(I have not been posting recently because I am busy pulling up stakes on Maui and moving to Maryland. RTO will continue as usual once I get resettled.)
Because everyone must make it stand, let me say here that everyone involved in the kidnapping, abuse and incarceration of children should be tried for kidnapping, conspiracy and child-abuse and that includes the president, the head of The Department of Homeland Security, everyone in ICE and the Border Patrol who's been involved in stealing these children, everyone from the janitors up to the presidents of the private corporations running the child jails.
Being near Trump notoriously destroys the reputations of anyone so incautious as to go that close. Now the contagion of his criminal regime has stretched out to include people far from him physically though close to him spiritually. According to polls most Republicans agree with kidnapping and child-abuse.
I am not surprised and I am disgusted.
So what's your alternative?
ReplyDeleteAssuming you have one.
You're seriously asking what the alternative might be to kidnapping and child abuse? How about just going back to the enforcement regime we had before, which rarely went so far as to separate families for purely punitive reasons? (And before you bring them up, those pictures of children in cages during the Obama administration originate with kids who crossed the border unaccompanied).
DeleteM:
DeleteThe problem originated during the Obama presidency.
A judge deciding that children of illegal immigrants could not be held in detention with their parents for more than 21 days.
The confluence of that decision and administration's approach to border enforcement meant that adults with minors were released within the US, on a promise to appear for a deportation meeting.
Which meant that children effectively became a passport, which in turn led to a huge increase in children crossing the border along with adults.
Now that we have a state of affairs where there is a huge incentive for illegal immigrants to bring children along -- whether they are related or not -- and a prohibition of detaining them together ...
What is your alternative?
You're being disingenuous, at best. The legal excuse used for family separations originated well before the Obama presidency, actually. Somehow, three different administrations, including Obama's, managed to avoid engaging in them. And, of course, the intent of the Trump administration - as expressed most obviously by Stephen Miller - is well known, in that family separations were to be used as a deterrent, not as some regrettable but inevitable consequence of the law. So you really need to abandon that line; it's a self-serving lie.
DeleteSo my alternative remains the same: do what prior administrations did. Families were simply not incarcerated. They were often deported, but until they were processed through the system, they were released.
M:
ReplyDeleteYou're being disingenuous, at best. The legal excuse used for family separations originated well before the Obama presidency ...
You are correct, it did. Regardless, that court decision created an obvious incentive to bring children when illegally crossing the border. As the word got out, the problem got worse.
I have no doubt that family separations were, in fact, used as a deterrent. Just as arresting people for shoplifting (and separating from their children) is a deterrent.
Additionally, these families hadn't been deported. They were released into the US with a promise to appear at some future date.
At least 40% did not.
Which is why I ask what the alternative is, because what we have now is essentially an open-border policy for those caught with accompanying children.
So one alternative is to simply acquiesce to this ongoing illegal immigration, and be honest about preferring that to securing our borders.
But presuming that the majority of US citizens aren't in favor of open borders, which they aren't, then what is the alternative?
Do you hear yourself? "An incentive to bring children..." It's a certain kind of individual who can emigrate to another country, even under desperate conditions. I would argue that it's the kind of individual we should be welcoming with open arms. They're better than we are. Heck, in this country we can't even convince the natives to move a few counties over just to get to where the jobs are; they expect Trump to bring the jobs to them.
DeleteI'm sure there you could probably find a few cases where some enterprising immigrant brought children who otherwise might not have made the trip. I doubt you could find many. It just doesn't work that way. Only paranoids think otherwise; and in all honesty if the immigrants were from, say, Norway, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Actually, Mr. M, Skipper currently lives in a country (Germany) that practices open borders policy towards Norway, since you cite the nordics, and curiously, we indeed do not hear a word from him complaining against such abject policy. It is a mystery, isn't it?
DeleteHe does think, though, that Germany accepting one million refugees from the Middle East was beyond the pale, so it is not like he is completely in contradiction here. There is a certain logic to it, I can't quite point my fingers to it though...
M:
ReplyDeleteDo you hear yourself? "An incentive to bring children..."
That is a fact. Milton Friedman’s observed you can’t have both free immigration and a welfare state adjacent to less developed countries. Do you doubt that?
Policy changed to essentially give adults traveling with minors a free pass. Is that not an incentive to do so? Worse, since there is no attempt to determine whether the minors have any familial relationship with the adults, does that policy change abet adults and minors using each other to evade border security?
They're better than we are. Heck, in this country we can't even convince the natives to move a few counties over just to get to where the jobs are; they expect Trump to bring the jobs to them.
Do you hear yourself?
I'm sure there you could probably find a few cases where some enterprising immigrant brought children who otherwise might not have made the trip.
Look at the change in numbers of illegal immigrants traveling with minors.
... in all honesty if the immigrants were from, say, Norway, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Please explain that. In all honesty.
You insist on dealing with hypotheticals in the absence of any real data. I maintain that the incidence of minors being used as passkeys to get across the border was minimal (prior to the "zero tolerance" policy) compared to the incidence of actual families (usually refugees) doing so. Penalizing the latter for the sake of the former, however, is what you folks on the Right do. You'd rather see the poor starve than abide by a few welfare cheats, for example.
DeleteAs it stands, however, Friedman was wrong: modern welfare states practically depend upon having less developed countries nearby. Someone has to support the aging populace, after all, especially when wealthy nations stop having as many children of their own.
As for your last question, stop playing coy. We all know exactly what the problem the Right has with 11 million illegal immigrants is, and it's not a problem they would have if they weren't brown. At their best they try to couch it in terms of "losing culture" (thus betraying a profound insecurity about the worthiness of their culture in the context of assimilation - and a complete ignorance of history), but it's about racism, pure and simple.
Clovis:
ReplyDelete... since you cite the nordics, and curiously, we indeed do not hear a word from him complaining against such abject policy. It is a mystery, isn't it?
Please explain why that is a mystery.
He does think, though, that Germany accepting one million refugees from the Middle East was beyond the pale ...
I have an idea, Clovis. Why don't you do a little research regarding the knock-on effects of that wave of immigration, then get back to me.
Oh, and while you are at it, how stop telling us what I think, and start quoting what I have actually said.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteDo you disagree with my characterization of what you think, regarding the refugees on German?
We've been discussing for a few years over this medium, and it should be clear by now what is my policy. I will freely rewrite what you think in my terms, being honest to what I understood. Most of the time I get it right, and when I don't, you are free to correct me.
You must be the only person I know with the time to search for years of online conversation in order to find exact quotes (which are not even searchable in most blogs).
Of course, you have the option to entirely ignore my comments, if that sounds unreasonable. I guess you will need to ignore 99,9999% of the comments sections of all other blogs too, though.
If the concern is threats to innocent American citizens, such a person is more likely to be murdered by a police officer than by a brown person who sneaked over the border. The difference is about an order of magnitude
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] He does think, though, that Germany accepting one million refugees from the Middle East was beyond the pale …
ReplyDelete…
Skipper,
Do you disagree with my characterization of what you think, regarding the refugees on German?
Completely.
Your command of English is outstanding. However, perhaps it is not so good as to have conquered the most difficult part of learning any second language: metaphors.
"Beyond the pale" means an action so far beyond the bounds of morality that there cannot possibly be any justification for it.
A proper use would be something along the lines of "Harry's slanderous accusations of racism are beyond the pale."
Your use, however, is completely wrong, for the simple reason that I have never discussed Germany's accepting more than a million refugees in moral terms. Therefore, you have no basis on which to conclude I think that decision is "beyond the pale."
You must be the only person I know with the time to search for years of online conversation in order to find exact quotes (which are not even searchable in most blogs).
My memory for words isn't quite eidetic, but it is headed that direction.
Of course, you have the option to entirely ignore my comments, if that sounds unreasonable. I guess you will need to ignore 99,9999% of the comments sections of all other blogs too, though.
Oh, I'd say that comments on most threads are generally less than 50% worthless.
[M:] You insist on dealing with hypotheticals in the absence of any real data. I maintain that the incidence of minors being used as passkeys to get across the border was minimal (prior to the "zero tolerance" policy) compared to the incidence of actual families (usually refugees) doing so …
ReplyDeleteOkay, here is some real data:
What about families trying to cross the border illegally?
The number of family units apprehended has increased since fiscal year 2013, the first year for which we have such data. While 3.6 percent of those apprehended in 2013 were in a family unit, the proportion was 24.9 percent in 2017.
