A Camp By Any Other Name Would Smell as Foul

Avatar

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He is on Twitter, blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

230 Responses

  1. Avatar Philip H says:

    I’m not going to be nice. These are concentration camps, and the fact that these conditions are being inflicted on children is beyond reprehensible. There’s no nice middle ground. These children are being actively and on purpose tortured by our government, operating in our name, to allegedly send a message to migrants fleeing horrible violence (that actually originates in the Cold War proxy fight between the US and USSR in central and South America, redoubled by the War on Drugs). Republican politicians are silent on the matter, proving their hypocrisy as “Christians.” Libertarians are silent as their clarion calls for greater personal freedom have been inexplicably muted. Democrats speak out, but lack real legislative power, and effectively lost it when Mitch McConnel took over as Senate majority leader and decided his number one priority was denying Mr. Obama a win ever at all costs.

    Debate all you want about whether we should be more open to able bodied adults who want to work in our fields, build our houses, clean our offices, nurture our children, cook our meals and do a whole host of other things.

    But there ABSOLUTELY NO DEBATING the senseless cruelty being inflicted on these kids. None. And if the President was so easily inclined to go around Congress and move funds to build his wall (which recent headlines prove won’t interdict drugs much less people), he could as easily decide to buck Congress and move funds to these children.

    And so you each need to ask yourselves – after he goes after defenseless migrant children, who will be next? That’s where the Nazi references begin to get more salient.

    The CRUELTY IS THE POINT.Report

    • Yep. They’ve said multiple times that they want to make it bad for immigrants to discourage them. And then when this sort of thing comes up, they just bury their heads in the sand.Report

    • Avatar Murali in reply to Philip H says:

      Its odd that you say that libertarians have been silent about this when basically most of the libertarians I know have been saying this is why we should have open borders. To say that libertarians have been silent just means that you have not been listening.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has voted against improving the conditions in these facilities 17 times. Nancy Pelosi was dead set against Trump’s requests for increased funding for the facilities. The suffering is too useful as an election issue.Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to George Turner says:

        Is there any indication at all that increased funding would improve conditions for the detainees?Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to dragonfrog says:

          Well, yes, there is. That’s why Trump and the various agencies were making all the funding requests, including requests for vastly boosting the numbers of immigration judges.Report

          • This is a rare times I’ll agree with George. The one thing I’m hearing over and over again is that the border agents are simply overwhelmed. They have three times the number of people they would consider a crisis. They’re putting a hundred people in a facility meant for ten. Even if Trump mitigated the harshness of his policies, we would still need more resource (see the immigrant crisis in 2014).Report

          • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to George Turner says:

            It’s costing like $800 per child per night. For $250 per night they could house entire families at a nice hotel, without pointlessly and cruelly separating children from their parents.

            The performative cruelty is the whole point. Giving them more money would just enable more elaborate cruelty.Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner says:

            Both the House and Senate have now passed bills for supplemental funding – The Senate doing so with bipartisan support, the House along party lines. Because they aren’t the same bill they have to be conference, and despite the crisis the White House has threatened to veto the House bill if it comes forward.And lest we forget, the House agreed to funding for immigration over the President’s request to end the federal worker furlough. That funding was for more CBP agents, more technology to control immigration, and more judges.

            But sure, blast AOC and Democrats.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

              What is the difference between the bills?

              Because the statement “along party lines” suggests we’re not done grandstanding or using children as pawns.Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                According to NPR the House bill contains more than $1 billion to house and feed migrants detained by immigration authorities and almost $3 billion to care for unaccompanied children.

                Also according to NPR, the $4.6 billion Senate version includes $2.88 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to address unaccompanied children. It also includes $50 million in additional funding to speed up processing in immigration courts.Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

              Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted against the bill, as did Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley, who wants to abolish ICE entirely. They’re the rising stars and future of the Democrat party.

              Ironically, to get Trump’s spending request passed, Pelosi told her colleagues that a vote against the bill was a vote for Trump.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird says:

    If the choice is between Open Borders and Concentration Camps, there are quite a few people indeed who will choose the Concentration Camps. Perhaps even more than half, if allowed to vote on it.

    The problem comes up when you’ve got a bunch of people who, when given the choice between staying in their own country and going up to the US to be in the Concentration Camps choose the latter.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      Those children didn’t make that choice. And frankly since our country spent 60 years helping create the conditions their families are fleeing, we have more then a passing moral obligation to actually get of four collective duffs and do something more then exert the maximal possible cruelty.

      And as to voters – considering that 45% of voters didn’t enter a booth to put this president in office, I’d say you need to revise your math.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        I’m not sure that “open borders or concentration camps” was ever on the ballot.

        (I’m pretty sure that we don’t want it to be. And by “we”, I mean “good people who want open borders”.)Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

          Trump opened his campaign calling Mexicans Rapists. Anyone watching with a modicum of care and education knew he was going to be virulently anti-immigrant. Most of those who have been the architect of his immigration policies – including Stephen Miller – have written extensively about what they wanted to do. So yeah, Concentration Camps was on the ballot if you cared to look.

          And to be really, almost pedantically clear – most liberals (and certainly all the liberal candidates in the 2016 election) don’t want fully open borders. What we do want is a recognition that migrants from the south form an integral part of several major sector sin our economy; they come here to become Americans, and they do so under a system that used to allow them free flow back and forth to a system that incentivizes them to enter illegally (since we don’t have enough slots for legal entry) and then stay when they want to return. That recognition also carries with it the creation and maintenance of immigration systems and policy that support their dignity. That’s not open borders.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            So a system like the one that Obama was running with Detention Centers versus Trumpian Concentration Camps?

            Are you sure that we weren’t merely voting for how we wanted journalists to cover Immigration policy?Report

            • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

              Obama wasn’t separating children from families. And his ICE was doing a way better job both processing arrivals and deporting people – Obama actually deported more undocumented migrants then any of his predecessors. But sure, lets call it a framing problem instead of cruelty.Report

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

        I was unaware that the US runs Guatemala and Honduras. In fact, I’m pretty sure the people in Guatemala and Honduras might bear some responsibility for the condition of their home countries.

        And those countries are disasters. About 50% of indigenous adult women in Guatemala are illiterate. Only 25% of the workforce in Guatemala and Honduras completed high school, about on par with the number who say they never went to first grade.

        Democrats talk about “the information economy” and the need for everyone to get a good education, but apparently the US has millions of jobs for which all the natives are wildly over-educated.

        Just as a suggestion, why don’t we try to prepare our own minorities to fill those jobs by not letting them go to school? If we really need millions of people without high school diplomas, or who never even went to high school, can’t we come up with a program to handle that ourselves? Or are we lying to our kids when we tell them they need to go to school to get ahead?

        In any event, under Obama’s state department guidelines, the number of Central Americans who would qualify for asylum would be almost zero, since private-sector violence does not count, only persecution by a UN recognized government.

        The number of approved asylum requests for the Americas is small indeed. In 2014 we granted asylum to 11 people from Nicaragua, 3 from the Dominican Republic, 183 from El Salvador, 89 from Honduras, and 311 from Guatemala. They are not actually seeking asylum, they are seeking to pointlessly apply for asylum because they know we’ll turn them loose in two weeks because we have to obey a judge’s ruling, which is what turned a flood into a deluge.

        We have to turn them loose because they have families, and somebody decided that unlike millions of American citizens who are sent to prison without their kids, because we don’t send kids to prison with their parents, non-Americans had a right to keep their kids with them in jail. If we can’t separate families, and we can’t jail kids for the crimes of their parents, then we might as well shut down the entire legal system.Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner says:

          If you are unaware of the role of the US government in the running of Hondouras, Guatamala, Panama, El Slavador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Belize then you missed both TV coverage in the 1980’s and a decent history education along the way. Governments in those countries were mostly US puppet regimes actively controlled by the CIA thorugh the late 1970’s, who as autocrats imposed authoritarian regimes on their people, while begin funded to fight “guerrillas” who were often poor peasants backed by Russia. The upshot of those decades of meddling is a complete lack of functional governments and democracies, for which we are now paying in the literal bodies of migrants. But sure, just like slave reparations we don’t need to atone for our sins because we din’t commit those sins ourselves.

