Border Patrol Is Detaining Migrants in ‘a Human Dog Pound’

[New Lindale]

Yeah, I never advocated fully open borders.

I don't think anyone actually has, but we're supposed to believe they did because it fits the fearmongering narratives.

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to. However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

[Novus America]

How did he kickstart immigration?

Basically, he attempted to make it as hard as possible to legally enter, and projected the image of the US trying to close its doors, which created a fear response and a stampede.

Or you could take the same amount of money, and burn it.
Really would have the same result.

Investing will not fix structural problems in governance. Their problem is a lack of good governance and high corruption, not lack of access to international capital.

You cannot fix those problems by throwing money at them.

Considering that it was working before we cut off the aid…

The persacution you claim is basically anecdotal, that is how all gangs are.

All my sources are in Spanish, and I don’t know how good your Spanish is.

Again, they should fix their own governments, or atleast ask for help, not coming here.

Yeah, it’s mostly the wall. Specifically, what it represents.

My Spanish is not good, but anyways his threats at aid reduction came after the immigration problems.

And clearly it was not working, it clearly did not fix the corruption in those countries.
Plus this countries have not seen their economic situations change much.
Pouring money into them will clearly not fix them.

Also economic conditions and growth in those countries have not dropped.
The are not poorer now than they were a year ago.

[Khataiy]

This sounds very sensationalist.

[Vassenor]

I don't think anyone actually has, but we're supposed to believe they did because it fits the fearmongering narratives.

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to. However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

...By your logic anything other than Berlin Wall levels of shut is "open borders", from the sounds of things.

[Nova Cyberia]

So?

So your """""point""""" that people are seeking asylum just because they're poor is no point at all.

Yes it is, because being poor is still not grounds for asylum.

[New Lindale]

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to. However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

...By your logic anything other than Berlin Wall levels of shut is "open borders", from the sounds of things.

Did you not understand what I had just said? Instead of flying to an airport an applying there, they decided to walk all the way through the Central American Peninsula and went to the Mexican border. I am trying to say I am concerned about 'illegal immigration', to which you go through the proper channels. Are you also not seeing the problem we face? We are considering the wall because we have a serious issue where our border forces are overwhelmed. If we have over crowding in the facilities, think of the migrants we don't know about, who have slipped through the cracks. Like most on the left, you are comparing us to dictators from the last century, whom ironically we're on your side of the spectrum.
East Germany was apart of Soviet Union, and so was Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party before the Nazi Party. How does one advocate for Socialism and not know this?

[Vassenor]

...By your logic anything other than Berlin Wall levels of shut is "open borders", from the sounds of things.

Did you not understand what I had just said? Instead of flying to an airport an applying there, they decided to walk all the way through the Central American Peninsula and went to the Mexican border. I am trying to say I am concerned about 'illegal immigration', to which you go through the proper channels. Are you also not seeing the problem we face? We are considering the wall because we have a serious issue where our border forces are overwhelmed. If we have over crowding in the facilities, think of the migrants we don't know about, who have slipped through the cracks. Like most on the left, you are comparing us to dictators from the last century, whom ironically we're on your side of the spectrum.
East Germany was apart of Soviet Union, and so was Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party before the Nazi Party. How does one advocate for Socialism and not know this?

Oh wow, I wasn't expecting to see the "The Nazis Were Socialists" deflection in this thread. Especially given that it's bullshit.

Add to that the fact that the wall won't actually help, and we're already face down in the kool-aid.

[Kowani]

I don't think anyone actually has, but we're supposed to believe they did because it fits the fearmongering narratives.

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to.

Nah. Criminal screenings at the border, health and background checks…

However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

…What are you talking about?

Basically, he attempted to make it as hard as possible to legally enter, and projected the image of the US trying to close its doors, which created a fear response and a stampede.

Considering that it was working before we cut off the aid…


All my sources are in Spanish, and I don’t know how good your Spanish is.

Yeah, it’s mostly the wall. Specifically, what it represents.