In fiscal year 2013, according to Customs and Border Protection data, there were 14,855 people apprehended on the Southwest border who were part of a “family unit” — those are individuals, including children under 18, parents or legal guardians, apprehended with a family member.
The number increased significantly in fiscal year 2014 to 68,445. Then, it dropped the following year to 39,838, before increasing again in fiscal year 2016 to 77,674. The figure was similar in 2017, and it’s on track to again top 70,000 this fiscal year.
That's an 800% increase over 5 years.
Well, yes and no. It's an 800% increase between 2013 and 2014, which fits no one's narrative, including yours. Notably, crossings by unaccompanied children increased by about the same magnitude between 2011-2014. Seems to me we should be looking for an external influence on illegal border crossings by children both with and without their families in the early 2010s. Disintegrating sociopolitical situations in Central America around that time would fit the bill; "incentivizing" family immigration does not, just based on dates.
Delete[M:] As it stands, however, Friedman was wrong: modern welfare states practically depend upon having less developed countries nearby.
ReplyDeleteYou mischaracterize what Friedman clearly said: You can't have free immigration and a welfare state adjacent to less developed countries.
Please note the alternative is not no immigration. There is a huge difference between legal immigration adjusted to our society's needs, and an open border. You fail to acknowledge that.
As for your last question, stop playing coy. We all know exactly what the problem the Right has with 11 million illegal immigrants is, and it's not a problem they would have if they weren't brown.
There you go with the progressive reflex. When there are no arguments to support your narrative, scream "racism" at the top of your lungs. Massive unconstrained immigration has very real effects, not all of them good, and certainly not uniformly distributed.
So please, rather than swinging the racist tar brush of which Harry is so fond, try addressing those issues, instead.
In other words, racism doesn't exist and we should never bring it up. How convenient for you. And how utterly blind.
Delete[Harry:] If the concern is threats to innocent American citizens, such a person is more likely to be murdered by a police officer than by a brown person who sneaked over the border.
ReplyDeleteThe conceptual shortcomings in this are stunning.
Let's start with "innocent". To the extent your numerical assertion — for which you don't bother to provide a source other than your fevered imagination — how many of the 987 people fatally shot by police in 2017 were "innocent"?
To make it clear, how many police shooting were like this?
Okay. One. Any others?
In comparison, how many were suicide by cop? Fleeing arrest while armed? Presented a danger to the public? Used a vehicle as a weapon?
So, once again. How many innocent Americans were killed without justification by police? How many American citizens did illegal immigrants kill?
Facts and concepts, Harry. They matter.
(Oh, and beware the rhetorical question, particularly from you. It almost always includes an army of strawmen, and accompanied by the sound of axe grinding.)
Skipper,
ReplyDelete-----
Your command of English is outstanding. However, perhaps it is not so good as to have conquered the most difficult part of learning any second language: metaphors.
"Beyond the pale" means an action so far beyond the bounds of morality that there cannot possibly be any justification for it.
-----
I disagree my command of English, which is far from perfect, played any role at this point.
I am well aware of what "beyond the pale" means, and used it accordingly.
It is irrelevant if you think the matter at hand is indeed 'beyond the pale', or some subtle level below it. For my purposes, the reference to your thinking had also the intent to provoke a reaction from you, so you would defend your view and possibly attack mine. In this context, we see your constant asking for exact quotes also tend to neutralize a basic aspect of civilized rhetorical duels, which is that small pinch of irony that hints to the weak point, or contradictions, if the stated position of the other side.
You should know it better than me, being the son of an English professor.
It is irrelevant if you think the matter at hand is indeed 'beyond the pale', or some subtle level below it. For my purposes, the reference to your thinking had also the intent to provoke a reaction from you, so you would defend your view and possibly attack mine.
ReplyDeleteYou did not use it accordingly, your use was a non sequitur; that is, while your understanding of the metaphor is apparently correct, it didn't follow in even the tiniest way from anything I have ever said. No wonder I thought you didn't get it.
I'm trying to figure out in what way you differ from a typing monkey, with little likelihood of success.
In this context, we see your constant asking for exact quotes also tend to neutralize a basic aspect of civilized rhetorical duels...
The reason I constantly ask for exact quotes is that you relentlessly neutralize a basic aspect of civilized rhetorical duels by either comprehensively mis-understanding or mis-remembering what I have said (where you aren't willfully making stuff up).
There is no cheaper shot more guaranteed to render a civilized debate a complete waste of time than that.
What's even more puzzling is that I have a very long and near-perfect track record of quoting others directly, yet this is the very first I have heard that I am neutralizing civilized rhetorical duels. Perhaps you can explain that.
Speaking of cheap shots, here we see a perfect example:
ReplyDelete"I'm trying to figure out in what way you differ from a typing monkey, with little likelihood of success."
See, that's not a civilized provocation at all.
I was simply trying to get to you that slightly exaggerating your position in a topic is standard rhetorical practice, and to ask for exact quotes betrays a lack of sophistication. Your answer, of course, makes entirely clear that sophistication is not your business.
Your mother, I am sure, would be ashamed.
[Clovis:] I was simply trying to get to you that slightly exaggerating your position in a topic is standard rhetorical practice ...
ReplyDeleteAnd I am trying to get you to understand that you cannot -- not may not, cannot -- exaggerate a position I have never taken.
As if that isn't bad enough, you did that with someone who likely has no idea what it is I have actually said.
I'm trying to figure out in what way you differ from a typing monkey, with little likelihood of success.
That was in response to this:
For my purposes, the reference to your thinking had also the intent to provoke a reaction from you, so you would defend your view and possibly attack mine.
And the reaction is what you provoked. Your characterization of my thinking about the morality of immigration into the EU, about which I have never spoken, is so random, so divorced from reality, that a monkey might as well have typed it.
Never mind that.
ReplyDeleteHarry wants to throw a bunch of people in jail.
Given the huge increase in minors coming across the border as a result of existing policy, what's the best course of action?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
And I am trying to get you to understand that you cannot -- not may not, cannot -- exaggerate a position I have never taken.
As if that isn't bad enough, you did that with someone who likely has no idea what it is I have actually said.
---
You have, in past, made numerous comments against Germany's immigration policy. I just won't bother to go back to find them - time and again, you will present us with your opinions about refugees and Muslims, as you often do. Our very small community of bloggers around here are, by now, well aware of your line of thinking. I dare say no one needs your exact quotes anymore to arrive at their own conclusions.
You have, in past, made numerous comments against Germany's immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteI have made many comments about some of the consequences of Germany's immigration policy -- they have all been factual in nature (i.e., possible to ascertain as being correct or incorrect).
Not one of them has had any moral angle. That is why "beyond the pale" is completely misplaced; it is a non-sequitur.
To repeat: "beyond the pale" means I have asserted that there is absolutely no justifiable moral basis for Merkle's decision. That is not an exaggeration, that is completely wrong. Now, if you want to characterize my thinking as believing there are significant negative consequences to that decision, that would be both correct, and a statement of the glaringly obvious.
But a moral decision can have negative consequences; at some point the latter may outweigh the former, but that absolutely doesn't mean the decision is "beyond the pale".
Aside from your thoroughgoing confusion on this, by saying I think Merkle's decision is beyond the pale, you are implicitly, but quite pointedly, nonetheless, accusing me of thinking that these immigrants, as a group, are so awful that helping them is morally untenable.
When you make an accusation like that, you had bloody well better back it up with things I've said, because that is extremely nasty.
Otherwise, you place yourself in the Harry's League of Incontinent Slanderers.
Or maybe you are misguided yourself:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/beyond--the--pale
The moral connotation is not unique.
No, I am not misguided. Here is a very recent usage example:
ReplyDeleteThe American Left, having lost the contest of ideas — the Left’s last big idea was Marxism, which never has been successfully replaced as an intellectual foundation — is in the grip of moral hysteria, and its main occupation is heretic-hunting, inventing ever-more-absurd pretexts for simply declaring beyond the pale any idea or intellectual opponent progressives cannot successfully engage or, nearly as often, to bounce any white male occupying cultural space the heretic-hunters covet.
"Idioms
ReplyDeletebeyond the pale, beyond the limits of propriety, courtesy, protection, safety, etc.:"
Propriety and courtesy are related to morals, but protection and safety?
Its wiki page also display other uses:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/beyond_the_pale
Apparently, the moral connection is most often evoked in more recent times, but to use it like I did (unacceptable policy) looks to be within the boundary of this pale.
But, English subtleties apart, I would have no problem defending the moral connotation you imply from my discourse.