          As to the millions of jobs that are performed by these illiterate migrants – they used to be largely performed by African Americans under Jim Crow and before that as slaves. So not educating our own – and its refreshing to hear a conservative acknowledge minorities as Americans – is a return to that. We certainly don’t need to go down that road. But we do need the work done, and until the 1950’s Hispanics who came across the border to pick our crops along side the remaining African Americans could essentially come and go as they pleased – and record indicated most came, picked and left. All these things taken together put us where we are, and none of your ideas will actually address this.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H says:

            I hope we checked with Queen Elizabeth before taking over Belize, because as the country’s monarch, she had a right to know, just like when we told her that the CIA was going to make Argentina invade the Falklands because they’d made a bar bet with the State Department.Report

    • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

      That’s a big “if” there. I’d call that question-begging, myself.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird says:

    And I still think that there’s an inconsistent triad waiting to punch us in the nose between:

    1. Open Borders
    2. Multi-culturalism
    3. Robust Welfare State

    If I had to pick two, I’d pick the first two.Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Jaybird says:

      I fall in the camp of people who are generally sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers but found myself arguing with the people outraged about this over the weekend because of the ridiculous rhetoric they are intentionally using. (Doubling down in this comment thread after Michael does an excellent job of explaining why that is unhealthy is just more proof of how fucked up our national discourse is).

      With that said, put refugee camps up in Mexico and send in the Red Cross, the UN, UNICEF, etc to assist. If it’s so bad, simply don’t let them enter the U.S. where they can’t be treated this way until President Warren is in office… but then the political value would be lost today, right?Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        Why not just let them in?Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          In a tweet?

          Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            Is that your serious position, or the comedic opening line?Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Well, I thought it did a good job of explaining why we aren’t just letting them in. Even the Wokest among us find ourselves saying NIMBY when we realize where the Concentrated will end up.

              It’s easy to say “let them in! Nobody is using North Dakota!”

              It’s when they move into our neighborhoods that we suddenly find ourselves Chering.

              (Additionally, there seems to be a major intuition that the benefits of unbridled immigration will go to The Privileged and the costs of unbridled immigration will go to the underprivileged and that makes the underprivileged cranky. As someone who will see most of the benefits of immigration and won’t see most of the costs, it’s easy for me to support Open Borders. But I also try to keep in mind that I will see most of the benefits of it and I won’t really pay any of the costs of it.)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You shoulda stuck with calling it a comedic opening.

                Look, do I need to copy and paste one of the many comments from people here at OT talking about how due to global capitalism, medieval kings would envy our poor, as a way of saying that if we are so wildly wealthy, why are we fretting over taking in a few thousands of poor immigrants?

                Or the historical example that accepting impoverished immigrants has always resulted in America growing wealthier?

                What logic underpins this Lump Of Wealth fallacy?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                dude

                look who the tweet is from

                like

                NOT EXACTLY SOMEONE I DESCRIBE AS A ROCK-RIBBED DEFENDER OF BLOODY-MINDED CAPITALIST OLIGARCHYReport

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

                She’s not a liberal.

                She’s just a half breed, worried we will let in all those gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

                Seriously, do you guys think that any random tweet from any given liberal becomes the Party Line communique from COMINTERN?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Seriously, do you guys think that any random tweet from any given liberal becomes the Party Line communique from COMINTERN?

                On this issue, both Sanders and Warren are basically Trump without his mouth. Obama (and maybe Biden?) was too if we judge him by what he did.

                Sanders insists that Trump wants open borders in comparison to himself.

                Those children in cages pictures that troll the internet showcasing how bad Trump is were taken during the Obama administration.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yes. That is exactly what Jaybird and Dark Matter and others seem to believe. They know liberals don’t have an equivalent of Fox News or Talk Radio so they need to use random tweets by old celebs or whomever and make that Democratic Party dogma because it shows lockstep and Dems in Disarray at the same time.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Why not enact my preferred policy?”
                “Because a lot of people think X?”
                “Do I really need to disagree with X?!?”

                Um… no? But disagreeing with X won’t solve the problem of the belief.

                What logic underpins this Lump Of Wealth fallacy?

                If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s tied into the whole phenomenon of people feeling like they are not as well off, economically, as their parents were.

                There’s the whole thing of a lack of solidarity on the part of the people who benefit the most from immigration telling the people who will be paying the cost to suck it up (I can make Union analogies again, if you don’t remember the last 100 times we’ve discussed this).

                Along with a handful of the people who will find themselves worse off due to immigration (I can link to that government report again, if you don’t remember the last 100 times we’ve discussed this).Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Ahh, the Trumpists FEELINGS of economic insecurity.

                This idea that low wage domestic workers would be better off if we shut out immigrant laborers doesn’t hold water.

                There are half a dozen other ways to help low wage workers, that don’t involve concentration camps.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                And?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I must be misunderstanding the goal.

                Are we trying to figure out a way to “just let them in”?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Isn’t that what I asked?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yeah. And the answer seems to be that the laws exist as a result of our elected officials.

                Believe it or not, these laws were passed even though they’re not logical.

                I suppose we could mock the idea of people voting based on their feelings…Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                But that would either involve having liberal elites pay them a normal wage, which kind of ruins the whole point of exploiting them in the first place, or billing the middle class for government services to help the illegals who work for liberal elites – who won’t pay them very much.

                A brilliant French analyst has looked deeply into the issue in France, and his analysis is the subject of a Great article in City Journal, which I highly recommend for anyone who seeks a deeper understanding of what’s going on.

                Four excerpts:

                When France’s was a national economy, its median workers were well compensated and well protected from illness, age, and other vicissitudes. In a knowledge economy, these workers have largely been exiled from the places where the economy still functions. They have been replaced by immigrants.

                After the mid-twentieth century, the French state built a vast stock—about 5 million units—of public housing, which now accounts for a sixth of the country’s households. Much of it is hideous-looking, but it’s all more or less affordable. Its purpose has changed, however. It is now used primarily for billeting not native French workers, as once was the case, but immigrants and their descendants, millions of whom arrived from North Africa starting in the 1960s, with yet another wave of newcomers from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East arriving today.

                As a new bourgeoisie has taken over the private housing stock, poor foreigners have taken over the public—which thus serves the metropolitan rich as a kind of taxpayer-subsidized servants’ quarters.

                t the opening of his new book, Guilluy describes twenty-first-century France as “an ‘American’ society like any other, unequal and multicultural.” It’s a controversial premise—that inequality and racial diversity are linked as part of the same (American-type) system and that they progress or decline together. Though this premise has been confirmed in much of the West for half a century, the assertion will shock many Americans, conditioned to place “inequality” (bad) and “diversity” (good) at opposite poles of a Manichean moral order. This disconnect is a key reason American political discussions have turned so illogical and rancorous. Certain arguments—for instance, that raising the incomes of American workers requires limiting immigration—can be cast as either sensible or superstitious, legitimate or illegitimate, good or evil, depending on whether the person making them is deemed to be doing so on the grounds of economics or identity.

                What we’re doing is importing a new underclass because the upper class benefits from having an underclass, and the old working class wanted too much money and respect.

                So Guatemalans it is.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

                OK, OK you win.

                Liberals will agree to force the upper class elites to raise the minimum wage for all workers to say, $15/ hr.

                Oh, alright! And a nationalized health care system on top of it!

                But that’s it!

                Well, OK maybe subsidized housing.

                But no more and we mean it this time!

                Man, you’re a tough negotiator.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Ahh, the Trumpists FEELINGS of economic insecurity.

                I can’t recall Trump using “they’ll take our jobs” against the immigrants. He’s always been “rapists, murderers, & terrorists”.

                And the last big effort to deal with immigration got derailed by 911 (the big hearings were going to start on Nov 12th), which seems to have brought with it a big uptick in xenophobia.

                Xenophobia seems to be aggravated by but not dependant on economic insecurity.Report

          • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

            Dear Ms. Sarkisian:
            The Venn diagram of the people who don’t want to help struggling immigrants and don’t care about helping the domestically unfortunate looks very much like a circle.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

              (Can we deadname again? Is that something we’re allowed to do?)Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                I was raised to respect my elders, and to use last names of people with whom I am not on familiar terms. If I were addressing Beyonce, I’d call her either Ms. Knowles or Ms. Carter unless she told me otherwise.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                From the Wiki:

                That year, she legally changed her name from Cherilyn Sarkisian La Piere Bono Allman to Cher, to eliminate the use of four surnames.

                (The year in question was 1978.)Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t keep track of people’s legal filings. Not even celebrities. If someone changes his or her name, he or she will certainly tell me that after I have, politely, referred to him or her by the now obsolete last name. He or she will probably be polite about it, too. Simple enough.Report

              • Avatar cjcolucci in reply to DensityDuck says:

                If Cher prefers to be called Cher, without a last name, that’s her call and people who know her preference should honor it, just as they should honor anyone else’s known preference, though some folks think it violates their right to free speech or constitutes political correctness. That’s just good manners.
                Where preferences are not known, the rule of manners I was raised on is to refer to people with whom I am not on familiar terms by last name, with an honorific. Were you and Jaybird raised differently?
                Now that I know Cher’s preference, in the unlikely event that I ever meet her I will, of course, honor it. That’s just good manners.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

                Give it a rest.

