality cannot protect you, then we won't let you in", then that is what we should say, and defend it. We are condemning such people to death or intolerable lives, but maybe we are going to reach the situation where we have no choice but to do so, because, as Trump has pointed out, if we don't do so then half the population of Acapulco will head for the American border.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Either nation states exist or they don't. If they do, then they have a right to decide who comes to live in their state. If they don't have that right, they cease to be a nation state.

2. Whether or not the migrants are economic of otherwise will, in due course, become irrelevant because of the sheer numbers involved.

It's just a matter of time before everyone is prepared, or forced by circumstance, to admit the above.


Last edited by Little John on Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:18 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 721

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is arriving at a conclusion BEFORE it's too late. And there may be too little(or nothing?) in society now which acts as a foundation to build upon and support such an argument.

It's like the debate in Ireland about abortion. There were valid arguments against liberalisation, but there was nothing of sufficient strength to support and promote those views.

An opinion could arise but peter out like a Mexican wave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14227
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's hilarious that anyone in the States - apart, possibly, from native Americans of course - could have any objection to others arriving at their 'border'.

In some ways it is linked to the abortion laws in Ireland, snail - no-one, as far as I know, wants anyone to have an abortion. But no-one (especially an elderly male like me) wants to restrict the freedom and conscience of others.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
It's hilarious that anyone in the States - apart, possibly, from native Americans of course - could have any objection to others arriving at their 'border'.

In some ways it is linked to the abortion laws in Ireland, snail - no-one, as far as I know, wants anyone to have an abortion. But no-one (especially an elderly male like me) wants to restrict the freedom and conscience of others.
So, E, do you think that people should be punished, by mere virtue of a shared historical/ethnic group membership, for the sins of people long dead or for the sins of a tiny minority of people today who call the shots? Because, if you are, I would recommend taking a look at the mountain of corpses piled up over the course of the twentieth century on the back of that kind of reasoning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14227
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
It's hilarious that anyone in the States - apart, possibly, from native Americans of course - could have any objection to others arriving at their 'border'.
So, E, do you think that people should be punished, by mere virtue of a shared historical/ethnic group membership, for the sins of people long dead


Yeah, I'm well aware of that argument and 'no' is the answer. At the very least, there should be a general acknowledgement of this historical hypocrisy. A better attitude and understanding might result.

Quote:
or for the sins of a tiny minority of people today who call the shots?


I don't really get that bit, sorry, getting confused with the objects of the punishing. Immigrants are being punished for fleeing problems largely caused by, or at least exacerbated by, US actions.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said in my earlier post, E, the USA is a nation-state. Nation-states have borders. If adults attempt to enter a nation-state illegally with children in attendance, that nation-state has the following options

(1) allow them to continue to illegally enter, unhindered - in turn, effectively dissolving the nation state

(2) place both the adults and children into an adult detention facility while deportation/leave to stay arrangements are processed

(3) place the adults and children in age appropriate detention facilities while deportation/leave to stay arrangements are processed.

So, in the real world where real people have to make real decisions on these and many other morally difficult issues, which of these options would you recommend bearing in mind that they all have consequence?

In (1) the outcome would be the effective dissolution of the USA as a nation-state with all of the punishing consequences for the people of America of half of Acapulco heading for the Mexican/American border.

In (2) there are the consequences of children, quite a few of them unaccompanied by family member, being mixed in facilities with drug runners and worse.

In (3) there are the consequences of children being separated from their families for the duration of the process of deciding their migrant status

There are no easy choices and they all have moral consequences
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7812

PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what you've written, surely option two is what most people would chose for themselves and their children. The unaccompanied children can go to a children's facility (your option three) but the accompanied children should stay with their parents/family in the adult detention centre.

Hell, there could even be a separate section of the adult detention centre for adults accompanying children... maybe call it a 'family' detention centre.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with that CLV.

However, there are two things to note:

1) The policy of separating children and adults was first brought onto the books by Clinton way back. It was attempted to be overturned by Bush three times but was beaten on all occasions. It was carried forward by Obama who allowed the policy to be carried out during the 8 years of his tenure.

2) Whilst not yet an issue, there will surely come a time when the number attempting to make it into, not only America, but many other "First World" countries, will be so great that civilized niceties of the kind you describe will be regarded as unaffordable luxuries. Though, I do accept we are not there yet.

I should also add, only Trump, irony of ironies, has actually overturned the said policy via a presidential decree. Where was the bourgeois, liberal outrage through the Clinton, Bush and Obama years? This is, and has been from the start, one part of the ruling class at war with another part and the ill informed and emotionally incontinent are being used as political tools by whipping them up into a frenzy.

This has NEVER been about protecting kids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 6051
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Total, utter, middle class wankers who don't actually give a single solitary damn for real people living through real hardship on the other side of the track and, instead, care only for how they are trending on Twitter. I hate them with an incandescent rage that I cannot find words to adequately express.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/those-anti-trump-protests-were-really-really-weird/21594#.W09ASxgnbix

Quote:
Those anti-Trump protests were really, really weird

This was atomised middle-class angst dressed up as radicalism.

We have to talk about those anti-Trump protests. We have to talk about how unusual they were. We have to talk about what a disturbing spectacle they were.

Some people claim the protests were in keeping with a long tradition of radical gatherings in Britain, from Suffragettes confronting coppers, to the mass rallies against the Vietnam War, to marches in solidarity with striking miners. But this is wrong. The anti-Trump protests were something new, and something very strange. These weirdly playful carnivals against Trump, people’s dancing and prancing and tweeting of their emotional disgust with the American president, speak to a new kind of apolitical protest, in which the aim is not to change the world but to trend online; in which people come together not to make a political statement but to make a personal one.