We have established, in this very same blog at some past thread, that you are prejudiced towards Muslims. It is no stretch to infer that you would be against accepting one million of them no matter what other objections (moral or otherwise) you may have about Merkel.
[Clovis:] We have established, in this very same blog at some past thread, that you are prejudiced towards Muslims.
ReplyDeleteNo, what we have established is that you are so insistent upon finding prejudice that you can't follow a clear argument.
If you bothered to quote what I said, and reply to what I said, you would have a real challenge showing that I am prejudiced against Muslims qua Muslims.
In contrast, it would be simple to demonstrate that I strongly dislike certain elements of Islam, and that fundamentalist Muslims don't belong in the West.
It is exactly the same argument anyone would find completely acceptable about Nazism, and those who adhere to it.
Further, and the evidence is undeniable (see The Pew Charitable Trust surveys on Muslim attitudes) that substantial numbers of Muslims in the middle east have attitudes on various subjects that are, to my eyes, anyway, are utterly reprehensible. Anti-Judaism, for just one example, is pervasive, and toxic.
So, no, you haven't established anything except you failed to come anywhere close to understanding my argument.
Remember, the fundamental element of clear thinking is the ability to state the positions of people with whom you disagree in a way they would find accurate and fair.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteThank you. As I knew would happen, you instantly provided far more evidence to my point than I could. Your stated positions above are (and this was my argument back in the other thread too) within my definition of prejudice.
---
Remember, the fundamental element of clear thinking is the ability to state the positions of people with whom you disagree in a way they would find accurate and fair.
---
I sometimes go even beyond that: if the topic is important enough, I will make an effort to internalize the arguments to myself. The old "put myself on your shoes". I honestly can not hold your positions and still feel morally justified. By the contrary, they are morally degrading.
As you at some point of the other thread rightly concluded, your positions naturally lead you to judge people you know nothing about, by mere looks and appearance (as the example back then of a dining couple in Muslim garments), and that's the most basic level of prejudice.
Though you rightly state that clear thinking requires "the ability to state the positions of people whom you disagree" (hence of understanding their arguments to the best of both yours and theirs knowledge), you apparently make no effort to extend this concept to all aspects of life, not only the rhetorical duels you engage with at blogs. You apparently gave up on training other people's shoes.
The United States now has a fascist government, and while I do not see everyone accepting that, it is being accepted by -- according to polls -- 81% of Republicans. Americans need to stop calling ourselves a democratic country. It has never been one in my lifetime.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Thank you. As I knew would happen, you instantly provided far more evidence to my point than I could. Your stated positions above are (and this was my argument back in the other thread too) within my definition of prejudice.
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea. Quote exactly what I said, include your definition of prejudice (so that we may compare it to what the rest of the world uses) and make a bloody argument.
And then, having done that, how about addressing the problem at hand. I can't help but notice that M, having been presented with facts, has apparently scarpered.
Here is a perfect example of failing to do so: As you at some point of the other thread rightly concluded, your positions naturally lead you to judge people you know nothing about, by mere looks and appearance (as the example back then of a dining couple in Muslim garments), and that's the most basic level of prejudice.
Okay, let's take that as read. You see some people walking by wearing Nazi regalia. You know nothing about them except what they are wearing.
Your reaction is?
The United States now has a fascist government ...
Hey, Harry. I have an idea. Provide the definition of fascist government (pro-tip: it is rather more involved than merely any government Harry doesn't like), give us some evidence, and make a bloody argument.
Americans need to stop calling ourselves a democratic country.
Only the ignorant make that assertion. We live in a republic, which by definition isn't democratic. Why don't you know this?
Check again.
DeleteYou present "facts" that are doctored and selected to fit your thesis, which is this perverse projection of what you imagine desperate people might do to get away from their situations. Your ignorance is stunning, albeit not unusual, especially for Trump administration apologists, for whom empathy is a dirty word. I presented some additional facts derived from the article you cited and didn't hear back from you.
DeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
Okay, let's take that as read. You see some people walking by wearing Nazi regalia. You know nothing about them except what they are wearing.
Your reaction is?
---
My reaction is, "Oh my God, we had that same argument in that same previous thread". You ask me to "make a bloody argument", so I refer you back to the one we had. And you just claimed, in this very same thread, to have a good memory.
Truth is Sir, you are often drinking while blogging, and your memory is really not that good.
As for prejudice, I should have remarked I use the standard definition, like you find in so many dictionaries, or the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
"Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person or group member based solely on that person's group membership. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, feelings towards people or a person because of their sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics."
See, like judging strangers dining in a table while using the garments of their culture of origin. You are a textbook bigot, Mr. Skipper, there is no longer bloody argument to be made about it.
Clovis:
ReplyDeleteThe reason we are having this bloody argument again, is because you failed to take it on board the first time: you failed to respond to it then, and you are failing to respond to it now.
So, do us all a favor. Stop drafting armies of straw men, and use that fancy cut and paste thing to provide us all the words I used, as I used them.
Or go home. Your evasions are getting really, really, tiresome.
M:
ReplyDeleteYou present "facts" that are doctored and selected to fit your thesis, which is this perverse projection of what you imagine desperate people might do to get away from their situations.
Beware of passive voice. Doctored? By whom?
Instead, take the direct approach. I presented you with ascertainable facts. Do they reflect reality? If not, how are they incorrect?
If they do reflect reality, then what does that mean?
Well, yes and no. It's an 800% increase between 2013 and 2014, which fits no one's narrative, including yours. Notably, crossings by unaccompanied children increased by about the same magnitude between 2011-2014.
Hmmm. What was US policy towards unaccompanied children between 2011-2014?
And you are also left with the presence of a plausible cause -- free passage into the US for adults with minors -- that has no plausible effect. That could be true, but that also needs some explaining.
Your ignorance is stunning, albeit not unusual, especially for Trump administration apologists, for whom empathy is a dirty word.
Or, you can be an asshole.
In that case, go straight to hell.
I'm not the one trying to justify child kidnapping and gloss over child abuse with what essentially amounts to "They're only following orders."
DeleteSeriously, that is exactly what you sound like.
Not even a throat-clearing to express regret for the utter incompetence of an administration ready to separate children from parents but not ready to make any reasonable plan for accommodating those children or preparing for eventual reunion. You folks like to bring up the rule of law and make comparisons to what happens to the children of U.S. citizens sent to jail, but there is no comparison. Those kids are accounted for. These kids weren't. But then, their welfare was never the point, and is not anything that seems to concern you.
"Hmmm. What was US policy towards unaccompanied children between 2011-2014?"
ReplyDeleteExactly what it was for the 14 years beforehand.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
The reason we are having this bloody argument again, is because you failed to take it on board the first time: you failed to respond to it then, and you are failing to respond to it now.
---
I pointed out why you were prejudiced then, and did so again now. The ball is in your court: I gave you a simple definition of prejudice and how you fit, either you show were is my mistake, or just be honest to yourself.
---
Or go home. Your evasions are getting really, really, tiresome
---
The day Harry tells me to go, I will.
Meanwhile, maybe you should heed your own advice.
Harry is now living in Maryland and recovering from the move. I hope to be back in action soon.
ReplyDelete(Clovis, M, between traveling and guests, it will take me until Tuesday to put together proper responses.)
ReplyDelete[M:] I'm not the one trying to justify child kidnapping and gloss over child abuse with what essentially amounts to "They're only following orders."
ReplyDeleteWow. Who knew that attempting to accurately describe the situation ends up in "they're only following orders"?
Just to reiterate, you mischaracterized Friedman's observation about free immigration and a welfare state adjacent to less developed countries. Along with accusing me of dealing in hypotheticals. When faced with the facts, you then accused me, without any justification, of cherry-picking data. Moreover, you didn't notice that the 800% increase in "families" (scare quotes, because no one really knows how many minors are related to the adults they are caught with) is against a background of flat to somewhat declining illegal immigration.
Regarding the large increase of illegal border crossings by children between 2011 and 2014, there was, in fact, a change in policy:
Some lawmakers, however, argue the youths – and the smuggling rings bringing them in – are exploiting U.S. policy, which allows youngsters from Central American countries other than Mexico to be released to an adult living in the USA while awaiting their court hearing. Mexican youth are returned to an agency in that country.
…
But that policy of allowing the children to reunite with adults in the USA could be fueling the influx, said Cabrera, the border agent. The unaccompanied children often arrive with a slip of paper in their pocket with the information from their home country and the name and number of their contact in the USA. Once across the border, they're instructed to turn themselves in and play the system, he said.