                Speaking as a person who has legally changed her name, we can tell the difference between someone who made an honest mistake and someone who is being a jackass.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d says:

                Huh. I’d think that “I don’t keep track of people’s legal filings” would turn this into “Jaybird’s a jerk but he’s got a point” instead of an “honest mistake” situation.

                It’s weird who gets bound by laws and who gets protected by them.

                Ah, well. If it becomes obvious that they’re weapons rather than principles, they’ll blow away like the rules wielded by televangelists in the 80’s did.

                Or when, I guess.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, the idea is that to further the cause of intellectual tolerance and respectful discussion, Jaybird must always be treated as an asshole who is wrong. Therefore whatever he says is wrong and must be explained as being wrong, even if what he says is “when a person chooses their own name to develop a new identity we should respect that choice”.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird says:

      Since a robust welfare state kind of requires a good economy and tax dollars, I’m not sure why you can’t have all three? Open borders doesn’t necessarily mean that people can start claiming benefits once they get to the United States, anymore than I can go up to Canada and get healthcare under their single payer system.Report

    • Avatar Jesse in reply to Jaybird says:

      Weird how the multi-cultural parts of America are the ones most friendly to open borders and robust welfare states.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

      Jaybird and the land of false choices and pseudo-Socrates dada, an ongoing series.Report

  4. Avatar CJColucci says:

    In a very different world from the one we live in, immigration would be a wonky, technical issue that the vast majority of voters wouldn’t put in their top ten. There would be some sort of compromise on how many million immigrants we would be willing to take. Given that we aren’t going to get many Norwegian immigrants these days, for excellent reasons, we would recognize that many of them would come from the current shithole countries, rather than the shithole countries of the 19th century, and set up an immigration bureaucracy that could deal with this fact. We would recognize the fact of large numbers of long-time illegal immigrants who have been contributing to American prosperity, largely doing jobs we natives won’t do, and create a path to legality.
    But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where, for a significant constituency, cruelty and incompetence is not a bug, it’s a feature.Report

    • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

      We would recognize the fact of large numbers of long-time illegal immigrants who have been contributing to American prosperity, largely doing jobs we natives won’t do, and create a path to legality.

      That and many of our ancestors “legally” came over via methods that would be illegal today.

      And that the US is absurdly good in terms of assimilation of immigrants.Report

  5. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    They are concentration camps in form and function. The detention centers are meant to hold civilians to cruel and dehumanizing conditions. This is the very definition of a concentration camp.Report

  6. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    That being said, I can semi-understand why some Jews might be a bit unsure at calling the detention centers concentration camps. The term might have originated with the British during the Anglo-Boer War but became very linked to the Jewish people because of the Holocaust. An analogy is how without a prefix or adjective, when you speak about slavery most people believe you are referring to the enslavement of Africans in the Americas. When the detention centers get referred to as concentration camps, which the are, it could feel like we Jews and our history are being used as props. Since the people referring to them as such tend to be not overly known for their fondness of Israel, it could be an especially hard thing to swallow.Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I rather think that the issue is that the term “concentration camps” as used by the NAZIs was a euphemism, like “Jewish Settlement Region” or “protective custody” to give death camps either a veneer of acceptance, or to obscure what was really happening, or as a simple joke among those who enjoyed such things. Americans don’t know anything about the Boer War; the only usage they would know would be as a death camp, i.e., a place where people are kept until their deaths can be arranged.Report

      • You don’t have to go back to the Boer War. Before and during WWII, the Nazi camps were called “concentration camps”, because they were generally believed to be just that: places where undesirables were concentrated in crowded, unpleasant, and likely unsanitary conditions. Only after being liberated by the Allied Armies were they known as locations for industrialized murder.

        The places immigrant children are being kept fit the definition of concentration camp admirably.Report

        • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          What does the government call the facilities? How about just use the same term and complain about that instead of trying to be sensational? The liberal urge to label and name call things is something I will never understand. I mean, I absolutely think abortion is murder, but I don’t call it that because it’s not productive. The people in this thread that insist on arguing about terminology seem unserious to me about actually discussing the problem itself.Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

            “Nature is gradational, Man classifies,” – Paul Merril, my 7th grade life science teacher.

            Humans label things Mike, and in this case calling these concentration camps when the meet the definition of a concentration camp is absolutely appropriate. If you want to upgrade the name to detention centers you need to make sure the standards of care are raised.

            Its not, however, name calling just because naming a thing what it is makes you uncomfortable.Report

            • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Philip H says:

              Phillip,

              As several other people have pointed out, the term has become extremely loaded since WWII and I’m 100% sure you realize that (it’s sort of like how in the 1930s people gave out good luck tokens with swastikas on them and now that would probably get you in trouble). So if you all want to play around with that terminology, especially given the troubling relationship the Left has with Judaism these days, be my guest. But at least admit that it’s not an innocent word choice. As Patrick Swayze says in Roadhouse, “It’s two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response…” Those are the same kinds of games the president plays and you all should be better than that.Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Mr. Dwyer,

                I call concentration camps that because that’s what they are. In this case as well as others (including the camps Japanese-Americans were interned in). And has also been pointed out, not all Nazi concentration camps were death camps; most death camps became so late in the war; and far more Jews were murdered in trenches they first dug then were killed in the gas chambers. I’m so sorry your sensibilities are being offended by the truth, but frankly your sensibilities need to be offended. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. Nor should we let in become normal.

                And yes, calling them concentration camps SHOULD elicit a response of horrible recoil – because we as Americans claim we are better then this. We claim a heritage of welcome to our shore for hardworking industrious types – which our neighbors to the south vastly prove themselves to be once they are here. If you want us on the left to “be better then the president” why not quit debating words, and go get the senior senator for your state who is aiding and abetting this purposeful cruelty sacked.

                And as to the left having problems with Jews these days – we have problems with the government of Israel which continuously and illegally occupies territory not belonging to it for the purpose of removing Palestinians. That’s now about Jews – its about state sponsored terrorism. You should have a problem with that too.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Philip H says:

                Phillip,

                You’re actually explaining why it’s okay to use the term by talking about how Nazis didn’t actually plan to kill all the Jews at first. Gross. Also, I’ve studied a LOT os U.S. history and the most commonly used terminology for the Japanese American sites during WWII is ‘internment camps’. Using that term would have been much more appropriate given that both occurred within U.S. borders and while tragic, internment camps do not have the same history as Nazi concentration camps. Or, more accurately, we could just call them refugee camps, since that is actually what these people are. Again, you all are choosing that specific term to illicit a response, which you achieved, but all it does it harden would-be allies against you because we simply don’t want to be dragged into the extremes of partisanship that the far Left and Far Right traffic in.

                As for the problematic relationship with the Left and Jews these days, I think you are once again minimizing this as some sort of principled disagreement with Israel and not Anti-Semitism rearing its head again. Is Israel even an important topic these days? Or is it just because a few freshmen congresspeople and Jeremy Corbin said so?

                (Also: McConnell isn’t up for re-election until next year).Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

            The liberal urge to label and name call

            Yeah.Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          I went back to the Boer War because that is the source from which Hitler appropriated the term (Konzentrationslage), though it had also previously been used by the Imperial German Army in Southwest Africa for death camps used in the Herero genocide.

          I don’t share your assessment of the NAZIs. In the early 1920s, Hitler promised to force the Jews into concentration camps using the same language of disease and contamination he was also using euphemistically to call for extermination. The concentration camps were designed to implement the final solution, but language like “concentration camps” suggested these were simply internment camps, like the British had administered poorly.

          They weren’t the same thing, and the use of the term “concentration camps” was a form of political doublespeak that allowed people to know what was really going on, while having plausible deniability of what was really going on.Report

          • Who knew what when is a question that will probably never be resolved completely. Certainly the Americans who liberated them were completely unprepared for what they found, and one of the reasons they filmed them was to document conditions they were concerned would not be believed. Not that video evidence deters the deniers. Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which argues that ordinary Germans knew exactly what was going on, remains controversial.

            Have you ever seen Casablanca? Victor Laszlo (Ingrid Bergman’s husband) is described as having escaped from a German concentration camp, and he’s in good health and says nothing about the horrors he found there. The implication is that it’s a prison camp, not a death camp.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Well, there’s another tickling problem connecting unlimited Central American migration and Jewish issues. The combined Jewish population of Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador wouldn’t come close to filling the studio audience on The Price is Right. Many Central American Jews long ago fled to the US, Israel, or Europe because of anti-Semitism. Guatemala is only somewhat better, with a population of 900 Jews.

