Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > All your kids are belong to us

All your kids are belong to us (Page 3)
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2018, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
What do you do in the event the child of a crossing illegal alien is a US citizen? Turn them away to keep them with their parents? Or let the illegal in the US to keep them with their kids?
As the kid is a minor, they go where their parent goes. The US border is not a barrier to a citizen, but minors are not in control of their lives.

Decide if the parent will stay or go. The parent will then decide for the child.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2018, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If what’s meant by “it” is “the number of people trafficked/trafficking”, the question provides the context: one incident.

I don’t see how “one incident” is incompatible with “minuscule”. The number is as low as can be gotten without being zero.
Sorry, you're right. The answer scenario as presented strikes me as so absurd/absolutist that I misread it.

I would counter that the question is poorly designed because it assumes some kind of binary position without any nuance. I believe we do a minimum of screening/verification to address the issue. If the person thinks this screening is inadequate to the current task, perhaps it should be redesigned or improved before installing some kind of blind blanket policy.

Plus, you know, I bet you separating younger kids from their parents inflicts its own kind of harms. If you add that variable now have a counter-weight to balance.


Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
It's a disingenuous question in that the issue of human trafficking is really just a straw man being used to a) conflate the issue with illegal immigration, and b) justify mass arrests of all illegals crossing with children. You could just as easily use the human trafficking argument to stop any group from entering the country, legally or illegally, with scant (or no) evidence that it's actually an issue associated with that group.
Its an age old question, repacked, right? How many x would you sacrifice to save y? (The version from Swordfish comes to mind)

I mean, I could flip it around and ask should the US making it easier/safer to cross so less people (including children) die in transit.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
What do you do in the event the child of a crossing illegal alien is a US citizen? Turn them away to keep them with their parents? Or let the illegal in the US to keep them with their kids?
I mean, the former seems like the logical pick. Plus, I doubt most children would prefer to enter the US alone than be kept with their parents.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2018, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
What do you do in the event the child of a crossing illegal alien is a US citizen? Turn them away to keep them with their parents? Or let the illegal in the US to keep them with their kids?
A country has a duty to its citizens, and one of the rights children have is to be with their parents. And keeping families together is an important value. So just like in most other countries, close family of citizens should be able to get visas and work permits. That's the law in Japan as well, for example, I'm married to a Japanese national and have a daughter who is a Japanese national. So even if I get divorced, I will be able to get a work and residence permit to take care of my child.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 12:18 AM
 
That's something, considering how insular Japan is portrayed as.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 04:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's something, considering how insular Japan is portrayed as.
Japan is very insular, but also very conservative when it comes to traditional family values. (This may also have negative consequences when it comes to abuse or to practical rights of divorced fathers.) But the primary concern is the child who is a citizen, and the best environment for a child are both parents.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Sorry, you're right. The answer scenario as presented strikes me as so absurd/absolutist that I misread it.

I would counter that the question is poorly designed because it assumes some kind of binary position without any nuance. I believe we do a minimum of screening/verification to address the issue. If the person thinks this screening is inadequate to the current task, perhaps it should be redesigned or improved before installing some kind of blind blanket policy.

Plus, you know, I bet you separating younger kids from their parents inflicts its own kind of harms. If you add that variable now have a counter-weight to balance.
The point I believe the question is trying to get across is it (correctly IMO) identifies the blind, blanket policy as the policy with maximum impact.

The blind, blanket policy catches the most perpetrators.

The blind, blanket policy acts as the greatest deterrent.

All other policies have a lesser impact on these fronts. All other policies will allow at least one more instance of child trafficking to occur.

This is why I don’t object to the binary design of the question. The proposition is binary. Our policy either has the maximum impact, or it doesn’t. The question doesn’t preclude nuance, it (correctly, IMO) identifies nuance as having less than maximum impact. Nuanced policy allows more child trafficking to occur.

Allowing more child trafficking to occur requires justification.

To take an easy example inspired by Thorzdad’s post, we could apply the blind, blanket policy to people pursuing legal entry. We don’t, and because we don’t, child trafficking occurs that wouldn’t occur otherwise.

We justify it in that scenario because the blind, blanket policy would interfere with principles like presumption of innocence and the requirement for probable cause. We are willing to pay the price of child trafficking in order to respect these principles.

In the scenario of someone caught in the act of illegal entry by Border Patrol, those justifications get shaky.

The harm of separation to non-trafficked children is a better justification, however I have what will be a hugely irritating counter-argument. Why not arrest everyone, but not separate them?