So we are left right were we started:
Which is why I ask what the alternative is: what we have now is essentially an open-border policy for those caught with accompanying children.
So one alternative is to simply acquiesce to this ongoing illegal immigration, and be honest about preferring that to securing our borders.
But presuming that the majority of US citizens aren't in favor of open borders, which they aren't, then what is the alternative?
So instead of slinging Harry's Rascist Tar Brush™, how about accurately describing the problem and justifying an alternative?
There is nothing in the article you cite about a change in policy. Rather, it would appear to be a change in how existing policy was being exploited. So in the absence of any concrete evidence that policy changed ca. 2011, I'm still left with the simple fact that there were dramatic changes in already destitute Central American nations right around that time. Moreover, these aren't immigrants by convenience; they are genuine refugees. In that respect, I would be happy with the pre-Trump policy. I see no evidence that it didn't work for America as well as it worked for a bunch of Latino children and their families. And it certainly beats concentration camps for kids and anti-family immigration policies.
DeleteI maintain, however, regardless of your protestations, that we aren't even having this conversation if the immigrants in question are considered "white." There's a long history on that, which one has to ignore to deny this sort of thing, even if the modern sentiment isn't obvious.
And sure, once I acknowledge every hem and haw Friedman made, my initial statement can be called a mischaracterization. Applying his statement to U.S. immigration, however, is then equally so. We do not have "free immigration" (else we wouldn't manage to turn away tens of thousands each year) nor are we a genuine "welfare state," and of course illegal immigrants are not eligible for any part of the welfare apparatus that does exist.
DeleteI guess Skipper, taking Friedman as religious dogma, couldn't process the point you were questioning his point as absolute.
Delete[M:] There is nothing in the article you cite about a change in policy. Rather, it would appear to be a change in how existing policy was being exploited.
ReplyDeleteThat is a distinction without difference.
I maintain, however, regardless of your protestations, that we aren't even having this conversation if the immigrants in question are considered "white."
You can maintain that all you want, but just because you think so doesn't mean you are right, nor that your opinion is relevant.
The fact -- and it is a fact -- is that illegal immigrants are increasingly becoming aware of, and exploiting, immigration law, policies, and court decisions to gain free access to the US if caught crossing the border.
Harry wants everyone enforcing the law to be thrown in jail. Interesting point of view, and certainly one that seems to much less preferable to changing the law so that people who enforce it aren't being threatened with jail by deep thinkers such as Harry.
Of course, changing the law would require filling in the "to what" blank, and then gaining sufficient political support to enact the "to what".
Which is what I mean when I asked, "what's the alternative?" immediately before you and Clovis completely went off the rails.
Oh, at the risk of being repetitious, it doesn't much matter how correct Friedman is, nor what is going on in South America, the phenomena is what it is, and that is what is important.
It matters precisely because it _isn't_ correct. The U.S. is not a true welfare state with "free immigration." And I've answered your "what's the alternative" question at least twice at this point (and probably again in another comment thread) - the alternative is what we were doing before. It wasn't a problem. It was, in fact, a boon for the U.S., in that we get the most motivated and resourceful individuals (and their children) from countries too disfunctional to retain them. Much better than getting what Trump and his administration seem to want, which is the idle rich from predominantly white countries.
ReplyDeleteAs for my opinion regarding the racist over/undertones of the immigration "debate" - historically, it isn't a debate, it's fact. The burden is squarely on you to somehow convince the majority of people in this country - including a fair proportion of the anti-immigration crowd - who are, unlike you, not in denial and/or well aware of it, that _this_ time around the motivations are different, and that the outcome will be different. To me, that's a fool's errand, but you've tilted at that windmill for 47 comments of this thread so far.
Finally - "distinction without a difference." Not in this context. Your original comment strongly implied that something had changed - an implicit invitation from the Obama administration, presumably - to invite the increased influx of Latin American children. I find this ludicrous, and of course in none of the articles you've cited thus far is there any indication of a change in actual U.S. policy at that time, as opposed to the drastic and, in human terms, disastrous policy change of 2018. The laws involved haven't been touched since 1997.
[M:] The U.S. is not a true welfare state with "free immigration."
ReplyDeleteThe US is very much a redistributive welfare state with a generous safety net. Less so than Western Europe and Canada, but a heck of a lot further along that spectrum than any other country in the Americas.
And I've answered your "what's the alternative" question at least twice at this point (and probably again in another comment thread) - the alternative is what we were doing before.
But that isn't an answer, because doing what we did before led directly to the problem we have now. The more the word spread that crossing the border illegally with minors led to immediate release, the more people crossed the border illegally with minors. It is a huge incentive that you insisted did not exist, but is the only explanation for the huge increase in illegal immigration with accompanying minors.
Just as with minors themselves from 2011-2014.
The proximity of a wealthy redistributive country to poor countries isn't sustainable without secure borders. And by sustainable, I mean that the volume of illegal immigration will result in many people whose material self-interests are harmed, and many more who will sympathize with them. Even if, theoretically, the US is rich enough to sustain that level of immigration, the electorate will not agree to it, and therefore it is not sustainable.
As for my opinion regarding the racist over/undertones of the immigration "debate" - historically, it isn't a debate, it's fact.
Oh for pete's sake, stop it with the racist crap. All that amounts to is you relieving yourself of having to answer real objections.
Finally - "distinction without a difference." Not in this context. Your original comment strongly implied that something had changed - an implicit invitation from the Obama administration ...
For the love of God, why can't progressives figure out how cut and paste works?
I did no such thing. It should come as no surprise that any policy other than the most trivial is bound to come with unintended consequences, and that those consequences unfold over time. I never once even much as hinted that the Obama administration had any nefarious scheme in mind. Rather, the confluence of policies and court decisions have created a situation where the US southern border is essentially open to those who cross it with minors in tow.
Harry, in his rantful way, wants to throw those whose job is to enforce the law in prison, without considering for a second what the alternative is.
One alternative, of course, is to convince the electorate that as many people as feel like it can cross the southern border with children in tow.
But just in case that fails -- which it will, no matter how often you tell people who disagree with you that they are moral defectives -- then perhaps you need to have another idea in mind.
Which is exactly what I was getting at 47 posts ago, and both you and Clovis have relentlessly derailed ever since.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
The proximity of a wealthy redistributive country to poor countries isn't sustainable without secure borders. [...]
Which is exactly what I was getting at 47 posts ago, and both you and Clovis have relentlessly derailed ever since.
---
I am only derailed by your ignorance, which is vast.
I have direct knowledge - meaning I personally met in life as acquaintances - nearly a dozen people who were/are illegal immigrants in the USA.
I have the same level of direct knowledge about another dozen who are *legal* immigrants in the USA.
I can not recall one, even one single case, where their motivation to immigrate was related to expectation of living off of US welfare state.
Now, maybe you know something I don't. Maybe you have personally met dozens of immigrants from South America in the US, and concluded otherwise. If so, we sure have an interesting statistical deviation to study here.
But chances are very high, to the point I can bet money on them, that you have never met a dozen such people. Chances are very high that you never spent more than 30 seconds speaking to illegal immigrants in the US.
Chances are very high that, when Mr. M concludes you are a racist, he is only half wrong. Above all, you are ignorant. Your present slide to racist tendencies (if I believe Harry this wasn't always thus) just follows.
'I maintain, however, regardless of your protestations, that we aren't even having this conversation if the immigrants in question are considered "white." '
ReplyDeleteJust so. There is a white country with a national office that supports illegal immigration but no racist ever complains about it
The Tibbetts case reinforces the conclusion that racism drives current policy, just as the Horton case did 30 years ago
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] I can not recall one, even one single case, where their motivation to immigrate was related to expectation of living off of US welfare state.
ReplyDeleteA. Dozens doth not a representative sample make.
B. Why were they going to the US?
C. With respect to the immigration debate, what difference does it make?
Now, maybe you know something I don't.
Indeed, I do. In order for welfare benefits to not be an incentive for illegal immigrants, then US welfare benefits must be wholly restricted to citizens and legal resident aliens.
Wrong.
Wrong again.
NB: those sources are hostile to the claim.
And wrong some more:
When we sum all the figures, including $11.9 billion for the uninsured and another $6.6 billion in tax subsidies, we arrive at a grand total of $18.5 billion in subsidized health care for all unauthorized immigrants in 2016. This amounts to $57 per U.S. resident. The share that concerns me the most--$11.2 billion borne by federal taxpayers--amounts to $34 per U.S. resident.
Oh, and a public K-12 education, along with free meals for children from low-income families, is guaranteed regardless of immigration status. On a rough average, that guarantee is worth $10k per child.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the existence of incentives doesn't incentivize. I'm sure you can explain how that works to me, who is so woefully ignorant.
Your present slide to racist tendencies …
Here is the definition for racist: showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
So, using that definition, then please provide direct quotes that come anywhere close to it, whether singly, or in combination.
If you can't, and it is certain you won't be able to, then you are just as guilty as Harry of slinging baseless slanders. Why that is that so prevalent amongst progressives?
[Harry:] 'I maintain, however, regardless of your protestations, that we aren't even having this conversation if the immigrants in question are considered "white."
ReplyDeleteI maintain that if the immigrants in question were lawyers, bankers, and university academics/administrators, we aren't having this conversation.
Because the border would have been secured decades ago.
I cut and paste fine. I could ask why you can't scroll up?
ReplyDelete"The problem originated during the Obama presidency...A judge deciding that children of illegal immigrants could not be held in detention with their parents for more than 21 days...The confluence of that decision and administration's approach to border enforcement meant that adults with minors were released within the US, on a promise to appear for a deportation meeting."
The Obama administration's "approach to border enforcement," in this context, was no different than the approach that had been taken by the two preceding administrations since the relevant law was passed in 1997. The only court decision that I know of that is relevant to family separations in 2018 occurred in 2001. The "wave" that so concerns you started after 2012. So what are you talking about? What part of it originated during Obama's presidency?
"Oh for pete's sake, stop it with the racist crap. All that amounts to is you relieving yourself of having to answer real objections."
ReplyDeleteI have eyes that see, and they see all sorts of "racist crap." If the "racist crap" isn't part of the "debate," then there isn't one. You need to explain to me: are you seriously trying to say that racism hasn't been a major component, if not _the_ major component, of anti-immigrant sentiment for every wave before now? I have a file with a passage written by none other than Benjamin Franklin, lamenting the low character of the German race of immigrants, which he feared would overrun the former colonies and transform the culture into something unrecognizable. "Real objections" have always been window dressing to obscure the baser motivations involved.
If racism isn't part of the discussion, we're not having one, either because you're spouting falsehoods, or worse, you've come to believe them yourself.
If racism isn't part of the discussion, we're not having one, either because you're spouting falsehoods, or worse, you've come to believe them yourself.
ReplyDeleteRacism isn't part of the discussion because it isn't part of the problem.
Which is this: the confluence of US policy and a court decision has created a de facto open southern border for adults crossing illegally with minors.
Please explain to me which part of that description is inaccurate, or involves race.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteSince you decided to argue by links, I get from them that this meager alms-giving you call "welfare" for illegal immigrants is truly strong incentive for them to migrate to the US.
Let's check your numbers. First, healthcare: $18 Billions per year to aprox. 11 million illegals gives you on the order of $1000 per immigrant per year, distributed in very unevenly and indirect ways. In a country where $1 grand in cash can not fix your kid's broken arm, what to say of that hypothetical money?
The next item of golden welfare ticket on your list is... schools. Apparently, you are unaware that most of Latin America provides universal, free education for its kids since at least 3 decades ago. So your theory is that all those families are desperate to grab those hypothetical equivalent of 10k per child in education, in order to save ALL of the zero money they have been spending on their kid's education back in their home country. An interesting theory indeed, though I am afraid you will never land a job with passing relation to economics.
Somehow, none of those arguments are helping you against my charge of ignorance.
What's more, you probably went googling all around the internet to find any data or argument, and the best you find broadly contradicts your point.
Not only that, you very suspiciously let out the most damning data: Immigrants and Their Children Use Less Welfare than Third-and-Higher Generation Americans.
Want to spend less with welfare? Start deporting the natives and bring in the immigrants.
As for your questions:
"A. Dozens doth not a representative sample make."
Says the guy with a zero sample.
BTW, the minimum number for statistical significance is 10.
"B. Why were they going to the US?"
Five basic reasons cover all cases I know: 1) Jobs (any job at all); 2) Jobs at a better pay; 3) Jobs at a better pay with less working hours; 4) More safety for their family (so maybe you can count police spenditure as welfare too?); 5) Did I mention jobs?
"C. With respect to the immigration debate, what difference does it make?"
With respect to the debate within this thread, it goes a great length to show why Mr. M is not unfair when judging you (and many others in this debate) are moved by racism.
After all, the vast majority of the LA immigrants are moved simply by the American dream. They want to work, and often work harder than the natives at lower salaries, and make a living off their own hands.
Why then you tar them as a group, posing they present higher risks as criminals (the other debate you showed you ignorance at), or as lazy takers looking for welfare? They are the opposite: less prone to commit crimes and less prone to use welfare, by statistics easily found even inside your right wing bubble.
You both pose they are migrating for the welfare, while complainig they take far too many jobs (your kip on the border being closed long ago if they were taking higher class jobs too). Which is which, Mr. Skipper, are they lazy takers or too eager workers?
The majority of illegal immigrants go to the US for the exact same reason the legal ones do: they are in pursuit of happiness.
But being not able to see them as equals, as possessing the same dignity as of every other man, you go looking for the strangest reasons for them to migrate. As if crossing a desert, just to risk losing your kids to a Walmart transformed into a chicken cage, was just another incentive you should add to those free hotdogs they'll grab in the schools.
The ball is in your court, Mr. Skipper. What other reason, apart from racism, should we look for in order to explain your willful ignorance?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Why then you tar them as a group ... as lazy takers looking for welfare?
ReplyDeleteYou very much need to directly quote what I said that tars illegal immigrants as lazy takers looking for welfare, and exactly how what I said does so.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Regarding criminality, or lack thereof: I think I made a decent case that the statistics you cited weren't adequate to demonstrate anything, one way or the other. [...] The public's sensitivity to crime isn't solely a function of the crime itself.
---
You only made a decent case of beclowning yourself. You give the game away when shifting the subject from objective measure to the subjective one.
---
How much cash do poor people actually have to pay to get medical care in the US?
---
I don't know how it is today, after ACA, but the descriptons illegal immigrants to the US gave me years ago are that, if you are poor and uninsured, health care was the only thing that really sucked more in US than in Brazil for them.
So I guess the answer, at least back then, was "they pay zero cash and most often get zero treatment".
---
What in Lord's name does that have to do with whether the welfare available acts as an incentive?
---
You tell me. The thing that supposedly most motivate then to go to America, is the one they least get. Crazy, right?
---
I would have a zero sample if illegal immigration was zero.
---
It was clear I meant direct experience with the pool. Unless you present some, you don't get to question mine.
---
Welfare benefits are, in fact, available to illegal immigrants. You owe us an explanation of why they do not act as an incentive. Just to repeat, your insinuation that I termed illegal immigrants as lazy takers is taken straight from Harry's giant bag of ranting the odious. I never said any such thing. Therefore, I expect an apology.
---
So in the same phrase you imply they are takers just following the incentive welfare presents to them - because I can't see other reason for you to keep propping up whatever meager cents they get - you also expect me to apology for taking your reasoning to its logical consequence.
What a nerve.
---
How about addressing that, rather than inventing malevolence out of thin air?
---
Skipper, I did not see you, at any point, denouncing their treatment of those kids in chicken cages. At some point, you observed something along the lines 'they may be better this way than wherefrom they came' (you go look for your exact shameful quote).
See, there is no need to invent 'malevolence out of thin air'. You can't see it for lack of a mirror, and character.
Clovis, I decided to delete my original reply, and focus on just one part of what you said. Unfortunately, we cross posted. So, for the record, here is the entirety of what you were responding to:
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Why then you tar them as a group, posing they present higher risks as criminals (the other debate you showed you ignorance at), or as lazy takers looking for welfare?
What does it take for you to quote me directly? You have completely mangled everything I have said on the subject, which would be perfectly clear had you fussed yourself sufficiently to manage an even basic level of cut and paste competence.
Regarding criminality, or lack thereof: I think I made a decent case that the statistics you cited weren't adequate to demonstrate anything, one way or the other. And there is another element you should comprehend, but apparently can't. The public's sensitivity to crime isn't solely a function of the crime itself.
The Parkland High School shootings of several months ago were easily bad enough. But people's reaction to them was made far worse because there were plenty of squandered opportunities to prevent it. Similarly to any crime perpetrated by an illegal immigrant. The crime itself isn't the only thing, because, if the law had been followed, the immigrant wouldn't have been here in the first place.
… or as lazy takers of welfare.
[Memo to self: simmer down.]
Surely your reading comprehension can't possibly be that bad. Surely, you must see the need here to quote exactly what I said in order to justify your conclusion. Unless, of course, you realize doing so would raise real difficulties for you.
Is $1000 per illegal any incentive at all? Depends. What is the average income for illegal immigrants to the US?
How does $10k per student in the US compare to what is spent in most of Latin America?
How much cash do poor people actually have to pay to get medical care in the US?
Not only that, you very suspiciously let out the most damning data: Immigrants and Their Children Use Less Welfare than Third-and-Higher Generation Americans.
What in Lord's name does that have to do with whether the welfare available acts as an incentive?
"A. Dozens doth not a representative sample make."
Says the guy with a zero sample.
I would have a zero sample if illegal immigration was zero. It isn't. Its magnitude is the sample.
You both pose they are migrating for the welfare, while complaining they take far too many jobs. … Which is which, Mr. Skipper, are they lazy takers or too eager workers?
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
If you don't, that is a perfect example.
Welfare benefits are, in fact, available to illegal immigrants. You owe us an explanation of why they do not act as an incentive. Just to repeat, your insinuation that I termed illegal immigrants as lazy takers is taken straight from Harry's giant bag of ranting the odious. I never said any such thing. Therefore, I expect an apology.
Which I will not get, because progressives never apologize for their character assassinations.
I noted above, and there is no doubting this, that had all these illegal immigrants been lawyers, accountants, and university professors, the border would have been secured decades ago.
I happen to think that US citizens who happen to be manual laborers deserve the same consideration.
With respect to the debate within this thread, it goes a great length to show why Mr. M is not unfair when judging you (and many others in this debate) are moved by racism.
What has gone to a very great length here is the relentless avoidance by you, M and Harry of an extant situation.
How about addressing that, rather than inventing malevolence out of thin air?
Now, I want to address this specifically:
ReplyDelete[Me:] How about addressing that, rather than inventing malevolence out of thin air?
[Clovis:] Skipper, I did not see you, at any point, denouncing their treatment of those kids in chicken cages. At some point, you observed something along the lines 'they may be better this way than wherefrom they came' (you go look for your exact shameful quote).
See, there is no need to invent 'malevolence out of thin air'. You can't see it for lack of a mirror, and character.
Here is a perfect example of why I keep asking you to quote me directly. Because, as happens all the time, either your reading comprehension has failed you, or you have intentionally mangled what I clearly said and meant.
So, to do what you won't (Took me all of one minute. In addition to copy & paste, using the page search function — ctrl-f — makes the already easy even easier. You should try it. At least once would be nice.)
Here what I actually said:
No doubt these children are, for brief periods, in less than ideal conditions. But they aren't chicken cages, and may well be materially better than where they came from.
NB: This isn't to minimize the problem. But aside from being separated from parents (keeping in mind the rapidly increasing frequency of faux parental relationships), the conditions aren't the least onerous.
So, despite having been corrected, you not only continue to refer to non-existent chicken cages.
Then you have the gall to label "… may well be materially better than where they came from." as somehow shameful.
Surely you can use your faculties of reason — even to the extent progressives possess such a thing — to see that as a statement of fact. It is either right or wrong, but it carries no moral component whatsoever.
Moreover, as a matter of fact, are you willing to insist that the US confinement facilities are not materially better than what is increasingly common in Venezuela?
I doubt it.
Which means your accusation was fronted by getting a basic fact wrong, then completely failing to take on board clear word meaning and intent.
And not for the first time, either.
Instances of an illegal imigrant's murdering an american virgin are vanishingly rare. More commonly, American entrepreneurs murder illegal immligrants.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is about 2 orders of magnitude.
My daughter knows the Tibbetteses through a cousin who was her college roommate. She tells me the family is incensed by the use rightwingers are making of the crime
This is from the reliably, reflexively, thoughtlessly progressive David Leonhardt of the NYT Op Ed section. (I can't provide a link, because it comes to me as a subscriber email).
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it’s possible to have an honest conversation about the Tibbetts debate without acknowledging the role that race plays. But I also think that David A. French’s piece in National Review is worth reading, especially for progressives.
French starts the piece by acknowledging the role of racism. That’s not his focus, though. His goal, instead, is to persuade readers that race is not the sole reason that the Tibbetts case resonates with so many people.
“There are reasons why illegal-immigrant crime can carry a poignant punch among people of good will,” French writes. “The murderer wasn’t supposed to be here. I’m reminded of the pain that people feel when, for example, they find out (in different crimes) that the police didn’t follow up on a lead or a prisoner was wrongly released on parole. The feeling is palpable.”
Imagine, for example, that you heard the killer in a mass shooting had been able to purchase a gun illegally, because of a failure in the background-check system. Wouldn’t that heighten your sense of injustice about the crime? For most of us, the answer is yes. “The official failure magnifies the personal injustice,” as French argues.
We live in a society that is supposed to be governed by laws. When they are not followed or enforced, many people are bothered. And they are right to be. Society functions better when its rules mean something.
I’m outraged by the racism that the many immigrants face, by the lies told about them and by the abuses that the Trump administration is committing against them. None of it is defensible, whether the immigrants arrived here legally or illegally.
But once the disaster of the Trump presidency has passed, the United States really should rewrite its immigration laws with the goal of reducing illegal immigration (as Barack Obama and John McCain, among many other politicians, have advocated over the years). Toothless laws undermine people’s faith in their government — and create all kinds of kindling for mistrust and anger.
Which, all told, shows your comment is rather beside the point.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Clovis, I decided to delete my original reply,
---
That's a strange move, Sir. Why should I keep answering your points, if you delete them yourself?
Speaking of quotes, and before I answer the content, let's compare my memory versus the literal quote. Here was my memory:
"'they may be better this way than wherefrom they came'"
Here goes the literal quote (thanks for providing it):
"[they] may well be materially better than where they came from"
Now, if you ask me, this just shows my memory is working pretty well, contra your complaints.
Now for the content. You tell me:
---
Moreover, as a matter of fact, are you willing to insist that the US confinement facilities are not materially better than what is increasingly common in Venezuela?
---
Such a belief goes a long way to show your wide, wide ignorance on everything south of the border.
And by the way, those kids are better wherever they came from, even Venezuela, because hunger is little nuisance compared to rape and abuse.
---
Which means your accusation was fronted by getting a basic fact wrong, then completely failing to take on board clear word meaning and intent.
---
Which basic fact? There are chicken cages, though they are more often temporary ones - though notice they are the place the kids are first separated and traumatized. My affirmation was thus completely in line and factual.
Furthermore, it ought to be unnecessary to argue, to a parent no less, that material conditions are meaningless for kids frightened by such a separation (when, in the best case scenario, it doesn't come with abuse and rape).
And if you go on again obfuscating on the children who also came alone, or the small number of cases of false claims of kinship, I am out.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
His goal, instead, is to persuade readers that race is not the sole reason that the Tibbetts case resonates with so many people.
---
I am no genius of crime, but I have had my quota of detective books. I think there is much more than meet the eyes in the Tibbetts case. So I recomend you reserve judgment, wait a couple of months and see.
[Hey Skipper:] Clovis, I decided to delete my original reply,
ReplyDelete---
[Clovis:] That's a strange move, Sir. Why should I keep answering your points, if you delete them yourself?
Because I decided after the fact that I wanted to pursue a different point, and figured (incorrectly, as it turned out) no one had seen my original comment.
Which is this:
You wring my comments into pretzels, and not in a good way.
When I said that confinement conditions in the US may well be better than where they came from, that is a statement of fact. Which, of course, could be wrong.
Regardless, there is no moral component to be had there, yet you willingly leap to moral judgment.
Similarly,
[Hey Skipper:] Moreover, as a matter of fact, are you willing to insist that the US confinement facilities are not materially better than what is increasingly common in Venezuela?
---
[Clovis:] Such a belief goes a long way to show your wide, wide ignorance on everything south of the border.
Pro-tip. I have been south of the border. For a couple years, I lived right on the border. That doesn't mean I am all-knowing about either life south of the border, or US confinement facilities, for that matter.
However, based upon what some of what I have seen south of the border, I am inclined to believe that US confinement facilities can not possibly be worse.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But that isn't the point. What is the point is that you, once again, jump straight to charging serious moral deficiency.
Which basic fact? There are chicken cages, though they are more often temporary ones - though notice they are the place the kids are first separated and traumatized. My affirmation was thus completely in line and factual.
Furthermore, it ought to be unnecessary to argue, to a parent no less, that material conditions are meaningless for kids frightened by such a separation (when, in the best case scenario, it doesn't come with abuse and rape).
No, it isn't. For one, you cannot have possibly seen a chicken cage. Instead, what you have read are floridly pejorative accounts.
And furthermore, it ought not be necessary to take stock of what the situation is at the border, how it got to be that way, and what the alternatives are.
Instead of accusing people who are trying to pose that question of gross character defects.
[Clovis:] I am no genius of crime, but I have had my quota of detective books. I think there is much more than meet the eyes in the Tibbetts case. So I recomend you reserve judgment, wait a couple of months and see.
ReplyDeleteObvious point completely missed.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
When I said that confinement conditions in the US may well be better than where they came from, that is a statement of fact. Which, of course, could be wrong.
Regardless, there is no moral component to be had there, yet you willingly leap to moral judgment.
---
It is a statement so obviously wrong that it leads the reader to two possible conclusions: 1) Either you are ignorant of the matter at fantastic levels, or 2) callous and cynical towards the suffering of those children, for reasons that can easily be taken by others as racist ones.
You are, most of the time, a knowledgeable interlocutor, so I jumped to conclusion 2, which leads us directly to moral territory.
Now, if you want to argue against (1), let me go back to my initial argument: of the dozen people I know to have followed the illegal path, I can tell you none of them were in conditions of hunger or lack of shelter.
You may try to see it this way: the same mentality you need to have in order to brave the US under illegal conditions, makes you also the kind of person who won't stay idle waiting food and shelter to come from nowhere, even if you live in a third world society with far less opportunities.
The people crossing the desert often payed up coyotes to the tune of thousands dollars. Do you really think they had no food and shelter back home?
---
Pro-tip. I have been south of the border. For a couple years, I lived right on the border.
---
Which year was that?
And unless you want to present explicit examples of illegal people you've met, telling me you lived so close to the border and learned so little isn't helping you either.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Obvious point completely missed.
---
No, I do get your sentimental point.
But, depending on how the exact details of this crime turn out, the sentiments may change a bit too.
[Clovis:] [Confinement conditions] is a statement so obviously wrong that it leads the reader to two possible conclusions: 1) Either you are ignorant of the matter at fantastic levels, or 2) callous and cynical towards the suffering of those children, for reasons that can easily be taken by others as racist ones.
ReplyDeleteThe glaring wrongness of my supposition should be easily demonstrated. Yet you haven't even tried.
You have no idea what confinement conditions are, and therefore are incapable of comparing them to day-to-day life in, say, Venezuela.
With a bit of googling, I'm sure I can find the exact number, but I'll leave that to you if you doubt my memory. The average Venezuelan has lost something like 8 kilos in body weight over the last five years.
Are you certain that confinement in US facilities offers more hunger than that? If not, then at least at the sustenance level, with respect to Venezuelans, I am right.
But to get to where you are convicting me, you have completely bypassed the problem itself. The more the word gets out that crossing the border with minor children yields a free pass, the more people will cross with minor children.
Do you disagree? I hope not, because you will be fighting reality.
Assuming that is true, then what are the alternatives?
Which is the basic question, the one I posed at the outset, to which, rather than providing any sort of answer, you have reliably attributed the worst motives.
I have an idea. Rather than leaping first to the worst, how about dealing with the problem at hand?
[Clovis:] And unless you want to present explicit examples of illegal people you've met, telling me you lived so close to the border and learned so little isn't helping you either.
ReplyDeleteI would never pretend to use my limited experiences of Central and South America as definitive in any regard.
Just as you shouldn't generalize as definitive your knowledge of a dozen people from Brazil to the entirety of Central and South America.
It's a good example of why argument from authority is a fallacy.
[Clovis:] No, I do get your sentimental point.
ReplyDeleteNB: it isn't my point, but rather that of the avowedly progressive NYT Op Ed pages.
And it is completely independent of who is guilty of the murder. It is a brute fact that crimes committed by people who shouldn't be here are viewed in an entirely different light than those who are legally here.
That is the fact you need to deal with.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
You have no idea what confinement conditions are, and therefore are incapable of comparing them to day-to-day life in, say, Venezuela.
---
Oh, I don't?
Considering the really poor refugees from Venezuela are coming to Brazil - and creating or own border crisis in the North states - I believe I know way more than you do. The gross majority of Venezuelans who went to the US are the rich and higher middle class, for they were the ones with the means to do so.
Try yourself to locate how many, among the 2000+ kids locked up by Trump during those 2 months of abject policy, were Venezuelans - even more, how many were *poor* Venezuelans. You will hardly find that number, but if you do, let me know.
---
Assuming that is true, then what are the alternatives?
Which is the basic question, the one I posed at the outset, to which, rather than providing any sort of answer, you have reliably attributed the worst motives.
---
Wrong. I did answer it way back then (and you claim to have a good memory).
My first point was that the children can not bear the weight of the can kicking that has been your immigration policy for the last half century. I expressed in clear terms that it was very coward of you to do so.
And then I urged you guys to build The Wall - which you ridiculed, until you came up with an amazing opinion piece selling the same point and found it so illuminating.
And in the way to solve the gridlock you guys created yourselves, please try to admire the beauty of the cynical lie you endorse: your Hunter-In-Chief of immigrants used, far and wide, illegal labor on his businesses, made (and still makes) money out of the temporary visas he often disparages, and is supported by all the same cynical Republicans who talk tough on immigration, but hire the illegal who killed Tibbetts.
Own it up some of it too, Mr. Sentimental.
We Americans do not want a humane immigration system that complies with international laws because business likes the method we have just fine.
ReplyDelete[Me:] You have no idea what confinement conditions are, and therefore are incapable of comparing them to day-to-day life in, say, Venezuela.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] Oh, I don't?
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I wonder how you can possibly come up with the responses you do.
It is almost trivially true that you have no idea what confinement conditions are like (and your Pro Publica link, which I read all the way through,k wasn't nearly as damning as you histrionically portrayed it).
And since you do not know that, you also do not know how they compare to day-to-day life in Venezuela, even for the relatively well to do.
From the NYT, several months ago:
Getting food and medicine has become a daily preoccupation here. Most Venezuelans go to bed hungry or are eating less due to food shortages, and moderate to severe malnutrition of children under 5 increased in 2017. Venezuela’s health minister released data last year indicating that, in 2016, maternal mortality increased 65 percent, infant mortality 30 percent, and malaria cases 76 percent. Days later, President Nicolás Maduro fired her.
Mr. Maduro’s government denies that the humanitarian crisis exists. The truth is that failed government policy has ruined the economy, resulting in hyperinflation and severe shortages, and millions of Venezuelans cannot afford to buy food on the open market. Government-controlled rations are their only option.
So, please, by all means show how the conditions in US confinement facilities are worse.
[Clovis:] Wrong. I did answer it way back then (and you claim to have a good memory).
ReplyDeleteMy first point was that the children can not bear the weight of the can kicking that has been your immigration policy for the last half century. I expressed in clear terms that it was very [cowardly] of you to do so.
Illegal immigrants are bringing minors with them crossing the border because the word was out that doing so meant getting a free pass, as evidenced by the huge surge in numbers over the past several years.
Any disagreement with that?
I am happy to agree that children should not be traumatized over choices they didn't make.
What about the people who did make that choice, their parents? What responsibility do they bear? After all, they knowingly brought children along in order to evade the consequences of getting caught.
Funny how that isn't brought up.
And then I urged you guys to build The Wall - which you ridiculed, until you came up with an amazing opinion piece selling the same point and found it so illuminating.
I did not ridicule it, in the sense I thought it a bad idea. Rather, I rejected then as a meaningful solution, just I reject it now, because it can't deal with the situation now.
And now is when the problem is.
So long as illegal immigrants with minors get released if caught, more will do so, because for them the US has an open border.
That is the problem. A border wall, which the US should have had long ago, isn't an alternative until there is a border wall.
In the interim, what's your alternative?
Something I've been meaning to get to:
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] We have established, in this very same blog at some past thread, that you are prejudiced towards Muslims.
No, you didn't.
You made a gross error nearly straightaway, mangling what I said beyond recognition: The difference is quite easy to point out: 1.7 billion of differences.
But I wasn't talking about all Muslims (unlike Harry and democracy), I was talking about a very specific subset of Muslims whose apparel signified pious belief.
Do you think that seeing a woman dressed in a nun's habit signifies something about her beliefs about abortion?
