UKH

The USA is taking immigrant children from their families on an industrial scale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44303556

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-immigratio...

This is newsworthy enough to warrant a thread on here, right? I just thought that silence would make us complicit.

Truly horrible . 

Trumps making America great again surely .

This and the increasingly growing trade war are quite spectacularly being kept out of the highlighted news.

Oh the Joys of Football and its pointless distractions for the masses.

Not to mention the use of official whitehouse channels to blatantly lie to the public about what they are doing.

Related:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/cartoonist_sacked-687897

The trump supporters should live up to their beliefs and ask themselves ‘what would Jesus do?’

If he is what he says he is, vomit.

And the Italian govt. want to ethnically cleanse Italy of the Roma. We are sleepwalking through the gates of Auschwitz 2.0 folks.

Uh?

I think Derwent's point is that Trump's behaviour would make Jesus sick.

Not sure about Jesus, but the Catholic Church doesn't have a good record on this issue.

Ah ok, me being slow. 

I was invoking the bible belt’s favourite bumper sticker and had Jesus as the actor in this not an observer. Not sure he would’ve separated the kids from the parents. 

And the Catholic Church is more of the same. Lots of religious people not very good at reading the bible. 

Unfortunately the bible is a bit woolly about child abuse generally.  If only it gave clear, unambiguous moral guidance on that topic the way it does about the evils of selling wedding cakes to gay people..

Let's all bash the bible, koran, the catholic church and while we're at it we should swamp Facebook with memes of Trump's tiny hands, ugly sons and his funny face. It'll take everyone's minds of the utter horror of what humanity is sliding towards, which will let them get on with it unhindered.

Less facetiously, why the hell are ambassadors not being recalled and US ambassadors given their jotters? This is f*cking mental. Why the f*cking f*ck is the rest of the civilised world, and I even include Russia, China, Iran and Turkey in that, not bellowing in united outrage? I may explode if someone shares another Trump meme that doesn't involve children in cages.   

Well said. It's a wake up call for the world.

The escalating trade tension is the only flipping news story in the financal media, from cover to back. Be it Bloomberg, Reuters or the FT, I’m sick of reading about the latest tariffs. But the FT is where a trade negotiation should be reported, not in the Sun, Mail or Guardian 

The separation of infants is just horrible however, and, to be fair to the BBC, it is their lead story tonight. Let’s hope this coverage builds some pressure.

Reports of a planned withdrawal from the UN Human Rights council are circling. I'd be in favour of expulsion. A decade of financial turmoil sound like small beer right now.

China? Russia? Because as bad as Trump is it has yet to get as bad as it is in these countries.

It also seems at times to be taking sides in a very non BBC way - eg “On 16 June, First Lady Melania Trump made the same assertion as her husband, blaming politicians for her husband's own policy.“

Good on them.

You'll have an alternative way to treat these children then?

Maybe they can go to jail/detention centres with their parents, that's what used to happen.

Until somebody thought of a more humane way to treat them.

Jail with parents or a cage without? Mmmm...

I think we’re really starting to see what an evil man Donald Trump is (as if the clues weren’t already there).

It's a policy, in varying forms, that goes back quite a few years.

In the 1930s we knew what was going on in Germany, and what did we do?

Nothing.

We now see the country we have jumped into bed with whilst ditching Europe, starting to behave in this way, and what is our Government doing?

Nothing.

Trump has just announced that America is pulling out of the Human Rights Convention.

Nail on head.

While I share your distaste for Trump, I think  it’s a little more nuanced than that. He’s taking these steps in order to appeal to the instincts of his voter bloc, much as his bullying tariffs, which are a tax on the US consumer and producer (via Chinese retaliation), are an appeal to the sense of national self-worth in the rust belt states that changed hue in 2016.

Of course, both are attacks on the “other” wherein parallels will be drawn with Nazi Germany. But all sides of the US political and economic machine agree that China has been engaged in a long term programme of intellectual property and technology theft that has greatly accelerated its inevitable rise to challenge the US. Neutral commentators agree something needs to be done. Trade war is probably a poor strategic choice. But it is one that his voters can understand. And with mid-term elections only five months away, these headlines can only proliferate.

Trump is under considerably more political pressure over the implementation of immigration policy. But the political battle that ensues can be calculated to entrench the sense amongst his supporters that he alone supports their needs against the establishment.

Personally, I abhor both policies.

Best inform yourself how it is done in civilized countries before perversely insinuating that this is an unavoidable situation that unfortunately cannot be helped.

CB

Gosh you've made some assumptions there!

But I'll bow to your obviously greater knowledge and ask you to inform ignorant me as to how the situation should be handled. In a way that would treat the migrants humanely while actually solving the migration problem.

Some real world examples would help.

Humans are a migrant species which is pretty f*cking obvious because we didn't just stay in Africa, but migrated across most of the planet. The way to solve the 'migration problem' as you put it is to stop calling it a problem. We're all the same species sharing a rock orbiting a star at just the right distance to make it inhabitable by carbon based lifeforms - the idea that someone, especially a child can be illegal and needs locking up because they've crossed a made up line on our rock is utterly insane.

Children are being separated from their parents because they can't be treated like criminals unlike their parents.

It's attempting to treat people humanely that is partly the problem.

Your way of treating migrants is to be applauded but isn't going to happen in the real world.

Not sure if you consider Finland civilised or not but I used to visit both the police gaol that held migrants and also the "Alien detention centre" as a Red Cross volunteer. In the latter there were cases where young children were with their mothers who were being detained. In the case I saw for a number of months on my weekly visits, I don't believe the child himself was under a detention order, but his mother was and as the staff weren't going to let a 3 year old wander off into town on his own, it was rather a moot point that the child wasn't being detained.

I was inclined to make a child protection notification to Helsinki social services and see what they made of it, but more senior RC people wanted to deal with it in their normal low key way.

It has announced it is leaving United Nations Human Rights Council, the structure of which makes this probably a lot less important than it might sound.  The US remains a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Trump lies to Americans and the world on a daily basis; against his constant spewing of falsehoods, distortions and just whatever sh*t just popped into his brain, I think it's really important that we're accurate in our criticism.

