|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:17
|
|
posted:
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your chart doesn't show literally anything you're claiming it does because the data you're presenting has absolutely no probative value toward the point you're trying to make; which is exacerbated because you've concealed the source and refused to provide it when asked. Taking a screenshot of a tiny hyperlink that can't be clicked is not providing a source. The data source is literally in the image. I posted because the immigration type is an important component of the argument. If the main way to come to the US is through family visas, then that means that for anyone without family in the US, the situation is that much worse. But hey, since you are so upset about the data source, let's spend 5 minutes on google finding data that can disprove what i said, shall we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population % of the population that is foreign born. Again, not the best metric because having a large undocumented immigrant population says nothing about how easy it is to immigrate to a country. And yet, there it is, same point: US with a lower percentage of foreign born than Canada and most of Europe. Or we can look at the OECD data on "permanent inflows" for 2019 and see that the US is, once again, far behind most of the countries with more generous welfare programs: http://www.oecd.org/migration/international-migration-outlook-1999124x.htm Of course, you don't like my data, feel free to post your own rather than these white noise posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The data source is literally in the image. I posted because the immigration type is an important component of the argument. If the main way to come to the US is through family visas, then that means that for anyone without family in the US, the situation is that much worse. It's not my job to go find data you refuse to post, not even a little bit, not even for 30 seconds of effort. The fact you still refused to post it even now and had to resort to another poster finding it for you kind of tells me what I needed to know: you just grabbed a random chart off the internet without any effort into understanding the underlying data. This is reinforced by the fact when challenged because the metrics you provided are absolutely worthless to the point you're making, you just found more sources for the same metrics instead of responding to the analytical arguement. So let me say this again: The data you are providing does not prove what you say it does, "documented immigrants per capita" does nothing to support your point without looking at the immigration characteristics and where they're coming from. Notably, in terms of numbers, the sources you posted show the US accepted more than twice as many immigrants as the next closest country, and you've made no effort to explain why per capita is the more appropriate metric when immigration is not remotely evenly distributed across the US. Also notable is your hand-waiving of undocumented immigrants despite the fact many of the states that house the highest populations of them actually extend benefits to them. Arguing from data does not mean posting random charts and then making conclusions completely unsupported by your data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's not my job to go find data you refuse to post, not even a little bit, not even for 30 seconds of effort. The fact you still refused to post it even now and had to resort to another poster finding it for you kind of tells me what I needed to know: you just grabbed a random chart off the internet without any effort into understanding the underlying data. Wait, are you seriously asking why I am using per population data? Are you seriously confused why, say, in comparing how many immigrants Belgium lets in versus the US, I'd use per capita numbers? Do you also think that in comparing welfare states we should use gross spending figures rather than per capita ones? And I am not "hand waving" undocumented immigrants. But, in the argument of "we can't let too many people in because they will use up all our welfare" undocumented immigrants are not relevant to the conversation because THEY WERE NOT LET IN. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE UNDOCUMENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. But even when you count them the US is still behind most European nations. And in the argument of "open borders are incompatible with a strong welfare state," the fact that stronger welfare states have allowed, proportionally, more legal immigrants is entirely related to the question at hand. That much should be self evident. So instead of this white noise meta posting, how about you provide some data to back up the opinion that high immigration is incompatible with a strong welfare state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:
Since this is the policy thread, can you explain which specific policies from the top 5 countries in that chart the US should adopt? It would create a much more interesting discussion if we had something specific that we could discuss the relative merits of passing. Also, to your earlier point about the US having mostly family-based visas - you have cause and effect exactly backwards. The reason that family-based visas are a major portion of US immigration is because the US has birthright citizenship, meaning if you give birth in the US you have a family member that is a US citizen. This is emphatically NOT how it works in any of the other countries on that chart. Here's a summary: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/birthright-citizenship/global.php Edit: For my part, I'm a lot more interested in citizenship than visas, seeing as what a visa allows you to do is explicitly limited. The us has a pretty consistent number of citizenship applications and approvals, but finding these numbers for other countries is pretty difficult, at least if you want a handy chart like you posted. Note that, again, the number of citizenship applications approved just in FY 2018 is literally greater than the number of visas approved in the US on that chart, making it clear that the visa part of the picture is woefully inadequate - maybe the reason the US has relatively few people on work visa is because after 5 years you can stop renewing it and become a citizen? https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi...8dc4_story.html BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
So we moved from "what solutions do you have, HUH?" To "well if you really cared you'd be out at a shelter right this moment instead of posting" To "well you haven't done enough to prove an argument that was entirely unsupported was incorrect even though you've provided more info than anyone" This isn't exactly effort being met with no effort, but it's certainly a sliding set of goalposts and not a lot of work. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Since this is the policy thread, can you explain which specific policies from the top 5 countries in that chart the US should adopt? It would create a much more interesting discussion if we had something specific that we could discuss the relative merits of passing. Let me get this straight. I have to not only provide the data that proves the assertion that welfare state and immigration are incompatible is wrong, but I also have to pinpoint the specific policies that need be adopted? I am not your dancing puppet to do research for you. I provided data that a specific assertion was wrong. You can either accept that data and that the assertion is wrong, or you can provide your own data to actually show that the assertion is right. What, in particular, you consider to be "much more interesting" is of no concern to me. I personally would find it "much more interesting" if you actually provided a rationale for why you think immigration and welfare state are incompatible. But we haven't even gotten that far yet. All I've gotten is a bunch of attempts to nitpick actual data without you ever having to take a stand on the "immigration versus welfare state" argument that started all of this. Jaxyon posted:So we moved from "what solutions do you have, HUH?" This is a terrible probation. It is amazing that in this thread calling people C-SPAM posters, saying that they are just trying to "own the libs" and all of that is fine and kosher, but pointing out the wildly shifting goal posts with no effort is immediately probatable. I am out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) joepinetree fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
IK Hat on Just gonna lay down a warning that several people over the last page or so are flying pretty close to the sun right now. Either take it down a notch, or take a break from the thread. Your call.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:
No, you didn't. You provided a chart that said that for the purposes of visas different countries allowed different numbers in different categories. However, nothing on that chart established anything about to what extent people there on a visa are allowed to participate in social welfare programs. My personal experience is only in the United States, but it seems pretty obvious to say that, for instance, someone here on an H1B visa will never be able to take advantage of SNAP/WIC, Medicaid, or unemployment insurance. My guess is the same would be true in most or all of the countries posted here. Conversely, the numbers I posted about approvals for US citizenship all represent people who are able to take advantage of those programs (and can vote!), and those numbers are greater on an annual basis than the sum total of all visa types according to your chart, so it's a huge oversight to discount them. Notably, much of the discussion in the US about undocumented immigrants is about creating a "path to citizenship" for them, not trying to get them onto some new type of visa. I'll come back and edit this post once I can find a chart about citizenship requirements for other countries, but my recollection is that the 5-year wait in the US is actually a lot shorter than in many other places, and may help explain why there are relatively few visa holders in the US at any one time - they have no reason to stay on a visa in the long-term because they can simply become citizens Edit: not finding any convenient chart for that, but there is a table on the wikipedia for naturalization that shows the residency requirement. Notably, it it literally impossible to become a citizen of China unless you can prove ancestry, which is...something https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization In terms of numbers, I'll go ahead and just lay out the values I can find for approved citizenship applications for the countries on the chart as I can find them. Note that these aren't all from the same year, but I'll try to stick to numbers since 2018, since immigration probably went up in many countries as a result of the mass exodus from Syria. US: 756K (2018), approx .25% of total pop. (Source above) Singapore: 22.1K (avg over 5 yes), approx .44% of total