      According to the ADL, in 2011, 9% of white Americans held anti-Semitic views, whereas 42% of foreign born Hispanics did. And many of those foreign born Hispanics are from places that are much friendlier to Jews, such as Argentina (a Nazi haven), Chile, and Mexico, as opposed to Central America, where some of the countries are down to their last hundred.

      So there are complexities, indeed. Are we re-importing the common Southern racial attitudes of the 1950’s? According to quite a lot of survey data, we apparently are.Report

  7. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    There were a lot of things that were unique to the Nazis, but the basic idea underlying the Holocaust wasn’t one.

    All around the world and all throughout history, there have been ethnic clashes and some sort of desire to Get Rid of Those People. Most civilizations just lacked the industrial means to do it.

    ICE is consciously inflicting horrors upon these people because the administration wants them to. The administration is giving these orders because the party base wants them to. Adam Serwers’ comment that The Cruelty Is The Point” gets at the point precisely.

    As long as there are 60 million Americans willing to vote for these horrors again, a just and humane society will be an uphill slog for us.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      ICE is actually very nice. Most ICE agents on the Southern border are Hispanic, and a great many are immigrants themselves. The families who cross the border hope to find ICE agents waiting for them, and run up to them as their saviors who will haul them directly to a “concentration camp” instead of more and more walking.

      The non-families, of course, young males, drug runners, and such, avoid ICE like the plague.

      So now ICE is giving DNA tests to all the families who come in, and finding that about 30% of the children aren’t related to the people claiming to be their parents. That’s one of the reason many of the children in the detention centers are no longer with an adult. They’re kidnapping victims or loaners or something. Some apparently come and go repeatedly, being used as slaves by the human smuggling cartels. I guess the offer is “For an added fee, we will give you a small child who you can abandon later.”

      And ICE has to try and sort that all out.Report

  8. Avatar JoeSal says:

    “Man, this is really calling out the American Libertarians. I expect all 35 of you to go vote next time, this is all you fault!!”

    Mean while Muslims in China…..nothin’Report

  9. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    “This is family blog…”

    Wait, what?Report

  10. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    “We need to be building permanent facilities whose use can be ramped up or down as the situation requires.”

    So the solution to the concentration camps is to make them nicer camps?

    Like…sure, I don’t disagree, but that’s gonna end up with your catching heat from both sides of the argument…Report

    • True that. But we aren’t just going to fling open the doors of this country. Even before this, immigrants were being detained so their cases could be processed. And if the alarmist are right that climate change is going to drive future waves of immigration, we’re only going to get more and more people.Report

  11. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    Also, gentlemen of good faith tackling the thorny Big Issue of exactly what is the best and most intellectually precise term to use when referring to keeping young children separated from their parents while living in terrible conditions might be peak Ordinary Times.Report

    • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Where is the “like” button when you need it?Report

    • Avatar JoeSal in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Temporally, I didn’t build that.Report

    • The debate over what to call them is a good to way to distract ourselves from what’s actually going on.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      I agree with you but also have a question. What do you think people should do to protest against Trump and the camps while also sticking with in the realm of acceptable action under liberal democracy and rule of law? Or do you think we should abandon rule of law and organize cells that bust the kids out of the camps and drive them to Canada in protected caravans?

      I’m totally serious. One of the dangers of the Trump years is delivering blows to liberal democracy and engaging in a never-ending game of trashing. If we do this, the whackos at the Oregon State Capital might do real violence (they might do it anyway).Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        This is a very, very important question.

        Given that they’re Concentration Camps… now what? Rule of Law seems to have failed if Rule of Law can lead to Concentration Camps.

        It was all fun and games when we were talking about punching Nazis and we were talking about interrupting a guy who was talking but now we’re talking about Camp Guards.

        Morally, what is our obligation in this situation? Assuming Concentration Camps, of course.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

          I may be at risk of violating the norms of civility here, but since we are in a truly terrible, dark time, I am compelled to suggest a drastic and radical solution.

          If all else fails, you could vote for a Democrat.

          There. I’ve said it, and I stand by it.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            So this is a Concentration Camp situation that can wait until November 2020?Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              Yes, because it will take about that long for people to run out of excuses to justify voting Republican.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I hope they don’t, instead, vote third party.

                (I was worried that Concentration Camps required something other than voting. Saul got into what he thought they’d require above. I’ll let him know that he just needs to vote ‘D’.)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Third party voting is what people do when neither of the two major parties is a threat to their interests.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                To be fair: it’s also what they do when both of them are.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yes, and it demonstrates what the priorities are- e.g. Big Gulp bans, vs child abuse.

                Even if someone views both of them as threats, it is revealing to see which one is prioritized.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                And I can cleanse my soul by agreeing with you and voting for your preferred candidate?

                That seems pretty facile, Chip.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m not seeing an argument here.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

                Didn’t your father explain that to you?

                “Son, liberals don’t want to hear your opinion, they want to hear their opinion coming out of your mouth.”

                It’s still a classic.

                Also, though people may question Trump’s immigration policies, under a Democrat administration tens of thousands of innocent Central American children would die in the deserts of Texas, Arizona, and new Mexico because we banned big gulps.

                As Ross Perot used to ask, Is that the future we want to leave to our children?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                No one was talking about this until AOC made her ill-advised remarks. Now it’s the existential topic for 2020?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Have you got a more important one?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                We could start with inner city crime in the US. Where actual Americans are actually dying? Mostly in Democratic-run cities? Ring a bell?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                So we should also address crime in addition to the camps.

                I’m on board.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                Inner city crime has been a problem that Democrats have ignored for decades. You all have been in a tizzy about this detainment issue for about 5 minutes. I don’t know if that speaks to the power of AOC to get the Far Left ramped up or if it is just about seeing a cudgel to use against Trump next year, but probably both.

                You do realize that if we could conduct a survey probably a vast majority of Americans would say this is a very low priority for them, meanwhile you all are invoking images of the Holocaust. there’s a tremendous disconnect there and I think that’s more a problem of progressives than the masses.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Inner city crime rates? You mean the ones that are half the rate they were in the 90s?

                https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf is pretty clear on the matter (Figures 5 and 6 are quite straightforward).

                In fact, it looks quite a bit like random fluctuations (see Figure 8), which can lead to fun numbers (“Homicide rates increased 150% in Arlington Texas, strangely not run by Democrats, due to having 8 homicides in 2015 and 21 in 2016. A rate of 5.3 per 100k. What an inner city hellhole!)Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Morat20 says:

                Of course you’re both right. Crime rates are lower than they were, but they’re still too high, particularly homicide rates.

                That said, there is a stark categorical difference between 1) cruelty directly enacted by the government, performed by government employees, in camps managed by officials, and 2) the ever-present reality of poverty and crime. The prior is a willful act. The latter is a result of complex social ills. Treating those as if they are the same kind of moral failure is facile.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to veronica d says:

                It depends how much of a role the government played in creating the conditions for inner-city crime to thrive. In some cases, it was quite a lot, as they herded minorities into government housing projects because the government had decided to use the GI Bill, HUD, and other instruments to try to keep blacks out of the suburban housing boom that started with “Levittown.” This was the greatest single factor in the existing wealth disparity between white and blacks, as the whites saw their home values massively skyrocket over the decades, giving them tremendous equity, whereas inner city areas just got run down.

                Second, the Democrats and more than a few judges have created the current border crisis by purposefully creating an attractive nuisance, and are still milking it for all its worth. They need suffering and millions of people standing around in shelters.

                All those people will create vastly more demand for government jobs and services, causing states to erect entire bureaucracies simply to cater to them.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

                Gotta say, I’m diggin’ this woke, Cornel West/ Black Lives Matter turn your comments have taken.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Here’s the thing; the stuff George is (correctly) pointing out is stuff I have been hearing in conservative circles for years. But we don’t get to talk about how Democrats created these conditions because they are the self-proclaimed Friends of Black People.

                Since you all are so eager to co-opt terminology closely associated with the Holocaust, let’s talk about another word associated with Jewish peoples…ghettos. Most of the ghettos in this country were created by Democrats, maintained by Democrats and still a major source of political power for Democrats. Why are Republicans able to so effectively gerrymander districts? Because Democrats spent decades concentrating minorities into segregated areas of the city, doing their best to keep them on the dole and expecting them to turn out the vote every 2-4 years. I mean, geez, we all know this is also why Democrats love the idea of doing away with the electoral college because their long history of concentrating segments of the population would benefit them greatly in that scenario.