The point I was trying to get across is independent of the question you seem to address, of whether it makes sense to detain asylum seekers in the first place. Whatever the reason for detention, it should be obvious that if the state has to detain a mother with a baby or toddler any civilized society will detain them together in a dedicated family wing of the detention centre or similar (if there are no fathers, grandparents or other close relatives around). This is even done in semi-totalitarian countries like Turkey (e.g. in a recent case where a German/Turkish journalist was held with her toddler on contrived terror support charges). Only the Trumpist scum lack the decency to do so. 

CB

It does look frighteningly like it, and more worryingly, I can't see any way it's going to end because the more stuff happens the more people come up with "yeah but..." justifications or even "it's not politically correct but they're talking a lot of sense...". At no point does the "hang on, this sounds like a thing the Nazis might do, I thought that being the Nazis was bad" reaction kick in like we might have expected, because now thinking that Nazis are bad marks you down as belonging to the sneering metropolitan liberal elite who don't understand the problems faced by ordinary, hard-working, racist sociopaths.

I worry that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.

I'm guessing though that they were trying to make the best if a bad job with the limited facilities available rather than causing the maximum suffering possible in order to meet a deliberate idealogical goal, i.e. secure funding for something

Thats what I was alluding to. The path to the Einsatzgruppen and the ovens was laid by creating 'a hostile environment',  febrile nationalism, scapegoating, fabricated outrages and had popular support. We're not there yet, not by a long way, and it's not inevitable, but we are on the road.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-law-separate-families-passed-1997

(Spoiler alert: no, it wasn't.)

This, times 100!

CB

You did read the bit where I wrote in varying forms didn't you?

I presume you also read the post that I was replying to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html

I suggest you think a bit about what you are supporting: 

Forcibly and deceitfully removing children, some less than a year old, from their parents and keeping them in grossly inappropriate conditions without records of who their parents are.

I’m not supporting what is taking place.

I am considering why such a policy has come about.

It could be all the work of evil people or there might be more to it than that.

Bettering our understanding is one reason why we discuss things isn’t it?

No there couldn't. There is simply no reason to ever treat children like this. By pretending there is, you are complicit in it.

Looks like another U-turn

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

So how would you treat these children?

WTF!?

Not forcibly separating them 

Not putting them in pens and cages

Not transporting them a 1000 miles 

Keeping records of who they are

Not using them as political cannon fodder

You're making excuses, you're parroting Trump's propaganda, you're minimising and deflecting. You're very much supporting it. Shame.

Jk

I thought this was worth quoting just to bring to the front again your expressed views when you started contributing to this thread - that the more humane way to treat innocent children is to seperate them from their parents at a time when they're already likely to be in a distressed state, and leave them in seperate holding facilities without what comfort  their parents can provide. The places they're beimg kept don't look that practically different from holding facilities their parents are in, and theyve been placed there without anyone necessarily taking records of who they need to be returned to. And they're doing this to young children, to preschool children, and to toddlers.

The thought that this sort of distress is being entirely avoidably inflicted on children the same age as my son makes my stomach turn. Your continued defence of it makes me sick .

Gitta Sereny put it well with the phrase 'the banality of evil'. The evil was not done by boggle eyed demons with horns who we can assure ourselves we can never be. 

It was done by the bespectacled mild mannered officials who made the trains run on time.

It was done by the engineers who patented crematoria that used melted body fat to improve the combustion efficiency.

It was done by chemists formulating Zyklon B in laboratories.

It was done by clerks counting shoes taken from the dead.

And it can be done by hard pressed immigration officials putting kids in cages.

All very honourable but listing what you wouldn’t do is easy.

So how do you attempt to solve the immigration issue?

You’re mistaken in your judgment of me and your loathing of President Trump is preventing you from engaging in any reasonable discussion.

This isn't an immigration issue, it is a basic human right issue. By linking them you are parroting trump and showing yourself in a very very bad light. 

Set out to make Mexico more prosperous with tariff free trading and closer ties with the US, investment in infrastructure, freedom of movement etc hence removing the motivational factors (poverty) that makes people want to emigrate in the first place.

You misunderstood my reference to ‘found a more humane way to treat them ‘.

It was a reference to the prevention of the detention of children without any real thought of what would then happen to them.

This, it would appear, led to the possibility of what is now happening.

I couldn’t care less if my none existent defence of President Trumps actions makes you sick - your emotional response is another reason why immigration issues never get resolved and both migrants and the the indigenous population continue to suffer.

It’s an immigration issue.

It affects illegal migrants to the US.

F*cking hell! You really are piece of work. 

It’s a very large leap from what’s happening in the US to Nazi concentration camps.

Why don’t you counter my point instead of just attacking me as a person?

Very constructive ideas.

While they’d go some way to lowering Mexican migration how does the US roll out similar programmes to the rest of the Americas?

Because there is no point to counter.  You think putting children in cages is just fine.  You use the language of the BNP to say this (with the grotesque irony that you don't even realise all US citizens save a handful of native Americans are non-indigenous).  Bluntly, I think you are evil.

Wealth, like poverty, can be contagious.

MG does have a point though, you have been coming across as something of a bastard. Care to redeem yourself with some kind of apology or explanation?

The consequences were already being reported when you first posted. If you want to claim you didn't read that far down the reports before posting then fine, but I don't believe you.

If it wasn't such a serious subject the degree of self-delusion implied by the words "non existent" would be a laughing matter.

??????I'm glad that I've somehow excluded myself from participating in the kind of solutions you're supporting. 

Yes it absolutely is a large leap, but my point is that these things don't happen by large leaps.

The camps were the culmination of a long long process where, like a ratchet, seemingly innouous measures were taken which created an environment wherein, much later, ordinary people, people who would probably never harm anyone in person, became components of a system of mass murder. It took years, it was insidious, the logical conclusion was inconcievable to those who supported it, but it happened. And in the actions and language of some in power today, I see the same genesis.