I'm betting you do. Does that mean I get to accuse you of being "prejudiced" against all Catholics?
Of course not, because while reaching that surmise when faced with a person giving you every reason to do so is in no way the same thing as concluding that because nuns are very likely pro-life, all Catholics are pro-life.
The former is the sort of thing sentient beings do all day; the latter is one way groupism works — projecting onto an entire group the characteristics of individual members of that group.
Actually, you and M could stand to re-read that whole thread. It predicted perfectly what has happened here.
Me: We have a growing problem, what's the alternative?
You and M: RACIST!
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
So, please, by all means show how the conditions in US confinement facilities are worse.
---
I will, right after you tell me how many of those 2000+ kids were poor people from Venezuela.
And you gotta to take a laugh out of your reasoning, or lack thereof: I am not supposed to claim I have any idea how US confinement of those children really is - because I have only indirect descriptions I read out there - while your evidence about Venezuela is... an indirect description you read out there.
---
Illegal immigrants are bringing minors with them crossing the border because the word was out that doing so meant getting a free pass, as evidenced by the huge surge in numbers over the past several years.
Any disagreement with that?
---
Unless you can prove that - and all you have are indirect descriptions, I guess - I am under no obligation to agree.
How many people did you interview, among those illegal immigrants, in order to conclude so?
---
In the interim, what's your alternative?
---
Barbed wire?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
But I wasn't talking about all Muslims (unlike Harry and democracy), I was talking about a very specific subset of Muslims whose apparel signified pious belief.
---
So you want to recant that restaurant example you gave?
Or your comparison of swastika-tattoed neonazis to people using the standard garments of their culture?
Because to compare clothes used by a very specific group of people in western culture (nuns) to the ones used by the vast majority in the Eastern-Muslim ones is only to highlight you are very, very bad at analogies.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Me: We have a growing problem, what's the alternative?
You and M: RACIST!
---
We of course differ on the definition of what is the problem that is growing.
From my point of view, it is the exposure of children to abuse, rape and trauma.
To you, it is the entrance of people who will work hard and cheap, plus too much melanina.
I want to solve only the first. I don't care which side of the wall they end up, as far as they are safe (which more often means in constant company of their parents).
Until Trumpeters condemn illegal immigration from Eire and the Irish government's policy of subsidizing it, we can only conclude that their criticism of immigration of brown people is driven by -- and only by -- racism.
ReplyDelete[Clovis:] I will, right after you tell me how many of those 2000+ kids were poor people from Venezuela.
ReplyDeleteMy original statement was that confinement conditions may well have been better than those from where the illegal immigrants came.
That statement is — given the amount of money spent — almost certainly true for at least some, regardless of where they came from.
More important though, is this: you are focusing on something that doesn't make any difference to the point at hand. Make yourself God. Change those conditions in any way you want. What will be the consequence for illegal immigration? If there won't be, and that is the blindingly obvious conclusion, then you need to stop flattening this cat.
… while your evidence about Venezuela is... an indirect description you read out there.
Then all those immigrants from Venezuela into Brazil are merely an indirect description, the mass hunger there is merely a figment of imagination, and every news item about the place is an invention.
Unless you can prove [that illegal immigrants are bringing minors with them because doing so results in a free pass] - and all you have are indirect descriptions, I guess - I am under no obligation to agree.
Then you are under an obligation to explain the massive increase in illegal immigrants with minors during a period of otherwise flat illegal immigration.
Because if you can't, then the only alternative you are left with is an uncaused effect.
Because to compare clothes used by a very specific group of people in western culture (nuns) to the ones used by the vast majority in the Eastern-Muslim ones is only to highlight you are very, very bad at analogies.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you have never been to any Muslim countries.
I have. And based upon that first hand experience, I am in a position to tell you quite definitively that the vast majority of Muslims do not wear the tunic, and even fewer the burqa.
Oh, and it isn't an analogy, it is corollary, which should be bloody obvious (NB: I mistyped the first time I posed this, and shortly thereafter pointed out my mistake.)
You clearly agree there is a reasonable likelihood of correctly ascertaining racial and religious beliefs of those with Nazi signifiers.
Right?
Then the corollary is that there is a reasonable likelihood of ascertaining people's beliefs (and a great many other things) based upon their signifiers, without extending those judgments to people who do not show those signifiers.
That goes for MAGA hats, nuns' habits, or Bernie for President buttons, without imposing that judgment on other people who happen to share physical characteristics.
Those who wear a tunic or burqa, particularly in the West, are signifying that they are pious Muslims.
That was my very clear meaning, and something so obvious I can't believe it needs belaboring.
Just as it shouldn't need belaboring that an obvious corollary isn't an analogy.
[Harry:] Until Trumpeters condemn illegal immigration from Eire and the Irish government's policy of subsidizing it, we can only conclude that their criticism of immigration of brown people is driven by -- and only by -- racism.
ReplyDeleteHow many illegal immigrants from Ireland? How many from South and Central America?
If those numbers are different -- I'm going with "yes" and at least a couple orders of magnitude -- then your go-to slander is bollocks.
Put another way, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Latin American illegal immigration was happening at the same rate as illegal Irish immigration.
I know, math is hard.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
I'm going to hazard a guess that you have never been to any Muslim countries.
I have. And based upon that first hand experience, I am in a position to tell you quite definitively that the vast majority of Muslims do not wear the tunic, and even fewer the burqa.
---
Hmmmm. Let's check that by choosing some random big islamic city. Like,
Islamabad for example.
I see lots of people who look like Muslim because of their clothes.
So, are you going to tell me Islamabad is not representative?
---
Those who wear a tunic or burqa, particularly in the West, are signifying that they are pious Muslims.
That was my very clear meaning, and something so obvious I can't believe it needs belaboring.
---
Yes, we are in complete agreement: that was your clear meaning, and that's why I called you biased. Of course, to the biased mind, their beliefs are so obvious that it must be a shock to even be required to make them explicit.
So, Mr. Obvious, pray tell me, in those few years you have been living in Dusseldorf, right next to the greateest concentration of Muslim-related immigrants in Germany, how many of them did you try to have a chat with?
How many couples in Muslim garments you met in a restaurant and, having such a definite view of what's in their minds, you have put to test by direct questions and talk?
I'm going to hazard a guess that you have never tried. Not even a 5 minutes chat with that Dönner seller near your street.
Ignorant people are ignorant for a reason: they don't ask, they don't question, they don't test their views.
[Clovis:] So, are you going to tell me Islamabad is not representative?
ReplyDeleteI am going to tell you that Islamabad contains a great many people who signify that they are pious Muslims. As does Jeddah. Dubai, too.
You are making two serious mistakes. The first is hypocrisy. If it is legitimate to assess and judge people's beliefs when they wear Nazi regalia -- without having spent a single second talking to even one of them -- then it is legitimate to do the same with those who signify as pious Muslims. Judging by obvious appearances isn't a horse you can climb onto or get off of at your convenience.
And the second is that I need to talk to specific people in order to judge the claims their appearance signifies is also ridiculous. It would be just as redundant to ask them if they believe in Islam, which means its claims, as it would be to ask a woman wearing a nun's habit, or a man wearing the collar.
Islam makes very specific claims. People who signify their adherence to Islam also signify they adopt those claims. Just like people wearing Nazi regalia, nun's habits, or the priests collar.
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate why the latter examples are OK, while the former is out of bounds.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate why the latter examples are OK, while the former is out of bounds.
---
They say you can take a horse to the river, but you can't force him to drink the water.
I made my part, and pointed out to you numerous times why you are wrong. The idea that you can divine people's thoughts by their clothes is so simplistically dumb, I won't bother to keep this conversation on.
You are a smart person. When smart people insist on being ignorant, I often find out subconscious reasons are behind it.
I will go out on a limb and guess that, knowing you probably caused the death of an unknown number of Muslims as an AF pilot hitting those missile buttons, there is something resembling conscience inside your head that needs to be calmed - and it is easier to dehumanize those people, than to make peace with yourself.
I won't answer a single comment on this thread anymore - have a good day, and I wish you good luck with your issues.
[Clovis:] I made my part, and pointed out to you numerous times why you are wrong. The idea that you can divine people's thoughts by their clothes is so simplistically dumb, I won't bother to keep this conversation on.
ReplyDeleteIt is so simplistically dumb that you are happy to do so, except when you aren't.
[Clovis:] I won't answer a single comment on this thread anymore - have a good day, and I wish you good luck with your issues.
ReplyDeleteThereby maintaining your perfect record.