To those of us who take politics seriously, virtually everything about these protests was annoying. There were the cloyingly twee placards, desperately designed to make a stir on Twitter. You know the kind: ‘Things are so bad even introverted people are protesting’; ‘I hate Trump so much I hope he gets stuck on the Central Line in rush hour’; ‘Not usually my thing, marching – but honestly’, etc, etc.

There was the childishness: kids were everywhere, holding anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-border control placards as if they know the first thing about politics. I wonder if they are the sons and daughters of well-connected Remainers and Guardianistas, by any chance…? Indeed, the Guardian published a piece by an eight-year-old explaining why she attended the demo. Of course it did. ‘I want Donald Trump to know we don’t like what he’s doing’, the brat said, which is funny because that infantile take on global affairs summed up the entire demo. And when an eight-year-old can capture the spirit of your protest, you know you have left the realm of adult politics for the playpen of emotionalism.

There was the disorganisation. People wandering around aimlessly, no one leading chants, no one really knowing where they were going, or more importantly why. Some people complained about imminent climate collapse, others worried about the return of Nazism, some were concerned that Trump would embarrass the queen. You could listen to one protester say the world will shortly end courtesy of eco-criminal Donal Trump, and another saying, ‘Oh my god, his tiny hands will touch OUR queen!’.

Get some structure, people. Get some focus. Is the world ending, or not? What was your key complaint? What do you want politicians to do? Because if you can’t answer these questions then your demo just looks like a rowdy middle-class picnic at which a hundred thousand people are in essence letting off personal emotional steam. This was less a coherent mass statement, as protests have traditionally been, than it was a few thousand declarations of personal angst, or moral superiority. Witness the placards saying things like, ‘We care’ and ‘I care, do you?’. It was strangely atomised. It wasn’t a political force, it was a lonely crowd: disparate individuals joining together as much to say something about themselves as about the world.

And there was the identity politics, too. I’m sorry, but to refer to the collective of drag queens who were spreading their legs for the cameras and instructing Trump to keep his hands off their (non-existent) pussies as ‘The Resistance’ is an insult to actual resistance movements that stood up to actual fascism. The self-aggrandising title of ‘resistance’ felt utterly out of place on a demo where people weren’t saying anything politically serious, weren’t saying what they were for, and looked absolutely knackered by the time they got to Trafalgar Square – I’m not sure these folks would have lasted long in the Spanish Civil War or running messages to rebels in Vichy France.

What all of this points to is a new kind of protest. There is a new generation for whom protesting is largely indistinguishable from a music festival. It has the same vibe, the same style, and the same constituency: the non-working classes, who define themselves through culture rather than labour, and who see themselves as having more in common with global technocratic institutions like the EU than they do with some of the people who live in their own towns (but on the other side of the tracks). If this is radicalism – which it isn’t – then it is passive radicalism. It is an entirely contradictory phenomenon, where on the one hand protesters are telling us actual Nazism is making a comeback, but on the other hand they’re not going to do anything about it except chill out in Trafalgar Square and post to Instagram a photo of them and their friends holding a ‘FUCK TRUMP’ placard.

The contradictory nature is captured in their use, or rather misuse, of language. To the leaders of these protests, everything is white supremacy; every bad Trump policy is an echo of the Holocaust; everything they disagree with – whether it’s the Brexit vote or clampdowns on immigration – is proof of the imminent return of fascism. This is a deeply cynical exploitation of the crimes of history to try to give their lame, shallow, playful protests a sense of historic meaning and urgency. Recognising, at some level, that it is bizarre to try to cohere a new movement around an American president who, historically and politically speaking, is not that different to other American presidents, they have to look for a way to justify their disproportionate anti-Trump obsession and emotionalism – and they do it by rebranding Trump ‘Hitler’ and therefore themselves as ‘The Resistance’. Never mind cultural appropriation – this is historical appropriation, the marshalling of 20th-century horrors to inject some depth into their childish, festival-like expression of middle-class angst.

That is perhaps the most disturbing thing about the new apolitical protest. Such is the playfulness that even history becomes their plaything. Even the Holocaust becomes their plaything. They denude these crimes and events of meaning and turn them into memes to make themselves look good. That really is unforgivable. In the process of bigging up themselves, they demean the unique barbarism of the Holocaust and fascism’s other crimes.

And the aim of it all? To trend. To make a spark on Twitter or Instagram, which is increasingly the only public spheres the disconnected political and cultural sets have access to. The new left gets as excited about trending online as the old left did about helping to get a wage rise for hard-up workers. Contrast the shrillness and hyperbole and moral self-righteousness of this anti-Trump lobby with the principles and patience of Brexit voters. And yet the latter are continually insulted while the former are celebrated. We should turn this on its head. You want to see some genuine political radicalism in Britain today? Look to Brexit. That was a calm, grown-up demand for sweeping political change, whereas the posh rage against Trump is little more than a pining for the old status quo dressed up as a new edgy resistance.


Last edited by Little John on Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 721

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, very strange, very infantile, and very annoying. And lots of other very things.

It's an extension of increasing political correctness.

I suppose, to look at the bright side, this 'movement' is so insubstantial and fluff-like that it might eventually begin to reverse.

Also, I've been mulling this thought over in my head for a couple of years. That it's partly linked to the rise and dominance of women (which I'm now increasingly seeing as a negative/chaotic thing).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boisdevie



Joined: 26 Dec 2012
Posts: 221
Location: N Lancashire

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of those who say 'let em all in' won't have to face the economic and other consequences of this. Rachel Madcow won't lose her job to some illegal immigrant from Guatamala but she will have somebody to look after her garden and clean the shit from her toilet at super low prices.
Virtue signalling bitch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group