If I’m a bastard for trying to gain a better understanding of how the present situation has come about then I’m guilty as charged.

Maybe I should have just gone along with the ‘Trump is evil’ brigade and saved myself all the abuse.

I knew what was happening to the children when I first posted as there was a bit of a clue in the thread title.

My point was that people had condemned the detention of children but hadn’t thought through the possible consequences of not detaining children while automatically locking up their parents.

You’ll have missed my early post where I said that I didn’t support what was happening.

So you can see a time where the US murders people like the Nazis did?

Forget he Nazis for now, just look at how many authoritarian, oppressive regimes get power.  It's step by step.  No individual step is quite enough to cause anyone to stop them.  Then it's too late.  As, I think, Jonathon Friedland said, if Trump's base accept this, they'll accept anything.  There are barriers still - the mid-terms first, - but its entirely conceivable that the USA turns into a version of Putin's Russia, i would say.  

And you, with your deflections and apologetics, are part of the process. (incidentally, you haven't said you don't support this, you made that up).

No it isn't. More to the point it's a series of small steps down a very well prepared path.

Jk

It would be helpful if you could clarify which bits of the current policy you were aware of when you said that it was "more humane", since I'm struggling to work out from your 1853 and 1942 posts what exactly you thought this more humane treatment might be. At 1853 it reads as though you were only arguing it was more humane not to imprison the children in abstract, whilst at 1942 you are saying you were in fact fully aware of what "not imprisoning them" meant in practice - forced seperation and seperate detention. It feels as though you're tying yourself in knots .

While your busy insulting me I'm trying to work out how this situation arose.

Like I said before it could all be down to the evil Trump but isn't that too simple an explanation.

What's the history behind all this?

Why do 55% of republicans support this policy.

Why did previous presidents reject such a policy but then allow children to languish in detention centres?

Why were immigrants allowed to disappear from the system apparently giving rise to resentment of both migrants and the system itself?

Just a small number of questions that might give a better understanding of how to prevent similar situations developing.

Or we just have a hate Trump thread and learn nothing.

You keep accusing me of supporting Trump's policy, of apologising for this policy and deflecting from criticism of Trump.

I'd rather call it debating an issue but as I'm evil what would I know?

So Trump's a nazi now with a well prepared plan for mass murder?

He reminds me more of Mussolini than Hitler.

You could try reading the article you linked if you are actually interested.

You clearly aren't however.  Whatever the answers to those questions, it doesn't justify treating children in this way.  That you will go to any length to avoid acknowledging this is why I think you are evil.  You'll do the same at the next step, and the next, and the next...

I don't support or advocate what is happening in the US regarding the treatment of migrants, but to suggest that it might be a precursor to wholesale massacre is a little far fetched! 

I have little doubt that Chamberlain would have dismissed such fears in similar terms during the 30s.

I am obviously not explaining this very well so let me have one more try.

Having read the thread title I did some googling and found the NY Times article which I linked to in my reply to another poster.

This article detailed the history leading up to the separation of children.

So from the thread title and the NY Times article I was aware of what was currently happening.

The 'humane' reference was directed, somewhat sarcasticaly, towards those who had in previous years argued against the detention of children with their parents but who didn't, one hopes, see what  might happen as a result.

So a 'humane' act - not locking up chilren alongside their parents - helped to make the current situation possible.

President Trump's decisions did the rest.

I did read the linked article which explains some of the background to the current situation.

I had hoped that discussing the situation might provide more knowledge.

I would be grateful if you would at least acknowledge that my previous statement 'I do not support' actually means that I don't agree with the way that these children are treated.

What are you trying to say?
Are you suggesting that if Trump is allowed to get his own way, that he would set up Concentration Camps with the sole purpose of eradicating as many people as he feasibly could?

I don't acknowledge that because it's not what you said, which was "I'm not supporting..." which has a very different meaning in this context.

I am drawing a comparison. Nobody can seriously say what's in Trump's head.

Recognising such a comparison is the first stage in learning from history. Being alert to possible further steps down the same road will be essential if those lessons, paid for with the lives of millions, are not to have been completely wasted.

Jeez,

From memory I think I said 'I am not supporting what is taking place'.

When we were discussing the forced removal of children how many meanings can that have?

Quite.  Present tense, not that you don't generally.  You have now spent an entire thread weaselling around the issue.  Either you are cool with this behaviour or not, no amount of dust kicking about the history of it and who else supports it matters.

So now you are saying that while I have stated that I don't support Trump's forced removal of children I didn't state that I don't support the forced removal of children in all cases?

If that's what you meant then you are correct - I can think of at least one instance where I would support the forced removal of a child. President Trump's policy isn't that one.

Absolutely. However, a week ago the suggestion would have been really far fetched, but now it's a little less so. There are warnings from history that it would be prudent to heed.

No that's not what I'm saying.

Then I'm mistaken.

You might have to explain it again.

Probably best if you keep it simple.

It would be very far fetched but I'm not suggesting it's a precursor. I'm considering it something of a litmus test. From the reaction of a significant fraction of the American electorate, the political establishment and the media to this abomination I think it's fair to say the brakes holding anyone back from such a policy look unreliable at the moment. This is years of deliberately stoking fear and hate, of scapegoating others in a country already racked by racial and religious tensions coming home to roost. It could still go either way but I fear another 6 years of Trump could light a fire in America that won't be put out and that many are just waiting to pour fuel onto.

Barron: No, Trump isn't Hitler. He's more Berlisconi than Mussolini if we're drawing comparisons, for now at least. Yes, I suspect he does have a plan but not for genocide or for American workers, his plan is all for Trump. What Trump is is an utterly amoral opportunist with little understanding of or care for what he's wrecking. He's the very last thing America needs right now. Trump may be little more than a narcissistic spunk trumpet but there are many more slipping out from the shadows in his wake with far darker intent, watching his base freed of the fragile bonds that once loosely held American society together, watching him demonise and scapegoat enemies real and imagined alike, watching him systematically disable the checks and brakes on power, waiting. This is how fascism comes and you're cheering for it.

jk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

If there's one thing that many americans have in common it's a dislike of the federal government.

Not just Trump's federal government but any federal government.

While people might support many of Trump's policies they won't like what you think he has planned for them.

They own and carry guns for such an eventuality.

(I'm a cheerleader for many things, fascism isn't one of them).

This is the dynamic that worries me most, Trump has synthesised anti federal gun owners with federal power!

It is indeed a strange combination and could be a worrying one.

I suppose one's level of concern might depend on how much faith one has in the american people.

In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

Only as a history teacher.

Round of applause, I deleted my post a little too late there as I decided not to get into this.

Anyway, barbed comment aside, I will stick by the "Like f*ck it is" response to your assertion that comparing the current USA to Nazi Germany is a bit far fetched. 

... and first of all, change your domestic policy on drugs so that your local demand does not turn your neighbour state into a war zone. After, all supply and demand are supposed to be the ultimate arbiter in all other cases.

How many lives has a single line of cocaine cost before being sniffed in San Diego?

CB

edit: Supply and demand are apparently good enough for regulating the illegal (in Mexico) guns going the other way.

I hope that I am right, for once.

I presume that, for once, you'd like to be wrong.

Fingers crossed.

I don't know much about that aspect of things although I did read an excellent book called Chasing the Scream that examined the failed war on drugs (and the damage that is perpetrated by their illegality).

Looks like all the pressure worked. Trump is moving to change the policy:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/trump-backs-down-orders-...

Correct on both counts, otherwise I agree with pretty much everything MG an JK have politely thrown you.

MG, JK and me tend to begin and end on opposing sides of most if not all discussions.

I think in this case everyone has ended up on the opposing side of the discussion from you, baron. Including even Donald Trump himself, bizarrely.

Trump changes his mind to suit himself.

I, on the other hand, am a man of principles.

Not as visible as Trump's policy but the U.K. is not doing vastly better :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34191606

Looks like Trump has finally done the right thing..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852

Your consistency in defence of your views is admirable 

unfortunately when that consistency is in support of separating children from their parents and locking them in cages, then it makes you an apologist for fascism 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics...

surely you can see that this is wrong, and unjustifiable under any circumstances? I mean, even Donald Trump can. You are being left on some pretty lonely ground there.

The supposed U-turn by Trump is nothing of the kind. The children currently imprisoned remain separated from their parents, and he has declared that he will continue to imprison children with their parent for longer than the 20 days set by the Supreme Court in 1997.

He, his enablers, and especially also his voters are indeed deplorable, amoral scum.

CB

edit: add to that list his internet armchair apologists!

I do not support Trump's policy.

I've stated that several times on this thread but it would appear that nothing less than a screaming condemnation including childish references to Trump's hair, skin colour or small hands will do.

Instead of any meaningful debate we have had a hate Trump fest and now that he's changed his mind - there's a surprise - we might find that what happens to these children in the future is actually not much better than what is happening now.

That won't be because I failed to hurl abuse at Trump but because there won't be a meaningful debate about the actual issues of migration, either in the US or on UKC.

The reason people don't accept your statements is they conflict with all your other posts.  You can't say you don't support something at the same time as attempting to explain it away and minimise it.  Questioning who started it, what to do about immigration, claiming it's more humane than other things, pretending you want to debate it etc.  is supporting it.

as MG said. you keep saying you don't support it; but nor do you explicitly condemn it. that could be done without references to Trump's hand size; a simple

'this is just wrong; no matter what the issue being faced is, locking children in cages separate from their parents for nothing other than following them across a border is unacceptable under any circumstances'

but you don't do that; instead, you want to categorise the cruel treatment of children as 'an immigration issue', and cite the entirely justified horror at the 'Leader of the Free World' sanctioning this as evidence that its not possible to have a sensible discussion about immigration.

it is possible to have such a discussion; but when a state seeks to justify the sort of behaviour we've seen from the US as a necessary measure, then morallly its entirely lost its way; and if this sort of thing becomes accepted and normalised, and enough people take the position  you do, then we are taking steps towards a fascist future. 

thankfully your view appears to be in a minority, and enough people have been disgusted by this to force Trump to back down.  

Who's trying to explain it away or minimise it?

Explain it yes, minimise it no!

Where have I tried to say that Trump is right, or that his policy was humane or that his behaviour is excusable? You're either twisting my words or making this up!

You are the real problem in this issue.

You don't want to discuss the previous policies and inaction that helped lead up to the present one.

You don't want to debate the causes, benefits and problems of migration into the US.

You don't want to try and understand the feelings of those US citizens who support this policy.

You just want to call Trump evil and anybody who doesn't agree with you is branded an apologist or worse.

And so the problem isn't solved and children will continue to suffer

You, along with others on this thread, are choosing to read things into my posts to suit your views.

That is your right.

You

For example "Until somebody thought of a more humane way to treat them."  Also your reference to "indigenous" people being the victims.  Any many other comments.

Err, yes, I do.  Along with every other decent person in the world.

All those can be discussed but not as an excuse to avoid addressing this issue, which is what you are trying to do.

If only you would actually try to understand the meaning of what I've written.

I've explained, in great detail, how the statement 'a humane policy' was a reference to those who objected to children being detained with their parents. The courts agreed and so now that the parents are immediately locked up the children shouldn't be. It wasn't a description of Trump's policy but that's the way that you took it.

You should google what happens to the Mexican indigenous people who migrate to the US but you just assumed that my statement was about US indigenous people and you chose to berate me for what you perceived as my misuse of a word.

Any other examples of my apologising and explaining away?

You claim that you are on the side of the decent people implying that anybody who isn't part of the baying mob isn't decent.

As Trump changes his mind let's see how things play out - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I read the article you linked to with interest, it does give a concise account of how this policy came about...... but it doesn't back up your statements on this thread, on the contrary.