                As I said, the problem of inner city crime has gone on for decades. A couple of tweets from a congresswoman that has been serving for about 6 months and you believe we are facing a moral disaster on the southern border. It’s utterly astounding how quickly you all switch gears. And here’s the truth: If the Trump administration allowed every asylum-seeker into the country they would get pushed very quickly to the bottom of the economic ladder, possibly concentrated themselves and quickly enlisted to serve the Democrat cause.

                Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                But we don’t get to talk about how Democrats created these conditions because they are the self-proclaimed Friends of Black People.

                Who is this “we” who “don’t get to talk about” the “American Carnage” in our inner cities? Who is stopping you? Unless the firm expression of disagreement on the merits counts, and lately I’ve seen far too many comments on a variety of topics suggesting that this is exactly the point.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                “and quickly enlisted to serve the Democrat cause.”

                Hey, I think I found the real argument here, all along!Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                And note the “Democrat” tell.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to CJColucci says:

                CJ – Respectfully, grow up. I’ve been doing this a long, long time. I’m well-aware how cranked up liberals get if a conservative leaves the -ic off of that word. It was a typo. I don’t have time for the kind of word games that you (and your profession) traffic in.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                “It was a typo” is four words. You seem to have time to say a lot more than that. We’ll just have to leave it to the candid reader what to believe.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to CJColucci says:

                From past comments I take it that you are a bit technologically challenged so allow me to help:

                – Press Ctrl + F on your keyboard
                – Type Democratic into the little box that pops up
                – Use the little arrows to scroll through the results and read the comments

                I use the word ‘Democratic’ in this comment thread four times. Seriously, if you are going to just being a nuisance, at least get better at it.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                if you are going to just being a nuisance

                I suppose everyone would agree that that’s a typo.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to George Turner says:

                @George — It’s certainly true that conditions in the city are partly a result of political mismanagement. On the other hand, cities are cities. They’re naturally hard to manage, precisely because a large number of people in an area will concentrate all the human failings in one place. Furthermore, I don’t think humans really know how to manage large groups of people. We make mistake. We muddle through.

                And if Republicans take charge of the cities?

                Good luck with that. You’d get greedy asshole Republicans running things, and they’d take payoffs and make bad choices and fuck up crime policy, just as those before them have — plus they’d cater to bigotry and xenophobia, because that is what the Republicans today are.

                It’s unsurprising that in a two party system, one party went the direction of fascism and the other did not. It’s probably a (kind of) natural process.

                The point: when a politician seems to delight in cruelty toward asylum seekers, and another does not, and if a large number of people prefer the prior to the latter, and when this falls largely on racial lines … ?

                “But the Republicans will run things better?”

                Will they?

                Perhaps they’ll make the trains run on time, perhaps not. But values matter.

                Crime is down in the cities. Is this because of a sudden influx of great mayors?

                I doubt it. It’s other stuff quite beyond the scope of policy.

                #####

                Have you watched that one documentary about how that Joe Arpaio ran his jails? He’s a fascist monster, a sociopathic freakshow. Also, he’s Trumps buddy. Moreover, Trump’s base seems to love the guy.

                And the Republican party chose Trump. That is what the Republican party is — a party of cruelty who will torture prisoners, asylum seekers, and the children of asylum seekers.

                At some point you have to say, “Actually, no. This is deeply wrong.”

                You all can play the “whaddabout” game with this, but that reveals what you are.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Morat20 says:

                The numbers are still unacceptable. Seriously, if liberals applied even 1% of the outrage they feel over every mass shooting to inner city crime, we might actually see the number halved again. 43 people were shot in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend. We had 3 killed this past weekend in my much smaller city. And you’re hand-waving it away?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Morat20 says:

                (“Homicide rates increased 150% in Arlington Texas, strangely not run by Democrats, due to having 8 homicides in 2015 and 21 in 2016. A rate of 5.3 per 100k. What an inner city hellhole!)

                24 immigrants have died in ICE custody during the Trump administration. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/24-immigrants-have-died-ice-custody-during-trump-administration-n1015291

                That’s roughly 8 a year. We’re currently averaging roughly 40k detainees a day.

                The implication is that Arlington Texas is indeed a greater hellhole than the “concentration” camps.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Well, the Central American countries the asylum seekers are fleeing have homicide rates that are only slightly higher than LA’s in the1980’s. I don’t recall waves of celebrities, athletes, or anyone fleeing to Canada, Sweden, or the UK back then.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to George Turner says:

                in the1980’s. I don’t recall waves of celebrities, athletes, or anyone fleeing to Canada, Sweden, or the UK back then.

                Big picture the difference is mostly Facebook and Skype.

                My wife talks with her relatives in the native country about who is doing what. Who has a new job. Who has a new house. Who has gotten pregnant, divorced, killed, beaten, or whatever.

                That doesn’t create problems between Poland and the US.

                However if the topic of conversation is “I’m being terrorized by X gang”, then the solution of “come live with me, nothing like that happens around here and this is how you do it” can present itself.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Only 3,000 people died in 9-11 which was far, far less than died in gun violence that year, so really, it was completely overblown.

                This is all just desperate deflection to avoid talking about the deliberate torment and cruelty which the GOP base is supporting.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s not deflection Chip – it’s calling out the absurdity of this latest manufactured outrage. None of the woke class is going to Mexico to help these people when they arrive at our border. None of these politicians are calling for support from international organizations for this refugee crisis. Instead you all are doing the easiest thing by sitting in front of your computers and literally comparing it to the Holocaust to score political points. Meanwhile 6 months from now we will all be wondering, “Whatever happened to the concern about the asylum seekers?” as you all move on to the next Cause of the Day.

                I heard someone say the other day that it was funny how all the Vietnam War protests stopped when they ended the draft. I suspect this will be no different. When there are no more points left to score, liberals will quickly lose interest.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                You don’t find the way we are treating these children outrageous?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Sure. but I also think that the way we treat lots of people is outrageous. i don’t have the luxury of turning everything into a crusade. My preference would be to reunite the families, give them all a backpack full of MREs and send them back to Mexico until we can process them correctly.

                Or I would also endorse moving them into the empty dorms on some college campuses and bringing in law students to help them with their asylum status. I could give you a list of universities if you would like?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                You’re just repeating my words back to me.

                You don’t like this, necessarily, but its not a priority for you, compared to your other policy preferences.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’d probably be more sympathetic if you showed any willingness to point the finger at both sides of the aisle. The Democratic controlled Congress could do significant things to help tomorrow.Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                @ Mike,
                The Democrats in Congress offered Trump $20 Billion more then the Administration requested last August for immigration, including his wall, and asked politely for him to actually deal with DACA – which Mr. Obama created because the Republican controlled Senate refused to take up immigration reform. Mr. Trump said sure sounds great, and 24 hours later backed down. So In September They said $10 Billion, no Wall and fix DACA. Mr. Trump said no. They Offered $5 Billion in November – again over what the Administration requested – and again he said no. I sat on my hands for 35 days because the government ran out authority to spend its money over this.

                ANd now House Democrats have passed an emergency funding bill without Republican support and Senate Democrats have joined their republican colleagues to pass a similar bill. At what point, in the present day, will Democrats have done enough for you?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Philip H says:

                “At what point, in the present day, will Democrats have done enough for you?”

                When they stop oscillating between concern for immigrants when it suits their political goals and a complete lack of concern when it doesn’t. This entire issue has been so much theater and even as someone who is extremely pro-immigration, the idea of flinging open our doors and letting all of these people in with no structure in place is ludicrous.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                It appears that whatever compassion you have for the suffering refugees is swamped by your disdain for Democrats.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If it’s so cruel, why are about a million people a year walking the length of Mexico and paying thousands of dollars to coyotes just to get a chance to stay in an ICE detention center for two weeks? Disney executives are probably trying to figure out what makes the processing centers so popular so they can replicate it and boost ticket sales for their theme parks.

                If thousands of people a day are trying to get into your prison system, you’re doing something completely wrong.

                In contrast, only one person, a hero of the Polish resistance, is known to have willingly broken into Auschwitz.

                And it’s your side that’s supporting the cruelty, even trying to stop the immigrant children from getting really nice beds that are already paid for (see AOC’s tweet below).

                Of course that’s on top of enticing millions of people to abandon their property, pay their life’s savings to an unscrupulous human trafficker, and drag their kids through the desert, just on the off chance that they can be treated like a second-class person by rich urban white folks before they eventually get rounded up and deported.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                This is all just desperate deflection to avoid talking about the deliberate torment and cruelty which the GOP base is supporting.