My Spanish is not good, but anyways his threats at aid reduction came after the immigration problems.

Well, here’s a source explaining the Honduras problem.

And clearly it was not working, it clearly did not fix the corruption in those countries.

Corruption no, violence, yes. 30% drop in the homicide rate.

Plus this countries have not seen their economic situations change much.
Pouring money into them will clearly not fix them.

About that.
[/quote]
Also economic conditions and growth in those countries have not dropped.
The are not poorer now than they were a year ago.[/quote]
People don’t leave because they’re poor, they leave because things aren’t safe-which is caused by economics. The 200 million sent wasn’t for economic growth.

[Necroghastia]

So your """""point""""" that people are seeking asylum just because they're poor is no point at all.

Yes it is, because being poor is still not grounds for asylum.

Please stop disgracing the noble art of clowning with this low effort.

[Nova Cyberia]

Yes it is, because being poor is still not grounds for asylum.

Please stop disgracing the noble art of clowning with this low effort.

Just because you're offended by facts doesn't make them low-effort.

[Novus America]

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to.

Nah. Criminal screenings at the border, health and background checks…

However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

…What are you talking about?

My Spanish is not good, but anyways his threats at aid reduction came after the immigration problems.

Well, here’s a source explaining the Honduras problem.

And clearly it was not working, it clearly did not fix the corruption in those countries.

Corruption no, violence, yes. 30% drop in the homicide rate.

Plus this countries have not seen their economic situations change much.
Pouring money into them will clearly not fix them.

About that.

Also economic conditions and growth in those countries have not dropped.
The are not poorer now than they were a year ago.[/quote]
People don’t leave because they’re poor, they leave because things aren’t safe-which is caused by economics. The 200 million sent wasn’t for economic growth.[/quote]

Source is paywalled.
And plenty leave because of economics.

Though actually this is an idea I can support TBH. Bypassing the Central American government to create our own parallel US controlled funding system and essentially parallel government.
Eventually if we did it right we could supplant their governments entirely.

[New Lindale]

To me it sounds like you are for open borders, because in the situation we are going to have to exclude people, but you don't want us to.

Nah. Criminal screenings at the border, health and background checks…

However, if people are traveling all the way from Africa, then crossing through other countries from Brazil, then we have a serious problem.

…What are you talking about?

My Spanish is not good, but anyways his threats at aid reduction came after the immigration problems.

Well, here’s a source explaining the Honduras problem.

And clearly it was not working, it clearly did not fix the corruption in those countries.

Corruption no, violence, yes. 30% drop in the homicide rate.

Plus this countries have not seen their economic situations change much.
Pouring money into them will clearly not fix them.

About that.

Also economic conditions and growth in those countries have not dropped.
The are not poorer now than they were a year ago.[/quote]
People don’t leave because they’re poor, they leave because things aren’t safe-which is caused by economics. The 200 million sent wasn’t for economic growth.[/quote]
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/borde ... -migrants/
Also:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/r ... /party.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ba ... arty-nsdap
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm
How dare you call a plain fact a deflection, for shame.

[Kowani]

Please stop disgracing the noble art of clowning with this low effort.

Just because you're offended by facts doesn't make them low-effort.

Except for the fact that most people don’t leave because of poverty.

Source is paywalled.

Ah.

And plenty leave because of economics.

A minority.

Though actually this is an idea I can support TBH. Bypassing the Central American government to create our own parallel US controlled funding system and essentially parallel government.
Eventually if we did it right we could supplant their governments entirely.

Of course that’s your aim

[New Lindale]

Did you not understand what I had just said? Instead of flying to an airport an applying there, they decided to walk all the way through the Central American Peninsula and went to the Mexican border. I am trying to say I am concerned about 'illegal immigration', to which you go through the proper channels. Are you also not seeing the problem we face? We are considering the wall because we have a serious issue where our border forces are overwhelmed. If we have over crowding in the facilities, think of the migrants we don't know about, who have slipped through the cracks. Like most on the left, you are comparing us to dictators from the last century, whom ironically we're on your side of the spectrum.
East Germany was apart of Soviet Union, and so was Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party before the Nazi Party. How does one advocate for Socialism and not know this?