’baying mob’- very revealing choice of words. Those that object to inhumane treatment of children are the ones negatively  categorised by you , those carrying out the inhumane treatment are just decent people trying to do a job in difficult circumstances. The moral roles are inverted in your framing of the issue. Repeated across millions of such exchanges, evil- and that’s what this is- becomes accepted and enabled. I’d think carefully before becoming party to that process. If you want a debate on immigration, fine; but we can have that, and agree that a line has been crossed that no civilised nation should go near. 

Can you expand on what this comment means?

Time Magazine's front cover: http://time.com/magazine/

It is distressing but at least Trump is being held to account by the publication.

looking back at my previous post, i could have been clearer- it is the  act of separating and incarcerating children that is the evil, not the internet discussion  about it. 

and i get that explaining isn't condoning; so just to be clear, i'm not calling you evil, which i realise was a possible interpretation of my post

i do think that events like this need to have explicit condemnation though, or they become normalised through indifference. and no matter what approach one takes to an immigration debate, any solution that leads to inhumanity means the debate is lost. if we can only control immigration by becoming monsters, then maybe it cant be controlled- but of course there are other approaches available

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The main reason why I've not used the word condemn in any of my posts is that, having not used the word early in this thread, if I use it now there'll be those who will add backtracking to the labels of supporter and apologist which they've already attached to me.

A pretty childish reason I admit but I have no wish to give my detractors any more ammunition.

I think a willingness to admit to being persuaded by debate is a strength, not a weakness. There would be no criticism from me. 

Me either, quite the opposite.

jk

I wholeheartedly condemn Trump's separation of children from their parents.

I wholeheartedly condemn Trump's separation of children from their parents.

Good. We often disagree but you seem a decent chap, it's exasperating seeing your intransigence paint you into corners you probably wouldn't have chosen.

jk

I've never been called intransigent before.

Stubborn, tenacious, like a dog with a bone, etc.

(and many other words as well)

I guess sometimes one just has to admit defeat.  

Yes; it has clearly touched a nerve with the US public, hence the rapid rowing back from it by Trump. Will be interesting to see if he is damaged by it, or will his supporters move on and find some way of excusing him, again 

i do get why immigration is a problem for many people; but solutions that focus on treating people ever more harshly to try to deter them just end up damaging our society. There risks being a ratcheting up of hostility, which is ineffective, leads to a hardening of public opinion against immigration, licensing even harsher treatment, and before you know it you’re caging  kids. 

The alternatives take longer and are hard to do- but if there was a viable way for people to achieve a decent standard of living and have hope for their children where they were living, they wouldn’t risk imprisonment or death trying to migrate. So, supporting development, good governance, and acting to avoid environmental degradation are all strategies to reduce migration. None of them catch the imagination of voters like a wall does though.

A good way of looking at it is: would you prefer to spend x% of your taxes in building defences against, imprisoning and taking children from, people trying to enter the country illegally. Or to spend x% of your taxes in helping to improve the prospects of those people such that they no longer see sufficient need for illegal entry.

The hard part is that those 'x' percents are very difficult to quantify and to equate, so the cost-benefit equation is never going to be simple. Apart, of course, when children are being permanently taken from their parents, at which point we should hope that pretty much everyone would consider the cost to outweigh any benefit.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1009460752099500033

Not sure if this excuses it.  But far from lays the issue at the feet of Trump.  Apparently it is an Obama era policy.

Haven't read the rest of the thread so I suspect this might have been raised already.  But if not, food for thought/tone perhaps.

Not clear what the provenance of the link is

if an Obama era policy that doesn’t make it right, nor does it excuse Trump’s defence of it up to the point he repudiated it. 

This is not a topic any party has covered itself in glory in. The effective interventions are likely to be too remote from the problem to be vote winners.

The link was re-tweeted by a current university professor and former lecturer of mine.  I'd be very surprised therefore if it was of dubious origin, though I obviously can't say one way or another.  I'm willing to give it benefit of the doubt given his credibility.

It obviously doesn't change the rights or wrongs of a policy and the exchange that follows the original tweet indicates the policy has worsened somewhat.

But I think it very much draws in to question, and backs up a very common assertion, that anything Trump does is portrayed in an entirely different light to the same actions undertaken by other individuals - notably Obama.  The outrage, while understandable, appears to have a substantial element of design to it.  This was also the point made in a recent Spiked article - while certain notable figures in the media managed to conjur up no shortage of tears for these children, their eyes remained well and truly dry during Obama era airstrikes.

Such an evident double standard only serves to polarise issues.  Anyone expressing vitriol towards Trump alone on account of this should probably think a little about what is happening, and how this event looks to the very substantial proportion of the population who support Trump and who already believe there is extreme partisanship in reporting. 

They, via their own news sources, will likely be seeing a very different version of events than we are...and in this case, their's might be a whole lot more accurate.

Who do you work for?

You don't see anything odd about sudden extreme levels of outrage in the media, despite the policy apparently being in place long before Trump came to power?

Or at least, that this issue is being directed entirely at Trump?

You don't have to be on his payroll to see the hypocrisy, nor see how this is likely to play out amongst his supporters.

But go ahead, shoot the messenger.

This, is, Sparta!

Yes, there have been pictures doing the rounds that everyone assumes to be recent, but are actually Associated Press images from 2014. The same was happening under Obama, but folk are ignorant of it because 'Trump is bad, Obama is saint'.

Except that it wasn't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-law-separate-families-passed-1997

Except that's irrelevant.

Your snopes article is pointing to an entirely different issue - whether certain laws existed or not.

The tweet I linked makes no reference to the existence of any law. It refers to policy.

It quotes a document which is evidently in no way pro-Trump as it is specifically investigating and criticising family separation policy.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIND%20-%20Betraying%20Famil...

The document (emphasis mine) states:

"As a matter of procedure and policy, border agents routinely separate family members, including intentionally, as punishment—or “consequences”—through what DHS calls its Consequence Delivery System (CDS). These consequences are meant to deter future migration, often regardless of international protection or other humanitarian concerns. The CDS has been implemented systematically since 2005. Common examples of CDS include Reinstatement of Removal, criminal prosecution for an immigration offense such as reentry (including Operation Streamline), lateral repatriation, Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program (MIRP)"

Where exactly were the tearful journalists and outraged readerships between 2005 and 2018?

Just to be clear, and its a pity I even need to state this, I'm in no way supportive of this policy.

I simply find the extremely partisan nature of the debate around this policy astounding.  Outright lies or innuendo appear to be swallowed wholesale because they conform to a certain narrative.

I don't think a single Trump supporter posts on UKC.  But just because we don't like him doesn't mean normal critical faculties should be chucked out the window because we like the sound of a narrative against him. 

And if we would all like him to lose the next election then we might do well to be better informed, and less willing to fall in to his exact criticism of mainstream media coverage.  Otherwise we don't represent a very attractive team for his begrudging supporters to align with.

A crucial difference between Trump and previous presidents is that he himself is constantly lying outright, and having those lies swallowed wholesale.  That Snopes link is debunking a lie tweeted by Trump himself.

Of course there is some pretty inglorious background to the way immigrants have been treated, in America and elsewhere.  Australia leads the world in this, and we have more than a few stains on our own record.  (You can just google 'Yarls Wood' for a few choice examples.)

But this was a policy stepped up by Trump, trumpeted by Trump as "zero tolerance" and bragged about at the time for the benefit of his supporters just a few months ago, before the current (kinda sorta partial grudging) about-face and blaming of his predecessors.

There are one or two apologists.

Of course you are right.  I mean, obviously.  Hitting the social media 'share' button on any old bollocks is no help whatsoever.
But trust me, I *don't* like the sound of the narrative that the man is a f*cking fascist, it chills me to the bone.

Indeed.  It is notoriously difficult for us sneering metropolitan elite snowflake types to reach out effectively when we don't properly understand the concerns of ordinary hard-working racist sociopaths.

Yeah.  I can just picture the moderate Trump voters I know, decent people who really don't like Trump much and are perfectly aware of his evident flaws.  But who liked that he is unguarded and, on balance against Hillary, decided he was a preferential option.  They were far cries from the Guardian or Independent caricatures.

I have no idea what they think of him now.  But I know they weren't racist sociopaths.  And I'm pretty sure, despite all that has happened, they're unlikely to flock to the party whose supporters label them racist sociopaths.

...and we still seem surprised Trump's support more or less matches that of Obama at a similar point in his term. 

I wasn't speaking as the supporter of any particular American political party, and I don't *really* think Trumps supporters are all racist sociopaths.  Not *all* of them.  Just the really enthusiastic ones, obviously.

It's hyperbole, fair cop, you got me.  Just a bit of fun.  A little "Oh my God, I am witnessing the rise of 21st century fascism here, we're all doomed!" gallows humour.

I didn't base that on a Guardian or Independent caricature really, btw. more on their having elected an overt racist sociopath as POTUS.

It's not like we don't have our own populist shit show to contend with mind you, more than enough echoes of 1930s Germany much closer to home lately.  "Enemies of the people!" and so forth.  History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Oh, speaking of which.  Here's an old American propaganda film that has been going slightly viral lately: 
youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4&

Normal critical faculties are thrown out of the window if you think that taking children hostage and separating them from their parents to put them, well, in camps, is even remotely acceptable and doesn't justify at least a "narrative" against him, if not throwing him in jail for his crimes.

After all from that point, it's wouldn't be a big leap at all to just "eliminate" those children, wouldn't it. It would be effective as a dissuasion tool, wouldn't it. According to Trump (and many of his supporters), they are barely humans anyway, aren't they. We're not far away from this at all.

I'm happy to discuss and try to bridge differences on pretty much everything, on North Korea, Tarrifs, immigration policy, etc etc.,.

But on that one, no.

There is no justification possible. You just have to choose your camp. If you're not up in arms about what is happening, and at least doing something to stop it, no matter how small, you are an accomplice.

Then you were an accomplice for the last 13 years.

Not the case

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/21/17488458/...

Trump isn’t just continuing what Obama did. What happened over the last 2 months is in unprecedented in intent and extent. 

Given this, it’s unfortunate that you appear to be taking this deplorable situation and using it to pursue one of your hobby horses. It appears from your lip service disapproval of the treatment of children rapidly moving to the meat of your post, allegations of hypocrisy on the left , that this is actually your main concern. Well fair enough, we all have different concerns and motivations, but I’m glad mine aren’t using the ill treatment of children to score political points, by misrepresenting a situation 

just for the avoidance of doubt; if the operation of the Obama immigration policy had resulted in the routine and inevitable separation of migrant children from their parents I would have been everybit as disgusted as I am with Trump doing it. And I have no problem condemning Obama for it occurring at all on his watch

it is clear that things changed in a dismally predictable way in May this year though as a direct result of trumps order to prosecute all immigrants irrespective of parental status. You are attempting to create a false equivalence by misrepresenting the history of this area in order to run your favourite argument against the left,  and that strikes me as pretty deplorable 

No, your insinuation that this is just the continuation of what Obama did is a falsehood, pure and simple propaganda,  which it seems you have a propensity to swallow.

Never, under Obama, were thousands of children separated from their parents on purpose in order to dissuade other migrants  and to effectively, use them as hostages with congress.

It's nothing less than a barbaric act, which by the way has revulsed most Americans. But unfortunately day after day this kind of stuff becomes more and more normalised.

How exactly is pointing out silence on Obama-era policies but outrage at Trump-era policies "political point scoring"?

Where was the outrage between 2005 and 2018?  Separation, as quoted, was a routine policy throughout that period.  Children arriving unaccompanied (arguably nothing more than pre-border separation in the knowledge it will guarantee entry) have apparently been routinely housed in the same facilities that apparently cause so much outrage today.

You and Rom seem to be arguing over technicalities.  Presumably, you knew about the policy prior to now yes?  Presumably, even a single child being separated from its parents is an outrage yes?  So why the silence?  Or is there some magic level at which a separation policy becomes a problem?

I'm pretty clear I don't approve of any of it or that I approve of Trump.  So its a bit rich that you are accusing me of political opportunism for pointing out partisan reporting.  

A technicality ? Are you for real ?

You don't see the difference between housing children who came alone (and obviously need to be housed somewhere before they are sent back) with separating them from their parent at the border, on purpose in order to dissuade others to come and use them as hostages ? Really ?

Yes, separations occurred before Trump, before the border. some parents were so desperate they would send their children without them. There were a few separation after the border, and despite what you say, it was widely reported at the time, bit this was nothing of the same scale and deliberate intent.

It's a completely different situation than having the state taking away the children of thousands, not out of any necessity or mistake, but simply to make a point.

Some of them are so young they are unlikely to be able to tell who their parents are, in all likelyhood, they will never see their families again.

You may say you don't approve of him, however when you say what's happening is a technicality, you are indirectly a supporter, or at the very least, a collaborator.

I suggest you refer to the bbc articles in the OP for the facts. Although you may believe that it's partisan reporting, conspiracy, etc etc...

How exactly do you separate an unaccompanied child from their parent(s)?

Rom is correct. This is not a ‘technicality’. Your argument rests on two scenarios being the same:

- an unaccompanied minor arriving at the border and claiming asylum. Their case needs to be processed, and the US state has a responsibility to provide safe, secure accommodation for them while this happens

- an intact family group arrives at the border and claims asylum. The US state forcibly splits the family apart and houses the children secure accommodation while their parents’ case is dealt with

it would be ideal if the first scenario never happened; but the agency that caused it to happen lay outside of the US state. The US state has to deal with the consequences of it. There appear to be few options and all of them are problematic.

the second scenario is generated entirely through the agency of the US state. Until May 2018, it could have chosen to do this, but almost never did, preserving family groups unless the parents had committed serious crimes. From May 2018,following the instructions of Trump, they did this as a matter of routine. They did this to create a ‘hostile environment’ to discourage immigration; that is, they chose to inflict unnecessary suffering on children as part of pursuing a policy goal, when they didn’t have to and previously chose not to.

I’m pretty confident that most people, except those who are invested in preserving a particular viewpoint, would clearly see a difference between these scenarios. I think the media do, which is why I hadn’t heard of this until now- because before now hundreds of families a week were not being forcibly separated by the US state as a warning to others who may consider trying the same thing. 

And its pretty telling that you don’t see a difference, or perhaps claim not to. The result, whether you intend it or not, is to support the normalisation of the inhumane. Well, we all have to fill our time somehow, but surely there are more productive ways you could use yours...?

I agree, they do have to deal with it.  But an substantial measure of the "Trump is evil" rhetoric has been coming from the images of "children in cages!".  As if this is a Trump invention.  It is not.

The zero-tolerance policy is the stick that is causing the problem.  Whereby anyone apprehended illegally entering the U.S. receives criminal charges.  Zero tolerance policies are blunt instruments and rarely work.  But they are understandable and I don't necessarily begrudge anyone who tries them - be it on drink-driving, immigration, drugs or knife-crime.

However, there was a carrot previous too in an excessively weak policy, where illegally crossing the border with a child likely resulted in you evading charges.  That's hardly ethical and practically encourages illegal entry (and trafficking of minors.

The consequence has been, resulting from a policy that pre-dates both Trump and Obama, the moment an illegal immigrant is charged then they will almost automatically have any child removed from them.  This is standard practice if the parents are being arrested for drugs, arriving without adequate paperwork to prove the parenthood, and no doubt a myriad of offenses. The alternative to that being?  Lock the kids up with them in an adult detention centre? 

You seem to be getting this entirely from the Vox article you linked to.  Do you have statistics of references to back up the "almost never did" claim?  I suspect not as none have been provided.  Only vague claims.

Regardless, the study I linked to stated categorically that there has been a policy of separation since 2005, one that has been exercised and one that (given its name) was clearly intended as both a deterrent and punishment system - a hostile environment.

The DHS Secretary backed this up less than a week ago at a press briefing stating “The Obama administration, the Bush administration all separated families. … They did — their rate was less than ours, but they absolutely did do this. This is not new.”

More to the point, and the best hard figures we have on this are, between 2010 and 2016 almost 2.5 million people were apparently arrested attempting the Mexico crossing, with half a million referred for prosecution.  How many kids do you think were amongst them and separated from their parents?  None?  Some?  Ok?  Not ok?

I don't recall hearing a peep about any kids then, or Obama presiding over separations.  So presumably none occurred.

Or if it wasn't, and the roughly 2,000 kids removed from their parents in the last six weeks is what triggered the current outrage, what is the non-outrage-inducing number removed from the half million previous prosecuted individuals?  What number of child separations under 2,000 does it take to not make you animated? 

It makes no difference to me whether Trump shares the blame with Obama or the tooth-fairy for this.  I'm just concerned about what looks to be a glaring lack of consistency in where outrage gets applied.  And that I'm not led up the garden-path by a media and supposedly impartial individuals with no axe to grind, about when I should pick up our torches and pitch-forks.  Seems all manner of mental gymnastics and arbitrary red-lines are being drawn, conveniently exonerating one party but not another.

Equally revealing is the apparent offense my attempts to highlight this causes.  I'm obviously a Trump supporter.    

Yep, I can see a difference between Trump's elevated level and Obama's.  There is a relative difference between the two's approaches for sure.

What I don't get is why the absolute point where outrage occurs seems to conveniently and consistently be drawn somewhere above whatever Democrats do and below what Republicans do - be it immigration, drone strikes, Guantanamo, or just about anything.  That's the technicality.

I'm sure "screaming children heard crying for parents at US detention centre after being separated at border" only happens when Trump is in power.

No doubt you wont accept this but 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/728060002

"MPI’s Pierce said that the likely reason information isn't available on child separations under previous administrations is because it was done in “really limited circumstances” such as suspicion of trafficking or other fraud.

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

No, I believe it - I read the same details previously.

Question remains, how many kids is "some" and what level is acceptable to you?  We seem to be presuming the answer to both is less than the 2,000 which triggered the current furore.

Isn't it rather obviously the motive that matters, not the numbers? Preventing human trafficking is something where separation from (alleged) parents is justified, at least until identity can be established. Separation as a deliberately cruel policy is not.

Why did you do this? Do you get some strange kick out of attempting to defend the indefensible ? 

The motive appears to be zero-tolerance on illegal border crossing.  The increase in separations has been a bloody-minded result.  

And of drug traffickers?

Sorry, didn't realise I was defending Trump.  

Au contraire.  You can't separate the "Trump is evil" rhetoric in light of this latest scandal from the ongoing background of "Trump is evil" rhetoric stemming from Trump's repeated demonstrations that he is indeed evil, in word and deed.  Not least from his own astonishing populist gobshite outpourings on social media.

Here he is on Twitter this morning, saying that it's a mockery to law and order that immigrants are entitled to be treated in accordance with the law.  (Erm... ) 

"We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents..."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1010900865602019329

This isn't some local radio shock jock talking here, it's the President of the United States for f*cks sake.  He has made it plain enough, he actually *envies* Kim Jong Un.  But for the little inconvenience of the Constitution and, y'know, democracy, he would love to install himself as dictator and get the executions underway.

As to why....to a degree I'm playing the devil's advocate here.  But only somewhat.  I think there is an entirely fair point to be debated, ample evidence on both sides for cases to be made, and more than enough outrage directed at Trump alone that he seems to even be changing his policy.  

Just a pity to see no balance inserted.  Its toxic to do so.  This whole issue links to my other bugbears of course.  To be anything less than "Outraged!" appears not to be an option, and casting blame at anything other than the pin-up pinata seemingly grounds for me being taken out back and shot.

Anyway, enjoy -  youtube.com/watch?v=ex4rYsjxsdg&

There simply isn't. Having a policy of separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in appalling conditions is not something that should be up for debate in any civilised society.  

Really ? You think there is a fair point to be debated as to whether it is justified for the state to abduct kids and take them as hostages ? In many case separating them forever from their parents ?

Why not just get rid of them entirely, after all, it wouldn't be a big leap at all, if we follow your twisted logic, it would be effective and cheap, wouldn't it ?

Somewhat agree.  I don't see him as "evil" though.  Sam Harris' take on Trump was interesting and quite close to my own.  More an incompetent blow-hard.  What Sam maybe downplays is the degree of powerlessness people feel, hence their willingness to go with the wrecking ball.

youtube.com/watch?v=gFio_8aUS4I& 

...between about the 37 and 45 minute marks.

We're probably in agreement.  But you're contradicting yourself there as you seemed to accept above that in some circumstances it is unavoidable.  Now you're saying it's not up for debate.

I'm not supporting any of it.  Point is, the US has had a policy of allowing exactly this, regardless of who the president is.  That is either right or wrong.  Or if it falls somewhere in between or depends on circumstances then surely that's up for debate?

FFS.  Why?  Do you really get off on that sort of crap?  Yes, clearly, in a few horrendous situations where separating a child does less harm than not separating it, it may be a least worse option.  If so, you treat the child well.  But we aren't talking about that.  We are talking about deliberate, cruel separation of children as a policy measure to discourage migrants.

You clearly are.  Every evasion and deliberate distortion is supporting Trump (and as importantly his acolytes') actions

What it is you don't get about the situation ? There is a difference between unavoidable circumstances, such as if the kids come  alone, and deliberate policy to separate children from their parent as a policy of terror.

Because yes, it is nothing less than the use of terror, he is saying if you come illegally with your kids, we will take your kids away and you might never see them again, it's as simple as that.

if it was ISIS kidnapping those kids and taken them hostages, would you say "ho wait maybe they have a case" "it's debatable after all"  ... ?

You are so radicalised from poisoning your brain with your stupid YouTube videos, you don't even realise what you are saying.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/23/a-humble-suggestion-o...

Good point.  It's always useful to have a "what would ISIS do?" moment in these sorts of circumstances.  I'll remember that next time I hear of social services removing someone's kids....or, heaven forbid, the DHS removing them because their parents are suspected of trafficking drugs.

Better get that PREVENT strategy in action then.  Or better yet, jump on YouTube and report those Jordan Peterson (does he agree with me? probably not) videos for extremist content - minds need saving Rom!   

Anyway, goodnight.  I've done my best to be civil in the discussion.  But you and MG are rapidly descended in to the realms of "You support child separation and Trump!" (the adult equivalent of "You're literally a Nazi!" I guess) - which might be understandable if it weren't for the media circus clearly not being black and white.

Just saying it’s ‘not black and white’ doesn’t make it so. Thats the point; in this case it is. 

You are unwilling to accept what everyone else on this thread has pointed out repeatedly: intent matters. Of course governments get faced with really difficult situations. This government has deliberately made a choice to use cruelty to children as a policy tool. This is in contrast to its predecessors.

you claim this is an exercise in playing devils advocate. Your reaction to the unanimous rejection of your arguments will make many doubt that. Anyway, goodnight Ron.

Yes know very well that Trumps policy goes well beyond removing them because their parents are suspected of trafficking drugs.

Your wilful blindness is simply dishonest.

Well, yes, Pan Ron, this is exactly how little fascist shits are born, they don't suddenly turn evil, instead, they just turn a blind eye,  justify to themselves that treating that person or those kids lesser than an animal, is after all, "debatable", even "justifiable" and "they deserved it after all".

And before you know it immigration officials are telling parents they are taking their children for a "bath", and they never see them again. Reminds you of anything at all ? 

Not that clearly as far as I can see.  I mentioned in response to one of Pan Ron's posts above that I think there are one or two Trump apologists on here, I don't entirely agree with him but I certainly don't think he's one of them.

Well for me if someone spends ages attempting to explain, minimise, mis-represent and deflect attention from the appalling behaviour of Trump (or anyone else) they are supporting them.  Tagging on the end of all that a token "but I don't support them" doesn't change the situation.

Here's an update on how things are going since The Donald back pedalled a little bit.  It makes pretty grim reading.  First hand account of a visit to the various detention centres by US Senator Elizabeth Warren:

https://elizabethwarren.com/border-family-separation/