                So you’re putting pressure on the Dems to send resources down to the border to help these people? No? Because it’s much more useful to point fingers and blame?

                The GOP didn’t put these people on the border.
                The GOP and the Dems agreed to these stupid laws back in the 80’s.
                Trump’s immigration policy is largely the same as Obama’s, he’s just more ham handed about it and more willing to experiment with how to deal with the problem… and the Press is looking for stories which make him look bad rather than stories which make him look good.

                You and I both believe something a lot closer to open borders is the actual solution, but there really is something to the idea that the Dems in Congress are deliberately underfunding an emergency to make Trump look bad… and not caring about those children they’re crying crocodile tears over.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                There is no reason why these people need to be detained. None.

                The government could easily just let them go until their cases are heard.

                There are no bureaucratic excuses for this. The cruelty is deliberate.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Where do they go after the government releases them? How many are you taking in?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                The government could easily spend $775 per day to put them up in hotels.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                So that’s what it comes down to? Show up on the Mexican border, claim asylum and we put you up in a hotel. Are you serious that this is your policy proposal? This is a refugee crisis. Mexico allowed them to cross their entire country undeterred. They should be responsible for them, with international assistance.

                It seems clear to me that liberals have worked themselves up into an outrage storm in the last couple of weeks and they aren’t really thinking clearly at this point. As others have pointed out, this problem will likely continue for years to come and you want to just open the door.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Yes.
                America should let them in because we are a New Colossus, the Mother of Exiles:

                Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
                With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
                Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
                A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
                Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
                Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
                Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
                The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
                “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
                With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
                Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”Report

              • Avatar JoeSal in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Cynthia Chase(Democrat):
                “are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal.

                In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                I am not suggesting we don’t let them in. I’m suggesting it needs to be done better. As I have stated numerous times, this is an international refugee crisis and should be handled as such. Mexico allowed these people to enter their country and march south to north unmolested and show up on our doorstep demanding entry. Democrats are all too happy to oblige because they need the political points. What should happen is that they stay in Mexico in a Red Cross or UN run refugee camp until we can process their requests. Send our National Guard to help them, just like we have in many other refugee crises around the world. But they are not exclusively OUR problem.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                No one can ever just explain what be wrong with just letting all come in legally.

                There always seems to be a very concerted effort to make it a grave Unsolvable Dilemma.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Remember this?

                1. “Open Borders” is a red herring, something no one outside of a few ideologue libertarians is actually proposing.

                Good times.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Between children suffering in cages and open borders, what are you willing to offer as compromise?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                That is kind of what I was getting at in several of my other comments. If you want to discuss a generational immigration policy for the most sought-after country on the planet you’re going to have to have a stronger stomach Chip. ‘Kids in cages’ should not cause you to throw out common sense.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Remember all the comments about how liberal overreach pushed moderate conservatives to radicalism?

                What do you think concentration camps will do to moderate border liberals?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well I honestly don’t believe that moderate liberals are going to be fooled by hyperbole. I give them more credit than to change their policy preferences based on sensational word choices (moderates in general being notoriously rationale in their thought processes).

                With that said, you are basically advocating for open borders when a year ago you said that was a red herring. So the Far Left is going in that direction while most of the country believes we still need some kind of controls in place. You all have turned this into some kind of moral cause and therefore anyone that opposes your goals is a fascist. As David Frum says though, “If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.”

                Again Chip, there is a serious disconnect between progressives and the rest of the country.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Open Borders is like Free Trade,a word that means all sorts of different things .
                It can be anything from the status quo to complete anarchy.
                What I suggest is a much more liberal definition of refugee, larger number of work visas, and more streamlined process.

                Which I believe would admit almost all of the people currently being detained.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I would suggest you read through this article from David Frum, particularly Section III:

                https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/

                He does a good job of outlining just how much potential there is for immigration to explode in the coming years and all of the risks posed to the US. He’s not saying we shouldn’t take them, but that we have to be a lot smarter about planning for it.

                Also, regarding people waiting to get into the US:

                “The backlog of people whose immigration petitions have been approved for entry but who have not yet been admitted is now nearing 4 million.”

                You might deduce that most of those people are patiently waiting overseas, not showing up on our doorstep or tragically swimming across rivers with young children because they have to get in RIGHT NOW. I’m still perplexed how those 4 million people do not represent a moral crisis but the refugees on our doorstep do?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                I don’t need to read it.

                David Frum is exhibit A for how immigrants can mess up our nation.

                Yes, these people who are fleeing from violence in Central America do in fact need to get in RIGHT NOW.

                The fact they are willing to endure horrific hardships to get here proves that point.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Camel meet sand….ugh.

                You keep ignoring specific points so let me try one last time. There are millions of people overseas that are waiting to get into the US, many of whom are claiming asylum, and none of you were screaming about that. These asylum seekers could wait in Mexico if you all simply led the effort to get decent refugee camps setup.

                It’s a simple question: if asylum seekers abroad are not put on planes to await a decision in the US, why do asylum seekers on the southern border need to come in RIGHT NOW?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                What I’m ignoring is the underlying premise here which is that the concentration camps are an unavoidable outcome of a good faith effort by the Trump administration to process refugees with humanity and justice.

                That claim is such an outrageous fabrication that I refuse to even engage with it- I would sooner debate a flat earth creationist.

                There are dozens, hundreds of possible policies which would allow us to process and handle immigrants and refugees in a humane and just manner, but the Trump administration has not pursued any.

                Instead, they have acted with a malevolence and depraved indifference towards them right from the moment he uttered the line about them being rapists and murderers.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Have there been any votes for additional funding recently?

                Did you urge your congressperson to vote yes on it?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m sure our comments passed by each other.

                Please read what i just wrote about not engaging with the idea that the administration is acting in a good faith effort to make things better for the immigrants.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, I guess there’s nothing left to do but wait until next November and vote ‘D’.

                First Primary Debate is tonight!Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                We do handle immigrants and refugees is a humane and just manner. They have green cards and visas and paperwork all lined up before they ever hop off the plane. It’s hard to get more humane and just than making one of them the First Lady of the United States before she even loses her accent.

                Charging across a country’s border does not make a person an immigrant, and in many parts of the world would just get you shot.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip – 4 million people abroad that have been approved to enter the US and have not been given the green light. You had ZERO concern for them.

                AOC puts an idea in your head and suddenly this is a humanitarian crisis that merits open borders? Do these people get to skip to the front of the line because they showed up in person or because they have captured the emotional angle? Meanwhile, the faceless millions that were already on the list get ignored by the Left?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m one of the libertarian ideologues, Chip.

                But I still think that you don’t want Concentration Camps vs. Open Borders on the ballot.

                But if you want a compromise, how about what Obama said?

                Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Great!
                But in order to evaluate their asylum claims, we would need to welcome them in, house them in decent conditions, treat their illnesses, allow them to be represented with counsel to appeal their rulings…

                I’m liking this Obama fellow.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                That’s nonsense. There is no reason they need to enter the US and become our problem until their claims have been evaluated. You do realize people ask us for asylum from overseas all the time and we don’t put them on the next plane…right?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Then we probably need a lot more funding for ICE…Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’ve never figured out why banks don’t just give everyone free vault samples to make people happy.

                Why are we not in charge?!!!Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                There are no bureaucratic excuses for this.

                Although it’s something I normally avoid when dealing with Trump, he’s been so consistent for so many decades that we need to assume he’s sincere in his beliefs. I.e. Trump and his crew really do believe that these refugees are functionally dangerous criminals because of their culture. They’re not pandering to the xenophobia crowd, they’re card carrying members.

                A lot of these suggestions are non-starters for that world view, i.e. we’d never deal with prison overcrowding by giving them hotel rooms or by releasing them and trusting them to come back. Willie Horton showed how that would work to Dukakis when the later tried treating criminals as victims.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Getting rid of gun control.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

                Pretty much every issue is more important than the southern border, at least according to Democrats.

                “a fake crisis at the border.” – Nancy Pelosi
                “a crisis that does not exist.” – Chuck Schumer
                “There is no crisis at the border.” – Steny Hoyer
                “There is no crisis at the border.” – Jerry Nadler
                ” “We don’t have a border crisis.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
                “an imaginary border crisis.” – Joe Scarborough, MSNBC
                “a fake border crisis.” – Jimmy Kimmel
                “make-believe crisis.” – WaPo’s editorial board

                They were also of course denying any funds to upgrade the detention facilities, and still are. Today’s excuse from Nancy is that she can’t risk passing a bill for it because Trump might twist the issue or misuse the funds.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to George Turner says:

                And AOC for the win, again!