Oh wow, I wasn't expecting to see the "The Nazis Were Socialists" deflection in this thread. Especially given that it's bullshit.

Add to that the fact that the wall won't actually help, and we're already face down in the kool-aid.

C'mon, if my statement is a deflection, show me why all this is wrong.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/r ... /party.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ba ... arty-nsdap
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm

[Vassenor]

Oh wow, I wasn't expecting to see the "The Nazis Were Socialists" deflection in this thread. Especially given that it's bullshit.

Add to that the fact that the wall won't actually help, and we're already face down in the kool-aid.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/r ... /party.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ba ... arty-nsdap
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm
C'mon, if it's truly a deflection, try to show me how this above is false.

It's a deflection because it has precisely fuck all to do with the subject of this thread.

[New Lindale]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/r ... /party.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ba ... arty-nsdap
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm
C'mon, if it's truly a deflection, try to show me how this above is false.

It's a deflection because it has precisely fuck all to do with the subject of this thread.

I find that ironic considering you are comparing us to East Germany of the late 20th century. Show where we are shooting people trying to cross. Also, I would like to know what is that you think of the information presented.

[Novus America]

Just because you're offended by facts doesn't make them low-effort.

Except for the fact that most people don’t leave because of poverty.

Source is paywalled.

Ah.

And plenty leave because of economics.

A minority.

Though actually this is an idea I can support TBH. Bypassing the Central American government to create our own parallel US controlled funding system and essentially parallel government.
Eventually if we did it right we could supplant their governments entirely.

Of course that’s your aim

Well they are not likely to say economics is the motive if they know that will hurt their claim.

But I do agree we should fund and expand theses sorts of programs.
By bypassing their governments we avoid the corruption.

And sure that is my aim, but why not? If we can do a better job a providing security than their own government, is not our governance better?

It solves all the problems and is better for both them and us. Ultimately it is is the only real lasting solution.

[Vassenor]

It's a deflection because it has precisely fuck all to do with the subject of this thread.

I find that ironic considering you are comparing us to East Germany of the late 20th century. Show where we are shooting people trying to cross. Also, I would like to know what is that you think of the information presented.

The information that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread?

[Kowani]

...By your logic anything other than Berlin Wall levels of shut is "open borders", from the sounds of things.

Did you not understand what I had just said? Instead of flying to an airport an applying there, they decided to walk all the way through the Central American Peninsula and went to the Mexican border. I am trying to say I am concerned about 'illegal immigration', to which you go through the proper channels.

Trump’s trying to cut down on legal immigration as well, what do you think about that?

Are you also not seeing the problem we face? We are considering the wall because we have a serious issue where our border forces are overwhelmed.

The wall idea predates the recent crisis, actually.

[New Lindale]

Did you not understand what I had just said? Instead of flying to an airport an applying there, they decided to walk all the way through the Central American Peninsula and went to the Mexican border. I am trying to say I am concerned about 'illegal immigration', to which you go through the proper channels.

Trump’s trying to cut down on legal immigration as well, what do you think about that?

Are you also not seeing the problem we face? We are considering the wall because we have a serious issue where our border forces are overwhelmed.

The wall idea predates the recent crisis, actually.

I would like the specifics on how he is cutting down legal immigration, besides on the basis of the more jobs for Americans plan he has.

[Kowani]

Trump’s trying to cut down on legal immigration as well, what do you think about that?
The wall idea predates the recent crisis, actually.

I would like the specifics on how he is cutting down legal immigration, besides on the basis of the more jobs for Americans plan he has.

Here you go.

[New Lindale]

I would like the specifics on how he is cutting down legal immigration, besides on the basis of the more jobs for Americans plan he has.

Here you go.