To be clear, even if revised to inflict less harm from separation, I would prefer something far less draconian than the blind, blanket policy, but I’m getting stuck on justifications for being less effective on the trafficking front. As I said in my OP. I don’t think I agree with arresting everyone, but I haven’t shot down the idea to my satisfaction yet.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
...We don’t, and because we don’t, child trafficking occurs that wouldn’t occur otherwise.
Cite?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Cite?
I cite reasoning.

If we adopt a blind, blanket policy of arresting everyone accompanied by a child who pursues legal entry, it would catch or prevent at least one instance of child trafficking that would not be caught with the policy of respecting presumption of innocence and requirement of probable cause.

The quantity is set low enough, and the differences in the two policies are so vast, for all intents and purposes my assertion is guaranteed to be accurate.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2018, 07:50 PM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 06:32 AM
 
Illegal immigrants are slaves.

The GOP plantation owners don’t want to give slavery up, because it’s a sweet deal.

The Democratic industrialists benefit from slavery themselves, so they don’t want to give it up either, but they can talk abolition, and reap the benefits of popular sentiment while they slow-walk the process.

The writing’s on the wall though. It’s only a matter of time before the Democrats have an unbeatable numerical superiority due to their abolitionism, and the slaves actually get freed, crushing the plantation owners both financially and politically.

Then, Bizarro World Jefferson Davis Trump suddenly says... let’s just throw the slaves out of the country.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 06:38 AM
 
As an aside, if I own slaves, I need to feed, clothe, shelter, and keep them healthy.

The illegal immigrant model is far superior. I get to outsource all that work to the slave.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 05:27 PM
 

How is this not malevolent?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then, Bizarro World Jefferson Davis Trump suddenly says... let’s just throw the slaves out of the country.
Unhelpful tangent: Remember, one of the floated solutions to slavery was sending them all back to Africa
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point I believe the question is trying to get across is it (correctly IMO) identifies the blind, blanket policy as the policy with maximum impact.

The blind, blanket policy catches the most perpetrators.

The blind, blanket policy acts as the greatest deterrent.

All other policies have a lesser impact on these fronts. All other policies will allow at least one more instance of child trafficking to occur.

This is why I don’t object to the binary design of the question. The proposition is binary. Our policy either has the maximum impact, or it doesn’t. The question doesn’t preclude nuance, it (correctly, IMO) identifies nuance as having less than maximum impact. Nuanced policy allows more child trafficking to occur.

Allowing more child trafficking to occur requires justification.

To take an easy example inspired by Thorzdad’s post, we could apply the blind, blanket policy to people pursuing legal entry. We don’t, and because we don’t, child trafficking occurs that wouldn’t occur otherwise.

We justify it in that scenario because the blind, blanket policy would interfere with principles like presumption of innocence and the requirement for probable cause. We are willing to pay the price of child trafficking in order to respect these principles.

In the scenario of someone caught in the act of illegal entry by Border Patrol, those justifications get shaky.

The harm of separation to non-trafficked children is a better justification, however I have what will be a hugely irritating counter-argument. Why not arrest everyone, but not separate them?

To be clear, even if revised to inflict less harm from separation, I would prefer something far less draconian than the blind, blanket policy, but I’m getting stuck on justifications for being less effective on the trafficking front. As I said in my OP. I don’t think I agree with arresting everyone, but I haven’t shot down the idea to my satisfaction yet.
I guess the point I'm making is how is question any different than floating other extreme hypotheticals? Just because our shitheel admin is enacting it (and for less noble reasons) doesn't make the concept less absurd.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2018, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unhelpful tangent: Remember, one of the floated solutions to slavery was sending them all back to Africa
Not unhelpful at all.

The plantation owners hate this idea. Their interests prevailed the first time.

Who likes it? Non-slave labor.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2018, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The plantation owners hate this idea. Their interests prevailed the first time.
Got any sources to back up the idea plantation owners would have chosen equal rights over deportation for slaves?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Who likes it? Non-slave labor.
Huh? The exploited want to be deported?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2018, 11:12 AM
 
No, he means all the crackers who want those fine cotton picking jobs would be happy if the slaves were deported.

     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2018, 03:10 PM
 
Ok that makes way more sense. Though I would say they wanted them deported because they didn't want to work side by side with colored people. Or for them.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2018, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
No, he means all the crackers who want those fine cotton picking jobs would be happy if the slaves were deported.

This is correct.

A cotton picking job is better than no job.

A cotton picking job is better in a starved labor market than it is in a glutted one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2018, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ok that makes way more sense. Though I would say they wanted them deported because they didn't want to work side by side with colored people. Or for them.
The enormous economic advantage it would give them doesn’t even make the list?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2018, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The enormous economic advantage it would give them doesn’t even make the list?
I can't say. I'm more familiar with the racism of a person from the 1800s than their economic savvy.