                AOC tweet

                She’s showing support for Mayfair workers who are staging a walkout because their company sold Trump $200,000 worth of children’s beds for the processing centers.

                As I said, Democrats want the children sleeping on concrete no matter what they have to do to make that happen, including denying the children beds that Trump is paying for.

                They are some sick, sick people.Report

          • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Or vote 3rd party, cause, y’know, that’s an option too.Report

            • Avatar JoeSal in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              I figure there is going to be a lot of folks throwing the cucumber.
              (in reference to Jays linked video of fairness.)Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              Voting Republican or Democrat on immigration doesn’t matter anymore because Trump just got Mexico to send 15,000 soldiers to guard their side of the border against migrants, along with sending troops to their own southern border to keep Central Americans from overrunning Mexico. So the question is whether you’ll switch your vote to MORENA, PAN, or PRI.

              Now obviously, MORENA are a bunch of evil thugs for stopping all the human trafficking of innocent Central American children who just want to go to the United States, but is PRI really any better? Instead of spending two weeks in a US processing facility, all the wonderful immigrant children will probably rot in a Mexican prison.

              I, for one, will pretend to be outraged. Those Mexican banditos stole our election issue and our future unregistered voters!Report

      • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Saul,

        Also serious question – where are the mobs of outraged liberals outside these facilities? Or why not cross the border into Mexico and help these people before they are detained in the U.S. ? It’s summer, people have time off, why not do that instead of taking the kids to the Grand Canyon or Clearwater?Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

          Yes, that’s just what American citizens should do in response to horrific abuse by the American government.

          Go thousands of miles away to another nation and work quietly without disturbing anyone.

          Not vote for the opposition party, not bring lawsuits, not attend protests, not even write angry posts online.

          Just…go far, far away, and be quiet.Report

          • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Chip, c’mon man. Be serious. It’s 2019. There are lots of media options. Are you telling me that if hundreds (thousands?) of well-meaning liberals went to Mexico to help these people they couldn’t get that message out and back to people in the United States? Those images couldn’t be broadcasted across the country to show how magnanimous you all are? And what an embarrassment it would be for the president to see AOC and all of the Democratic presidential candidates down there taking care of these people in partnership with international groups. Something tells me Warren and Booker and Harris could convince a few news networks to come down and join them. Seems like good PR for the DNC. But…that isn’t actually going to happen.

            The reality is that the people so outraged aren’t actually going to do anything other than be outraged.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Or do you think we should abandon rule of law and organize cells that bust the kids out of the camps and drive them to Canada in protected caravans?

        Saul, you just have to vote for Democrats.Report

  12. Avatar Aaron David says:

    Why don’t we go back to what we called them during the Obama administration? I mean, the press seemed to be OK with that.

    “More than 60,000 unaccompanied children arrived at the southern border in 2014, most from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, putting the Obama administration in a difficult position.” NPR
    https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

    “Obama officials rushed to explain photos from 2014 that went viral showing locked-up immigrant children — and Trump’s facilities look the same” Business Insider.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-cages-2014-photos-explained-2018-5

    Remember when the Obama speechwriter tweeted out pics of the children, but it turned out that the particular pics were from 2014? Pepperidge Farms remembers. (See above article)

    So, what has really changed? Did we import some ex Ukrainian SS guards? Was someone down in Texas in the last two weeks, looking for campaign donations? Did kids only start crying now and during the Obama years they were happy fun camps? What is the washer schedule and did the kids bring changes of clothes?

    Do we have a press that loved the last president and loathes the current one? Is this so bad that we can not trust any reporting concerning either of these presidents, now or then, due to ideological bias?

    One thing I do know is that like it or not, the term concentration camp has stuck the landing, and that is the term that will be used from now on. AOC is almost as good as Trump at this kind of game.

    Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David says:

      We changed from an administration that saw overcrowding as a problem to be fixed, to one that sees it as a feature to be accentuated.Report

    • There is a difference between someone dealing with an unexpected and dramatic influx of immigrants, as happened in 2014, and someone dealing with while imposing draconian conditions and zero tolerance polices, as is happening now. Obama was bad; Trump is much worse.Report

      • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Michael Siegel says:

        How have the, as you put it, “draconian conditions” changed? I linked to articles showing the mistreatment of children, of caging them as well as separating them from their parents, during the Obama admin. Did we, all of a sudden, take away the washing machines? The wash times? How have they become more “draconian?”

        Looking at the Ken White quote above, I subquote: “Before Sarah Fabian defended concrete floors and bright lights for President Donald Trump, she defended putting kids in solitary confinement for President Barack Obama.” So, has anything changed? Really changed? I mean, there are pictures of kids in those conditions from the Obama admin. So, I would say, nothing has changed outside of the letter next to Trump’s name.

        Like him or not, he campaigned on this issue, that there was a border crisis. And that we needed Zero Tolerance. Seeing how that came after Obama’s handling of border issues, maybe this is what happens after that “dramatic and unexpected influx.” Jaybird, up above, spells out the issue quite succinctly – open borders, or a welfare state. Personally, I will take the open borders, but that isn’t a question being put forward at this time.Report

        • Obama did not separate children; he was dealing in an influx of unaccompanied minors. And Obama did not deliberately implement such ideas as a way of punishing immigrants. And the feds have admitted the conditions have gotten far worse, with several times the detainees we had under Obama.Report

          • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Michael Siegel says:

            “Previous administrations used family detention facilities, allowing the whole family to stay together while awaiting their deportation case in immigration court, or alternatives to detention, which required families to be tracked but released from custody to await their court date,” Brown and her co-author, Tim O’Shea, wrote in an explainer piece for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s website. “Some children may have been separated from the adults they entered with, in cases where the family relationship could not be established, child trafficking was suspected, or there were not sufficient family detention facilities available. … However, the zero-tolerance policy is the first time that a policy resulting in separation is being applied across the board.” (emp added)
            https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

            So, it did happen during the Obama admin but is happening 100% now. Is this the result of ZT policies? I would definitely say so. And yes, it is worse. So, I was wrong about that.Report

  13. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    The big issue here of Congress getting off of their collective butts is that Congress is controlled by two different parties. Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate. We might want to believe in our heart of hearts that partisanship is just a silly thing and the American people (and their politicians) will always come together to do the right-thing but that is not true. Most (if not all) Republicans in government are either fully in the Trump Camp now or they live in such fear of the Trump camp that they fear a primary from the right wing more. They would also rather keep their jobs than lose it for doing the morally correct action.

    McConnell has no interest in letting any legislation that does the right thing come to the floor.

    Let’s be honest too, there are lots of Americans, maybe not a majority, but certainly tens of millions of Americans, that do think the cruelty is the point and don’t see anything wrong with Fabian’s argument.Report

  14. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Kevin Drum in despair on a different but kind of related matter:

    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/06/donald-trump-is-an-alleged-serial-sexual-assaulter/

    “This episode hasn’t gotten an awful lot of attention. This is the first I’ve written about it, for example. Why? I don’t think it has anything to do with media outlets not taking rape allegations seriously. The real answer is almost worse: (a) everybody just assumes the story is true and (b) everybody knows that it will have no effect on either Trump’s fans or his Republican Party colleagues. Trump will issue a pro forma denial; nobody will take it seriously; and that will be that. Just like the other 15 times.

    Even after more than two years, I wake up every morning and I can’t believe that Donald Trump is the president of the United States. It’s a stain we’ll never live down.”Report

  15. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    I think the benefit of calling them concentration camps isn’t some sort of pedantry.

    Its to illustrate that terrible things CAN happen in America right here, right now.

    Most of us, from the WWII generation to the Boomers and beyond, just float through life with the myth that tyranny and dictatorship and awful injustices can only happen in other countries, but never here.

    We even hear it here, with people scoffing that since there aren’t any cattle cars or crematoria, then everything else is just hysteria.

    But then, how would anyone know if they were living under a tyranny, a repressive state? In all repressive states, there is a very large group, usually a majority of people whose lives are ordinary and untroubled. For them, the ones that keep their heads down, don’t cause trouble, don’t attend protests, they are never harassed by the police, they never see the inside or a torture chamber, and never experience repression.

    The only way to know if we are living in a repressive regime is to listen to the stories of those who experience repression.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Well, the other important reason to label them as concentration camps is to get people to realize that what happened to the Jews in Europe was really no worse than what’s going on in Texas or Arizona. The people pushing the “concentration camp” talking points are the same ones who’ve spent the last two years telling us to abolish ICE and that the evil Jews control the world. Rashida Tlaib said that thinking about the Holocaust gives her a calm feeling because the Palestinians saved the Jews after WW-II, while Ilhan Omar can’t figure out why calling them concentration camps is even controversial.