If you look at various figures (https://tradingeconomics.com/articles/0 ... 123436.htm) , you can see why he had decreased the amount of foreign workers to keep his promise of giving more jobs to Americans. Since the article was not all that specific, I am going to take the educated guess they had been low skilled. Also, there were no specifics on the gang violence and domestic violence victims, to pinpoint the victim being persecuted as in the requirements for asylum. That is the job of the local police, not for us to take them in so they can run away from the problems.
DACA... the simple solution is that they apply for citizenship honestly. They obviously have an important life here, so they should apply for citizenship just like someone else. Also, would it not be better if we just fixed Syria instead of sending people every which way, I think they would be much happier to be in their country once it was stable rather than somewhere else.
The travel ban, as you may know, had been on the basis of countries chosen by Obama to be prevented from using the Visa Waiver Program, and when you think of it's not racist once you delve into the events occurring in the countries (https://www.indy100.com/article/muslim- ... me-8093211). Venezuela is on the brink of a revolution, Libya and other neighbouring countries such as Sudan are in shambles due to the Arab Spring and the rise of Isis, Somalia and Yemen are also in a civil war which is another reason to restrict Sudan, Iran is state sponsering terrorist organisations and effectively is like an Islamic North Korea, and North Korea I hope you are able to put together.
In conclusion, Trump simply fixed the asylum policy to ensure true opporessed people are able to enter, and ensuring that low skilled workers did not enter which contributed to the lowest unemployment figures in decades. Again, why don't the Dreamers go and just apply for citizenship, I am sure we are not stopping them from doing that.

[US-SSR]

The migrants are being treated poorly and living in bad conditions. It's undeniable. Why is there so much opposition to fixing this issue?

Because much of the Republican base (myself included) don't want these people coming to the US to begin with, and if they suffer a tiny bit from so called "deplorable conditions" that is seen as a feature and not a bug by a lot of people. It perhaps serves as a deterrent to get other people who get news about this, to not make the trip, if they know that the US won't give them any asylum but will chuck them into a place that is prison like if not worse in terms of accomodations. It arguably also saves money to not care about providing for these people or to do only the barest minimum and not be trying too hard.

The agency that is tasked with processing migrants or illegal immigrants has a lack of resources to deal with the flood of people arriving. The Democrats want completely open borders if not mass amnesty for these people, and won't vote to approve more funding because some of the money might go to stuff the liberals don't agree with, such as Trump's border wall.

The choice is for the US Congress to get Border Patrol more money to provide for and process these people better, but have the Trump Administration possibly use that money in undesirable ways from a liberal perspective. Or to refuse to provide more money, and let the status quo continue, allowing for conditions to keep deteriorating and to ignore or be indifferent to the plight of those people if more migrants keep arriving and fill up facilities beyond capacity.

From my standpoint, I primarily just want them deported- and consequently would choose to not subsidize them too much, because the lion's share of the money I'd want to be used towards the end of getting them out of my country and keeping them out. I want to deny them the ability to ever become US citizens ahead of time.

I ultimately reject these people and will never accept them. That they keep arriving as a national burden, gives me enough cause to resent them.

At last someone is being honest. Here is the reason for this venal, corrupt, callous, lawless, feckless Administration's concentration camps for children. It gladdens the hearts of its most deplorable supporters to know that brown people are suffering at its hands. They care not for the congenital moral failings of its leaders, their inability to do anything but appeal to a narrow "base," the festering health care crisis in rural red states, the inequality-boosting tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, the constant attacks on separation of powers, the electoral collusion with our adversaries. As long as it keeps kicking migrants, minorities and women in the teeth at every possible opportunity it will have their votes.

This is not a difference of policy. This is a difference of morality.

As for the canard that more Congressional funds are needed for concentration camps: bull. Just bull. This administration just opened an air-conditioned, roomy facility for minors. It could have opened it last month. At any time, it could have chosen to follow the law and release detained unaccompanied minors within 72 hours so it would not "have to" hold hundreds of them in squalid, unequipped facilities where they were preyed upon by those who were charged with protecting them.

It did none of these things. It chose to do the one thing it does well: appeal to the worst instincts of its most deplorable supporters.