Do you have any sources to backup the claim plantation owners were against deporting the slaves even if freed?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2018, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I guess the point I'm making is how is question any different than floating other extreme hypotheticals? Just because our shitheel admin is enacting it (and for less noble reasons) doesn't make the concept less absurd.
In a sense, I was looking for an answer myself by bringing it up here.

There’s a little voice telling me in this (possibly unique) circumstance, the calculus I normally use with illegal immigration isn’t valid. The correct calculus returns something unexpectedly close to the blind, blanket policy. Since I couldn’t put it all together, I thought I’d present what got the voice blathering in the first place, and let it percolate.

I think I’m zeroing in on the key difference.

If there are no children involved, I imagine the ratio of good to bad actors trying to illegally cross the border stays roughly the same regardless of how brutal our policy is. A brutal policy means less bad actors, but by virtue of reducing all actors. Likewise with a compassionate policy. This has more bad actors, but it’s because there more actors. Where we place our policy on the slider affects the number of bad actors, but neither encourages or discourages bad action (I don’t consider crossing the border as a bad action).

This changes when children become involved. A compassionate policy encourages the crime of child trafficking. Where we put the slider is directly responsible for bad action in a way it’s not when no children are involved.

I imagine most of the people here are far enough on the compassion side with the first group, it wouldn’t be brutal enough if pasted to the second. That’s certainly the case with me.

To determine where exactly I’d put the brutality slider would require tons of research and crunching a bunch of data. When I eyeball it, that blind, blanket policy is at least visible from one edge of the range of options I’d consider.

With the first group, that policy is the place on the map where they put ships sailing off the edge.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2018, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I can't say. I'm more familiar with the racism of a person from the 1800s than their economic savvy.

Do you have any sources to backup the claim plantation owners were against deporting the slaves even if freed?
I don’t.

My assumption is the plantation owners didn’t put much thought into it, because it’s a that’s the kind of concern for after one is paid full market value for their slaves. Since that never existed beyond a dubious hypothetical, what would happen afterwards was academic.

Throwing them out would have made poor economic sense however. By kicking out the slaves the plantation owners would have been shooting themselves in both feet. It would kill the labor surplus, which means labor would cost them more, and the remaining labor would be far less exploitable, which would drive the price of labor up even further. We can consider the plantation owners evil, but I doubt they were stupid.

With the poor whites, I’m not sure savvy is what would be at play so much as what the elites were telling them.

If Jefferson Davis Trump was telling them they’d make more money by kicking out the slaves, that would have been an easy sell. In no small part because it’s true.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2018, 08:21 AM
 
With the poor whites, I’m not sure savvy is what would be at play so much as what the elites were telling them.
The elites would be busy telling them that those OTHER people were elites, who looked down on them whilst drinking their tea and such, but THEY were just like them, smarter, and with bigger boats.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2018, 08:50 AM
 
Which, if I’m parsing this right, only flies with the poor whites because the OTHER people, elites or not, do look down on them. They stick with the plantation owners out of spite.

Until Jefferson Davis Trump, and then it’s not just spite anymore. It’s spite and money.

Wouldn’t you know it, this gets them pumped like they haven’t been in decades.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 06:30 PM
 
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 07:15 PM
 
How is this not a fairy tale? So the evil Trump administration has been:

1. Swiping kids from their parents. Suspectedly for eventual adoptions.
2. Keeping kids in cages.
3. Doping any kids who object, to keep them quiet.

The only step missing is:
4. Cooking and eating the kids. Gravy or butter, anyone?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2018, 07:17 PM
 
Someone made a good observation on twitter: If they'll do this to kids, think of what they're willing to do to everyone else.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2018, 07:57 PM
 
https://twitter.com/TalKopan/status/1042855252268118016
Scoop :
ICE arrested immigrants who came forward to take in undocumented children
Federal officers have arrested dozens of undocumented immigrants who came forward to take care of undocumented immigrant children in government custody, and the Trump administration is pledging to go after more.

The news will serve as confirmation of the worst fears of immigrants and their advocates: that a recent move by President Donald Trump's administration to more fully vet people who come forward to care for undocumented immigrant children who are alone in the US has been a way for the administration to track down and arrest more undocumented immigrants.
There's fewer potential guardians for the kids we seperate at the border inside our borders now
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 11:13 AM
 
Oh noes, I guess now we will have to put them in Betsy DeVos $700/night prisons, er daycares...
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2018, 11:40 AM
 
We really are doing Operation Wetback again
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,