pop. (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/parliament-annual-number-of-new-prs-and-citizens-stable-for-last-5-years-says) Australia: 204K (June 19-june 20), approx .80% of total pop. (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/parliament-annual-number-of-new-prs-and-citizens-stable-for-last-5-years-says) Tried to find Russian numbers, but they are marked as having 400K Ukrainians become citizens in 2020, which seems, uh... Perhaps related to their claim on Crimea? Not really a conversation I want to have in this thread I don't think the data I've seen so far really supports the idea that granting more or less citizenship applications relates to the relative strength of a welfare state, but I also wouldn't classify rates of new citizens below 1% as putting a meaningful strain on programs, generally, especially since the average citizenship applicant is presumably in the country on a work visa in good status. I think the best we can say with available data across the board is "inconclusive" since, as you say, the number of total immigrants of all status types is in the teens for virtually all countries - if you went full open-borders including the use of these programs tomorrow it would certainly represent an immediate strain, but that doesn't rule out some sort of phased reduction in the years of residency requirement. The main issue is the same thing that I argued before - there is no specific country that the US can use as a blueprint, because no country has an actual open border policy that we could emulate. This is in contrast to a lot of other policy areas, like gun control, health care, education, etc. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Let me get this straight. I have to not only provide the data that proves the assertion that welfare state and immigration are incompatible is wrong, but I also have to pinpoint the specific policies that need be adopted? I am not your dancing puppet to do research for you. You posted a single low resolution image of a chart and wouldn't link the source for it even when asked, and when I finally got fed up with zooming into it to try to read the blurry labels and did the digging myself for the original, you childishly responded with, "Oh, hey, someone put in a little bit of effort. Congrats!" You then got incredibly mad when multiple posters pointed out that the chart doesn't even support the point you're making. I don't think you're in any position whatsoever to tell people you aren't their "dancing puppet" to "do their research for them", because as far as I'm concerned, the opposite is actually happening: you aren't doing your own research and instead are having others to it for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Let me get this straight. I have to not only provide the data that proves the assertion that welfare state and immigration are incompatible is wrong, but I also have to pinpoint the specific policies that need be adopted? I am not your dancing puppet to do research for you. It's been pointed out to you, repeatedly, the multiple ways in which that data does not prove that assertion wrong, and your response has been to just repeat yourself with more insults. The data doesn't say what you say it does and you haven't responded to any of the analytical arguments as to why that's the case. Data science isn't just who has the most charts, you have to make the connection between why the data supports your conclusion. You never did this in the first place, and when people went ahead and did the work to point out why your data doesn't support your conclusion you have steadfastly refused to address it in any way other than to whine and throw insults.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I am sorry that the actual data I posted does not comport to your gut feelings. I have literally three decades of experience with both the US and multiple other countries' immigration systems. Your chart does not show the things you think it does. What it does show is that, when it comes to raw bodies per capita inside a country's borders, Russia and Singapore have plenty - way more than the US, no question. That none of those people are eligible for or will get citizenship, that they are there solely to work and then get thrown out once they age out of productivity, and that the countries they're benefiting have no interest in ever helping them in return, is not obvious from the chart because that is not its purpose. That most of Europe very begrudgingly allows freedom of movement between member states (though god forbid any of those people become homeless or steal $20, because both are grounds to revoke that right immediately in nearly every European state), except for the country that left the EU over it, is also not helpful to deciding whether the US has a good immigration policy for family reunions, refugees or migrants. The fact is that the US has a bad policy and is coming out of a very dark period where it had a terrible policy that was...on par with the UK and slightly, but not significantly better than the EU. At its absolute worst point at the bottom of the Trump era I could make a credible argument that the EU's refugee camps on Lesbos and the Italian islands were worse than anything on the Mexican border. Currently, facilities in the US are significantly better than anywhere in the EU and the policy on taking in unaccompanied minors, both formal and boots on the ground, is *much* better than anybody else's in the First World except possibly Canada. This is not an endorsement of the Biden status quo, but it very much is an indictment of the entire rest of the planet. If you don't know this you haven't lived in Europe or seen what the debate there looks like, much less Asia or elsewhere. It's brutal. This also doesn't even go into what happens to -valid- "permanent residents" in most countries. To North Americans, birthright citizenship is an assumption. To Europeans and Asians, the concept that someone can be a citizen without having descended from citizens is strange in itself. The EU has at least acknowledged statelessness is a problem, so when the UK strips the citizenship from a 'natural born' Brit on the grounds that she "could" get Bangladeshi citizenship if she wanted to (never mind that Bangladesh immediately renounced that possibility before legal proceedings even began) the fact pattern is rare, but this is not the case in Asia. The number of people who were born and grew up in any of these countries without citizenship and can never obtain it is literally uncountable, but thanks to post WW2 migration it's now on its third generation in a row. There are tens of thousands of Koreans whose grandparents were forcibly moved to Japan in 1943 who still aren't citizens and are effectively stateless because the only passport they technically qualify for is the North Korean one (good luck). In conclusion, if you're an American without any experience with overseas immigration bureaucracies, -please- feel free to criticize any and all American immigration officials and our own system, but the moment you decide to point out the greatness of everybody else's it's probably better if you just shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
There is a lot of very thoughtful conversation going on here and we don't need people like joepinetree with his alternative facts ruining it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
The sad part is that I don’t think anyone wanted to engage in whataboutisem; but when we start the priors of “it’s a concentration camp” and “the United States is uniquely terrible”, that is a significant whitewash of how terrible humans are to refugees globally and how xenophobic countries are still towards legal immigration. I think we’d all agree the situation at the border is tragic, heartbreaking and unacceptable. The United States is one of the few countries that hasn’t converted to a points based system like most other places, that tend to be designed to select young westerners with significant qualifications that are often as a result of them already being privileged in their home countries. As for the crisis with refugees, I’d love to see immediate and significant expansion of temporary housing, which would probably be delivered via FEMA built or organized emergency shelters. Beyond that general reform of pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are here, so they don’t have to live in the marginalized edges of society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The particular lawsuit was an appeal of a 2017 decision. A 2017 decision asking for the enforcement of a 2015 lawsuit. Late reply, Paraphrasing from what one my colleagues has said - The Flores Case was a settlement not a decree to end a 1980s lawsuit about treatment of minor aliens detained for immigration. It has a self-terminating provision in that when the requirements of it become statutory law it goes away. Since the US Government - this isn't party specific and goes over multiple decades - has done a terrible job over immigration and hence this suit is fought over constantly because this was never codified into law yet the settlement stands. The 2015 Lawsuit was that the US Government again wasn't following the requirements of the settlement but this is not the same as Trump's DHS specific actions such as limiting toothbrushes to minors in their custody. In short, the US has treated immigrates even completely legal immigrants lovely for decades even under the Obama Administration but thankfully we have courts and we've been able to push back against that as we should even against Democratic Administrations as you saw in 2015 Lawsuit. That said, the Trump Administration didn't just treat them worse with things like limiting hygiene products but did so purposefully, intentionally and even carefully planned some of these actions to discourage people from trying to come to the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:The sad part is that I don’t think anyone wanted to engage in whataboutisem; but when we start the priors of “it’s a concentration camp” and “the United States is uniquely terrible”, that is a significant whitewash of how terrible humans are to refugees globally and how xenophobic countries are still towards legal immigration. Agreed. It's a terrible and rather inappropriate way to describe the situation the border but I don't think the majority of folks are doing so with that intent but merely raise awareness. No doubt, it's bad call, potentially insulting to those who had families that have been in actual concentration camps and in all honestly it really isn't that hard to turn a refugee camp into a concentration camp but still label that should be not be used. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Agreed. It's a terrible and rather inappropriate way to describe the situation the border but I don't think the majority of folks are doing so with that intent but merely raise awareness. Is it insulting to families of people who were in trump's concentration camps?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:The sad part is that I don’t think anyone wanted to engage in whataboutisem; but when we start the priors of “it’s a concentration camp” and “the United States is uniquely terrible”, that is a significant whitewash of how terrible humans are to refugees globally and how xenophobic countries are still towards legal immigration. even if this wasn't absolute nonsense and indeed much worse 'whitewashing' to coddle the system currently packing kids in plastic cubes like sardines and denying them access to any form of oversight and legal rights your base premise of 'ah but other countries are also xenophobic' means literally nothing. Who gives a single poo poo about those issues when the topic is 'why do we have kids in these camps that are famous for abuse and violation of basic rights and dignity still'? Russia treating refugees like poo poo means nothing in this topic except as a way to smokescreen our own treatment of people. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Agreed. It's a terrible and rather inappropriate way to describe the situation the border but I don't think the majority of folks are doing so with that intent but merely raise awareness. Hi, the holocaust directly impacted my family by wiping out most of a whole branch of the ol family tree, don't hide behind their corpses to avoid calling a concentration camp a concentration camp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
I take it you haven’t heard of the awful conditions on Nauru(Australia), the appalling conditions at Moria Camp on Lesbos(Greece/EU), or “The Jungle” in Calais(UK/France). For extra heartbreak, there is a horrendous photo of a small refugee child washing up on the beach after their craft capsized. Notably the EU has deployed multiple counties coast guards and/or navies to force migrants to turn around, and have been accused of intentionally sinking or refusing to help migrants at sea in distress. Here’s the thing; the holding centers that are in question are averaging processing times of less then 15 days. It’s still horrific; but it pales in comparison to the absolute nightmares that have been lingering for years in countries that were held up as virtuous places we should emulate because they have better policies. That doesn’t excuse the massive crisis the US has on its hands; but wringing hands out how we are just so far beyond the pail is sadly just plain naive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Let's see what actual Jewish groups have said regarding the use of the term concentration camp, Bernie Sanders disagrees with it, https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1141151760087769093?s=20 Anti-Defamation League disagrees with it, https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1141051354401714177?s=20 The JRJC of New York with a note that the analogy is not appropriate but the situation on the border unacceptable, https://twitter.com/JCRCNY/status/1141106234705227777?s=20 The US Holocaust Museum issued this statement - Link quote:WASHINGTON, DC – The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum unequivocally rejects efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary. That position has repeatedly and unambiguously been made clear in the Museum’s official statement on the matter – a statement that is reiterated and reaffirmed now. The link to the Museum’s statement is here. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
Concentration camps existed before the Holocaust. They continued to exist after the Holocaust. There have been concentration camps in every corner of the globe. Appeals to Jewish groups as if they are the sole arbiters of what is and is not a concentration camp erases millions of victims of genocidal regimes all around the world. These complaints would be valid if people were referring to the camps at the border as "death camps" or "extermination camps," which no one to my knowledge is doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Concentration camps existed before the Holocaust. They continued to exist after the Holocaust. There have been concentration camps in every corner of the globe. Appeals to Jewish groups as if they are the sole arbiters of what is and is not a concentration camp erases millions of victims of genocidal regimes all around the world. They're a credible source of authority nonetheless and I see it there's a strong lack of support from these groups. They fundamentally disagree with it on principal and these groups sole goal is to prevent all sorts of terrible racist actions. If you read further they've made compelling arguments but if there's anything you disagree with in particular I open to discussing that in detail. Lester Shy posted:These complaints would be valid if people were referring to the camps at the border as "death camps" or "extermination camps," which no one to my knowledge is doing. A concentration camp is a death camp. It's purpose is to exterminate people. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:I take it you haven’t heard of the awful conditions on Nauru(Australia), the appalling conditions at Moria Camp on Lesbos(Greece/EU), or “The Jungle” in Calais(UK/France). For extra heartbreak, there is a horrendous photo of a small refugee child washing up on the beach after their craft capsized. Notably the EU has deployed multiple counties coast guards and/or navies to force migrants to turn around, and have been accused of intentionally sinking or refusing to help migrants at sea in distress. Nauru has nothing to do with this, stop hiding behind 'other countries are also bad', you know full well what a regressive kind of mindset that is. Also it's weird how they're only supposed to be there for three days but now it's 'well okay they're there for two weeks but, ya know, we're working on it'. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Let's see what actual Jewish groups have said regarding the use of the term concentration camp, okay, and multiple Jewish groups such as Never Again Action says the label fits because it's a basic historical term, so I guess they don't count vs groups with extremely dodgy history like the ADL and what appears to be a Jewish New York based group that's run by a major Crowley supporter clearly mad at AOC for that more than anything? sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:A concentration camp is a death camp. It's purpose is to exterminate people. I know the dictionary game is tedious, but I do not think this is a widely-accepted definition. American Heritage Dictionary quote:A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable. Britannica quote:Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Cambridge quote:a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons Harper-Collins quote:A concentration camp is a prison in which large numbers of ordinary people are kept in very bad conditions, usually during a war. Merriam-Webster quote:a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
while i think the comparative discussion of white western nation immigration remains interesting (and horrible), i think we have largely exhausted the useful discussion of camp terminology for the moment please also refrain from being assholes about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:while i think the comparative discussion of white western nation immigration remains interesting (and horrible), i think we have largely exhausted the useful discussion of camp terminology for the moment The thread's about US immigration, how is 'but Austrailia' more relevant than 'stop hiding behind my people's genocide to pretend language that was accepted and celebrated two years ago is suddenly offensive when the conditions are the exact same'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:okay, and multiple Jewish groups such as Never Again Action says the label fits because it's a basic historical term, so I guess they don't count vs groups with extremely dodgy history like the ADL and what appears to be a Jewish New York based group that's run by a major Crowley supporter clearly mad at AOC for that more than anything? And a swastika historically meant good luck. Language evolves with time and everyone understands when the Nazis marched through Skokie it wasn't a celebration of Hindu divinity. Moreover what's particularly obnoxious about this arguement is it's plainly in bad faith. You're attempting to justify by claiming under a old context it would technically apply, but you aren't trying to express the idea behind the old context, you're intentionally invoking the holocaust. I'll say that again: this is undebatable, bad-faith, trolling. You are using the word deliberately in one context to express a specific idea, analogy to the holocaust, and when pressed on the inappropriateness of this analogy you are retreating to how it technically is applicable in a completely different context then you mean it. People are, correctly, reacting to the idea you are very deliberately and intentionally expressing by your choice of language. This nonsense about historical meaning is flat-out lying about what you're trying to say. Who cares what it used to mean, that's not the way you're using it. The source of the revulsion is the idea you are expressing, regardless of the terminology or language you use to express it. This side-show about semantics is a bad-faith attempt to avoid having to defend that idea while still using it to troll people. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure where the bounds of permitted discussion on this topic are, but I want to make it clear that when I use the term "concentration camp," I am specifically not invoking the Holocaust because concentration camps are not unique to the Holocaust. Trying to pretend that they are erases the millions of people who have been placed in concentration camps around the globe over the past 150 years. For content: “No Good Choices”: HHS Is Cutting Safety Corners to Move Migrant Kids Out of Overcrowded Facilities quote:The startling images have appeared in one news report after another: children packed into overcrowded, unsafe Border Patrol facilities because there was nowhere else to put them. As of March 30, over 5,000 children were being held in Border Patrol custody, including more than 600 in each of two units in Donna, Texas, that were supposed to hold no more than 32 apiece under COVID-19 protocols. Lester Shy fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I'm not entirely sure where the bounds of permitted discussion on this topic are, but I want to make it clear that when I use the term "concentration camp," I am specifically not invoking the Holocaust because concentration camps are not unique to the Holocaust. Trying to pretend that they are erases the millions of people who have been placed in concentration camps around the globe over the past 150 years. You are specifically and intentionally invoking the holocaust. Not because concentration camps are literally unique to the holocaust and that's the only thing you could be referring to, but because you are intentionally making a connection to the holocaust. I don't see anyone making threads about how they're passionate about reclaiming the term concentration camp from those oppressive holocaust survivors, and not even Fishmech gets this worked up about holding the line for linguistic proscriptivism against the popular understanding and usage of a term. This isn't some great moral crusade about how holocaust victims are unjustly erasing the memory of concentration camp victims, that through some mysterious historical accident only comes up when taking about the crisis on the southern US border. No, you're using it because most people associate it with the holocaust and it's your intent to invoke that association for the purposes of rhetorical effect. If you weren't deliberately trying to invoke the holocaust or equivalent then you wouldn't have any issue using one of the several alternatives that are equally derogatory as the context you're claiming to be using the term concentration camp in. But that's not what you're doing, people aren't getting your message confused by receiving it as an analogy to the holocaust because that is the message you are intentionally sending. It doesn't matter if in some other context it could be referring to something else. Most people associate it with the holocaust, and you're using it because most people associate it with the holocaust, because you want to invoke the equivalent moral outage. So if you're not trolling defend the invocation, because there's not a soul in this forum that believes this childish "I'm not touching you" game about how concentration camps aren't necessarily talking about the holocaust. You're absolutely right, they're not, but you are. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:I take it you haven’t heard of the awful conditions on Nauru(Australia), the appalling conditions at Moria Camp on Lesbos(Greece/EU), or “The Jungle” in Calais(UK/France). For extra heartbreak, there is a horrendous photo of a small refugee child washing up on the beach after their craft capsized. Notably the EU has deployed multiple counties coast guards and/or navies to force migrants to turn around, and have been accused of intentionally sinking or refusing to help migrants at sea in distress. I'm Greek and things are pretty awful here right now. They have been for quite some time. In what possible way does that change the argument that the Biden Administration is doing almost the same exact things with regards to those " I mean, what is the argument here really? Things can be worse elsewhere? Or have been worse in the past? Things are terrible, right loving now!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I'm Greek and things are pretty awful here right now. They have been for quite some time. Do you think Biden is still doing family separations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you think Biden is still doing family separations? no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you think Biden is still doing family separations? I'd personally like to know how these camps have children as young as sub one year old without that, yes. Like, it seems the administration expects us to believe toddlers are actually walking over the border 100% alone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I'd personally like to know how these camps have children as young as sub one year old without that, yes. Like, it seems the administration expects us to believe toddlers are actually walking over the border 100% alone? So you are saying they are continuing family separation but are doing so in secret? Do you have any sort of evidence of this seems like a huge deal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:42
|
|
Dante80 posted:I'm Greek and things are pretty awful here right now. They have been for quite some time. This came up because people were saying that the US treatment of refugees is the worst in the world by a large margin. The only people who were saying that the atrocious refugee camps elsewhere are a justification for the treatment of refugees by the Biden administration were the strawmen in your head.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So you are saying they are continuing family separation but are doing so in secret? Do you have any sort of evidence of this seems like a huge deal? It's not actually that secret, the media just kinda stopped caring because it's now a bit more focused on making the family separate at the Mexican border rather than at ours but even then we still do it under faux humanitarian guises. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/20/border-family-separation-mexico-biden-477309 quote:However, the underlying policy approach that pushed children away from their guardians was never overhauled. As a result, the executive order prevented children from being separated from their direct parents, but children traveling with other family members — aunts, uncles, godparents, even older siblings — were and still are often separated. DHS justifies these separations by arguing that adults who could not prove they were the children’s legal guardians might be human traffickers. Trump also tried to overrule the Flores agreement to detain families together indefinitely, but the courts blocked him from doing so. The Trump administration then experimented with another form of family separation, offering families in detention a binary choice: Parents could opt to be deported with their children or they could opt to be deported without them, acknowledging that in the latter case HHS would place the now-unaccompanied child with a sponsor or in a shelter as they continue to go through the immigration process on their own. the EO only affected parents, if you're an uncle bringing them over you're basically just a lying child trafficker still. This also isn't some insane conspiracy theory as you're trying to make it sound, it's just kinda a thing tons of people involved in this issue in Mexico have noticed and openly acknowledge quote:Soraya Vázquez, subdirector of Al Otro Lado, the largest legal aid organization in Tijuana, says that from what she’s seen in the shelters and across the city, the number of children recently arriving to Northern Mexico by themselves has not spiked significantly. As for the increase in minors crossing the border into the U.S., “I don’t think it’s kids arriving by themselves” she says. “Kids are arriving with their families, and then they’re crossing by themselves.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I'm Greek and things are pretty awful here right now. They have been for quite some time. They aren't doing remotely close to the same things Trump was intentionally separating families to force them into the camps, intentionally make them as miserable as they could legally get away with, and keep them there. This was done as a deterrent, the suffering was the point. The Biden administration has shifted medium term housing from ICE to ORR (office of refugee resettlement) to try to get them to qualified family members as fast as possible, which is what ORR exists for. The terrible conditions in the ICE border facilities currently are a result of ORR being overwhelmed and not having beds to take them. Trump was taking accompanied minors, making them unaccompanied minors by separating them from their families, and then keeping them in miserable camps ICE camps to a) act as a deterrent to refuges by traumatizing their children, and B) use as leverage against their parents to drop asylum claims and voluntarily deport so they could get their children out of the camps. Biden is dealing with minors that arrived unaccompanied, are in the ICE border camps because that's where they show up, and trying to move them to ORR and HHS where they can be connected with relatives/guardians as fast as possible. "Fast as possible" still takes time though, and the massive flood of unaccompanied minors has backed up ORR resources to the point the backlog is getting stuck in the ICE camps, which are only supposed to be transient facilities, for way longer than they're supposed to be their, with way more people than they're supposed to hold. Theoretically these camps serve a perfectly legitimate purpose. When they're operating as they're supposed to their only supposed to be transient housing (i.e. just a place to sleep for the night, maybe two, while transportation and longer-term housing is arranged. This is all complicated by the fact the Trump admin deliberately turned them into hell-holes and staffed ICE leadership with a bunch of Miller-approved nazi-types while simultaneously gutting the humanitarian resources like ORR and HHS. That isn't to say Biden is above criticism in this, but it's a matter of not doing enough to help versus deliberate harm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:It's not actually that secret, the media just kinda stopped caring because it's now a bit more focused on making the family separate at the Mexican border rather than at ours but even then we still do it under faux humanitarian guises. Did you read that quote because that activist is saying that there is a major increase and unaccompanied minors crossing the border. quote:Soraya Vázquez, subdirector of Al Otro Lado, the largest legal aid organization in Tijuana, says that from what she’s seen in the shelters and across the city, the number of children recently arriving to Northern Mexico by themselves has not spiked significantly. As for the increase in minors crossing the border into the U.S., “I don’t think it’s kids arriving by themselves” she says. “Kids are arriving with their families, and then they’re crossing by themselves.” The activist is based in Mexico, they're saying their making the journey to the border together than the kids are crossing by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Did you read that quote because that activist is saying that there is a major increase and unaccompanied minors crossing the border. which is not actually 'unaccompanied minors' in the sense that the administration (and past ones) paints them, where the idea of getting in touch with family and all is just impossible, these people are in a city near the border, yet the administration is refusing the kids even basic things like phone calls that'd help that. Also if a policy is such that it requires someone to leave their home with their child and then send them across the border proper alone that speaks to a fundamentally broken system that the president should be changing, plus the whole 'Biden's eo only affected direct mother/father parents and no other family so if you come over with your niece or nephew you're still going to be separated'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:You are specifically and intentionally invoking the holocaust. Not because concentration camps are literally unique to the holocaust and that's the only thing you could be referring to, but because you are intentionally making a connection to the holocaust. This is a lot of words about stuff I never said. As I've explicitly stated, invoking the Holocaust is not my intention, and I've written extensively in this thread about why that is. If you want to twist my words into a position not even resembling something I've said, that's your prerogative, but I don't know how much more clear I can be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 15:10
|
|