Congratulations, Trump voters. Stein and Johnson voters and those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for the most qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime because she was a woman, good job.

[Tornado Queendom]

The migrants are being treated poorly and living in bad conditions. It's undeniable. Why is there so much opposition to fixing this issue?

Because much of the Republican base (myself included) don't want these people coming to the US to begin with, and if they suffer a tiny bit from so called "deplorable conditions" that is seen as a feature and not a bug by a lot of people. It perhaps serves as a deterrent to get other people who get news about this, to not make the trip, if they know that the US won't give them any asylum but will chuck them into a place that is prison like if not worse in terms of accomodations. It arguably also saves money to not care about providing for these people or to do only the barest minimum and not be trying too hard.

The agency that is tasked with processing migrants or illegal immigrants has a lack of resources to deal with the flood of people arriving. The Democrats want completely open borders if not mass amnesty for these people, and won't vote to approve more funding because some of the money might go to stuff the liberals don't agree with, such as Trump's border wall.

The choice is for the US Congress to get Border Patrol more money to provide for and process these people better, but have the Trump Administration possibly use that money in undesirable ways from a liberal perspective. Or to refuse to provide more money, and let the status quo continue, allowing for conditions to keep deteriorating and to ignore or be indifferent to the plight of those people if more migrants keep arriving and fill up facilities beyond capacity.

From my standpoint, I primarily just want them deported- and consequently would choose to not subsidize them too much, because the lion's share of the money I'd want to be used towards the end of getting them out of my country and keeping them out. I want to deny them the ability to ever become US citizens ahead of time.

I ultimately reject these people and will never accept them. That they keep arriving as a national burden, gives me enough cause to resent them.

I agree, because too many migrants will lead to the slow death of freedom. Also, you explained the reason why I don't like migrants better than I could possibly hope to.

[SD_Film Artists]

Because much of the Republican base (myself included) don't want these people coming to the US to begin with, and if they suffer a tiny bit from so called "deplorable conditions" that is seen as a feature and not a bug by a lot of people. It perhaps serves as a deterrent to get other people who get news about this, to not make the trip, if they know that the US won't give them any asylum but will chuck them into a place that is prison like if not worse in terms of accomodations. It arguably also saves money to not care about providing for these people or to do only the barest minimum and not be trying too hard.

The agency that is tasked with processing migrants or illegal immigrants has a lack of resources to deal with the flood of people arriving. The Democrats want completely open borders if not mass amnesty for these people, and won't vote to approve more funding because some of the money might go to stuff the liberals don't agree with, such as Trump's border wall.

The choice is for the US Congress to get Border Patrol more money to provide for and process these people better, but have the Trump Administration possibly use that money in undesirable ways from a liberal perspective. Or to refuse to provide more money, and let the status quo continue, allowing for conditions to keep deteriorating and to ignore or be indifferent to the plight of those people if more migrants keep arriving and fill up facilities beyond capacity.

From my standpoint, I primarily just want them deported- and consequently would choose to not subsidize them too much, because the lion's share of the money I'd want to be used towards the end of getting them out of my country and keeping them out. I want to deny them the ability to ever become US citizens ahead of time.

I ultimately reject these people and will never accept them. That they keep arriving as a national burden, gives me enough cause to resent them.

At last someone is being honest. Here is the reason for this venal, corrupt, callous, lawless, feckless Administration's concentration camps for children. It gladdens the hearts of its most deplorable supporters to know that brown people are suffering at its hands. They care not for the congenital moral failings of its leaders, their inability to do anything but appeal to a narrow "base," the festering health care crisis in rural red states, the inequality-boosting tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, the constant attacks on separation of powers, the electoral collusion with our adversaries. As long as it keeps kicking migrants, minorities and women in the teeth at every possible opportunity it will have their votes.

So these imigrant detention centres are the "concentration camps" that I've heard about? I'm going to bet that they're not actaully called "concentration camps" and it's actually just a crass attempt to stoke up emotions with the obvious WW2 comparison.