      “Never forget? Never forget what?”

      It’s like the DNC got so swept up in virtue signalling that they let David Duke took over the party.Report

      • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to George Turner says:

        “Well, the other important reason to label them as concentration camps is to get people to realize that what happened to the Jews in Europe was really no worse than what’s going on in Texas or Arizona. The people pushing the “concentration camp” talking points are the same ones who’ve spent the last two years telling us to abolish ICE and that the evil Jews control the world. Rashida Tlaib said that thinking about the Holocaust gives her a calm feeling because the Palestinians saved the Jews after WW-II, while Ilhan Omar can’t figure out why calling them concentration camps is even controversial.”

        Well said George. I agree with 100% of it.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

          Sorry, that is transparently silly.

          Anti-Semitism exists in a lot of corners of America and should rightfully be condemned.

          But the idea that anyone who opposes ICE is anti-Semitic is desperate nonsense.

          What makes whataboutism so risible is that it tacitly accepts the underlying message, in this case you both are admitting that the camps are horrors, but you just don’t like the people who are pointing it out.

          So now that we all agree that the camps are horrors, what do Trumpists want to do about it?Report

          • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            “But the idea that anyone who opposes ICE is anti-Semitic is desperate nonsense.”

            I don’t think anyone was suggesting that until they started throwing around Nazi-associated terminology to make their points.

            “So now that we all agree that the camps are horrors, what do Trumpists want to do about it?”

            I can’t speak to what the ‘Trumpists’ would do, but I’ve already suggested an option: Treat it like a refugee situation and get international relief organizations involved. Stop them in Mexico so they can’t go into the U.S. detainment system. Why isn’t that a viable option?Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              Because American citizens are not in control of Mexico.

              But we are in control of the American government.

              And we have the ability to welcome and process any number of asylum seekers and immigrants.
              Heck, once we even built a massive facility just for that purpose, and erected a giant statue on top of it.

              Why isn’t THAT an option?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Because the president is a tool?

                I’ve been to Mexico. They’re pretty happy to have Americans there, especially along the border. I’m quite certain they would welcome some assistance. Stop making excuses and get in your car.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                If the American president is a tool, isn’t that something the American citizens should do something about?

                Seriously, how many excuses are you guys going to conjure up to avoid voting against Trump?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                I’ve probably said this on the site 20 times in the last year but let me be more declarative…

                I AM NOT VOTING FOR TRUMP IN 2020!!!!!!

                Happy? I didn’t vote for him in 2016 and I don’t plan to vote for him next year. But I think what you are actually asking is, why won’t I agree to vote for the Democratic nominee…right?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                That may be too radical, but when your nation is tormenting thousands of innocent people, it may be the last desperate recourse.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                Giving power to Democrats as a consolation prize because they are less bad isn’t an option i am considering. As I said, I am deeply distrustful of any liberal suggesting I vote Democrat next year. The only one that is convince me is the candidate themselves and with the exception of two or three of them, I don’t see that happening.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Giving power to Democrats as a consolation prize because they are less bad isn’t an option i am considering.

                Ralph Nader on line 2.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to CJColucci says:

                I voted for Nader in 2000.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                And we can see how that worked out — assuming that how things actually work out is a relevant consideration. For some people it isn’t, but that’s on them.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to CJColucci says:

                Bush carried my state by 233,594 votes. Was I wrong to vote my conscience?Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                People for whom that’s the relevant question can answer it for themselves. Just don’t waste our time pretending you’re against Trump and realistically in play for effective opposition.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Option A: Democrats= higher taxes, possibly even a ban on Big Gulps;
                Option B: Republicans= torture of children;

                I can see the dilemma.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                From the AP yesterday:

                “Whether they are called prison cells or something else, Obama held children in temporary, ill-equipped facilities and built a large center in McAllen, Texas, that is used now.

                Democrats routinely and inaccurately blame Trump for creating “cages” for children. They are actually referring to chain-link fencing inside the McAllen center — Obama’s creation.”

                This is why I can’t take you seriously when you suggest voting for Democrats Chip. You are clearly just another partisan wanting to see your side in power. Why do you think more Americans are registered as (I) than with either party?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Again, that is an evasion.

                Obama’s record was not perfect, but he wasn’t separating children, and was not inflicting deliberate cruelty, and most importantly, Obama is not on the ballot.

                If you want to argue that all of the 2020 Dem candidates are no better than Trump in this regard, please make that case.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                ‘Better than Trump’ is a very low bar. The point is that a Democrat could have created a humane and workable solution during their two terms in office and didn’t. That Trump would make it worse should have been expected, but Obama could have attempted to error-proof things when he was in the driver’s seat and chose not to.

                As for 2020, you pretending their policies are as benign as tax hikes and Big Gulp taxes is extremely disingenuous. I have lots of reasons not to vote for Democrats that are much more serious. Again, every time you make a pitch for them it just makes me want to pull the lever for someone that is NOT in one of the two major parties.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                Which of the potential Dem policies outweighs the horror of the camps?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Gun Control, for one.

                I mean, imagine if voting didn’t change anything!Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                I’m not actually horrified by the camps, but I have a pretty strong stomach for human suffering. It’s like Democrats and inner city crime.Report

              • Fortunately I’m a two-issue guy, neither of them is the subject of this post and comments, and the Republicans and Democrats are like night and day on my issues.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Michael Cain says:

                I’m typically about a 5 issue guy in a presidential election. None of them are covered in this post either.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

                “Giving power to Democrats as a consolation prize because they are less bad isn’t an option i am considering.”

                Literally the only words you’ve ever said on this site with which I agree.

                (The anti-semitism claim you’re making elsewhere is disgusting, and one Jewish people have decried vigorously when other conservatives like Cheney have made it, but hey, we have this moment right here.)Report

            • Avatar Philip H in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              Again – calling a concentration camp a concentration camp isn’t an antisemitic act. It’s a factual description. That the Nazi’s used such camps to try and exterminate Jews is intolerable. They also used them to exterminate homosexuals, gypsies, and people from other European Countries. But I don’t see anyone running around saying we are committing bigotry against the LGBTQ community by using this label.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Philip H says:

                “They also used them to exterminate homosexuals, gypsies, and people from other European Countries. But I don’t see anyone running around saying we are committing bigotry against the LGBTQ community by using this label”

                Geez…just stop.Report

    • Avatar JoeSal in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Is there a leftward version of the Human Freedom Index that you could cite?Report

    • Avatar InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      I’m disgusted by the treatment and agree 100% with the OP’s conclusion but this comparison is kind of ridiculous. These are foreign nationals, some of whom probably have legitimate claims to asylum, many more of whom are economic migrants using their children to improve their chances of gaming a broken system. They’ve all put themselves and their kids into US custody, we didn’t force them there.
      We need to be humane and dedicate resources to deal with it properl but it’s wholly different than annexing territory then ethnically cleansing it or detaining minority citizens for similar purposes.Report

      • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to InMD says:

        “They’ve all put themselves and their kids into US custody, we didn’t force them there.
        We need to be humane and dedicate resources to deal with it properly but it’s wholly different than annexing territory then ethnically cleansing it or detaining minority citizens for similar purposes.”

        Agreed.Report

  16. Avatar Jaybird says:

    For one reason or another, I was reminded of this Blast from the Past today.

    The title of the post? “Do pro-lifers really believe that abortion is murder?”Report

  17. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Good news!

    Pelosi says she’ll pass the Senate border funding bill.

    “The children come first. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that the resources needed to protect the children are available,” she wrote in a letter to her caucus. “Therefore, we will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior that the Senate did in ignoring our priorities. In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill.”

    Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

      Eighteen Democrats said they can’t support her and will vote no. That means she may have trouble getting it passed unless some Republicans vote for the Senate Republican bill that Trump is demanding.

      Perhaps the biggest loser in this is AOC, who not only insulted the memory of the Holocaust, moved acceptability of “concentration camps” into the Overton window, but also got caught out for posting photos of her weeping for the plight of immigrant children as she gazed at them in a detention center. The photos were staged a year ago in an empty parking lot. What she didn’t show was that the fence she was crying on ended about five feet to her left, where there was just more empty parking lot.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to George Turner says:

        …unless some Republicans vote for the Senate Republican bill that Trump is demanding.

        That Senate bill passed 84-8. It’s probably more accurate to call it “bipartisan”

        And yes, the media doesn’t describe it that way.Report

  18. Avatar Mike Dwyer says:

    I’m sure we’ll talk much more about this much more in the debate discussion, but most/all of the candidates on the stage tonight advocated for Open Borders. So that’s the Left is today. Yikes.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *