Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:32 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Yes, it does matter. "He is harming people" is a matter of opinion


No it is not a fucking matter of opinion.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

ucim wrote:"He is harming people" is a matter of opinion, and people can have legitimate differences here.
People can have a difference of opinion about whether the harm is justified or at least balanced out by the benefits, but whether something is harmful is a pretty objective thing, even if it's sometimes hard in practice to find out.

But "he is harming people because { he believes he's doing good | he doesn't care about anything but himself }" is not something about which I see legitimate differences. The latter alternative should be unacceptable to everyone; the former alternative is ordinary politics, of which you win some and lose some.

"He wants to do a genocide because he truly believes this race is an infestation of vermin" versus "he wants to do a genocide because he knows it will play well with his base, who truly believe this race is an infestation of vermin" is not an important difference, next to the he wants to do a genocide part.

And if you're willing to accept that as any kind of "ordinary politics" you've already lost.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

Harm is definitely objective. Yeah, you might have differing opinions over the harm, but generally speaking, harm is fairly objective. Maybe you lack the evidence to demonstrate a specific case, but the harm itself is definitely an objective thing.

That said, I do think it is important to understand the mentality of the opposition. Well, to understand the mentality of everyone, really. That's how you outplay them. I also don't think Trump particularly wants to "do a genocide". He's more authoritarian than would be wished by a significant margin, and that is definitely a risk factor, but pro/anti immigration policy to play to one's base is fairly common.

So, how's this going to play out? I see public examples of his policies failing as a drag on his desires. He's not extremely beloved, and the president's power is definitely not unlimited. So long as his desires match up with the populace, he's got some potential, but he doesn't have a ton of hardcore political backing when his will goes against that of the public. You see some really fast turnarounds when he floats a stupid idea the public hates.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:27 pm UTC

gmalivuk (et al) wrote:People can have a difference of opinion about whether the harm is justified or at least balanced out by the benefits, but whether something is harmful is a pretty objective thing,
Yes, you are right. I was using "doing harm" as shorthand for "doing more harm than good", because otherwise "he is doing harm" is a useless observation. Obama did harm. Mother Teresa did harm. Hell, Jesus himself did harm.
gmalivuk wrote:"He wants to do a genocide because he truly believes this race is an infestation of vermin" versus "he wants to do a genocide because he knows it will play well with his base, who truly believe this race is an infestation of vermin" is not an important difference, next to the he wants to do a genocide part.
It is if you want to do more than call people names. Specifically, the remedies are different. In the former case, he would be the source of the harm. In the latter case, the enemy is us - the people of the United States. In the former case, getting rid of him solves the problem. In the latter case, it would make it worse (as his elected successor may well do the same thing, only competently).
gmalivuk wrote:And if you're willing to accept that as any kind of "ordinary politics" you've already lost.
If you turn every disagreement into an accusation of racism, you've already lost.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:30 pm UTC

Every one of his policies directly causes harm, with the excuse that the external effects of those policies will make up for it, but no reason to believe that unless you think all of the problems in the country are purely the fault of everyone who stands in the way of white men making money.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:31 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:And if you're willing to accept that as any kind of "ordinary politics" you've already lost.
If you turn every disagreement into an accusation of racism, you've already lost.

If you don't think putting Latino immigrants in concentration camps is racist, might I again suggest finding a new forum elsewhere?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

It seems the opinion of the right that racism doesn't exist unless they wear a sign saying that they hate non-whites, and even if they do you shouldn't say so because it's not nice.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If you don't think putting Latino immigrants in concentration camps is racist, might I again suggest finding a new forum elsewhere?
Are you speaking in mod voice?

I am drawing a distinction between actions and reasons. It's an important distinction, for reasons I gave earlier. I don't think his racist actions derive from racist reasons. If you want to call people names, this doesn't matter. But if you want to effect effective change, then it does.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:44 pm UTC

And I'm saying I don't care where his racist actions come from because that doesn't change the fact that they're still fucking racist.

Hitler still needed to be stopped regardless of whether he genuinely thought he was doing good for the world by exterminating "lesser" races.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:44 pm UTC

Mod voice would be red, that was not red text.

I feel the need to chime in that almost any policy is likely to cause some amount of harm to some people. This is not to excuse Trump's policies, I think it's clear I'm opposed to the vast majority of them. But usually there would be "a loser" of some sort - loss of jobs for an industry that used to implement this, lower budgets available for other areas, etc. What we hope for is to maximize the benefits while minimizing the harm.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:46 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Mod voice would be red, that was not red text.

Yeah, when I tell you to find another forum in mod voice, you'll find yourself no longer able to post on this one.

(Though I may just skip the step of saying anything about it first. I'm getting very tired of all the fascism apologetics happening here, and I'm far more interested in this being a comfortable place for vulnerable and marginalized people to socialize than I am in protecting you people's ability to keep questioning whether or not concentration camps are *really* racist.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Hitler still needed to be stopped
Yes, and perhaps because the Germans didn't understand how or why he came to power (and thus failed to prevent it), he had to be stopped by a world war.

Aim the fire extinguisher at the BASE of the flames, not at the hot part. If we fail to do that (and I assert that you are failing to do that), we may end up with another world war.

That would spoil both our days.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Hitler still needed to be stopped
Yes, and perhaps because the Germans didn't understand how or why he came to power (and thus failed to prevent it), he had to be stopped by a world war.


Well, in part, they had a wonky electoral system and power brokering that gave far too much power to him.

Also, plenty of economic grievances trickling down from WW1. Definitely a huge factor.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:16 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:(Though I may just skip the step of saying anything about it first. I'm getting very tired of all the fascism apologetics happening here, and I'm far more interested in this being a comfortable place for vulnerable and marginalized people to socialize than I am in protecting you people's ability to keep questioning whether or not concentration camps are *really* racist.)

Spoiler:
Please don't start banning people on beliefs alone. At the very least make sure they are actually saying what you think they're saying before you pull the trigger. You and ucim both agree that concentration camps are racist. It boggles my mind that talk about how effective certain approaches to dealing with any social issue are tends to get shut down so hard around here.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:Yes, clearly that's true in practice, however I'm talking about the ethical foundations of the people talking here. I suspect that several of us don't give the the idea and practice of nationhood any moral weight in their thinking at all. I know that's true of me. Practically, nations are what we have to work with, at least for the moment, but it's not at all clear to me that the US (or UK, lest I be accused of having no skin in the game) should always prioritise it's own interests at the expense of people who are not citizens.


Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.


For morals to be useful, I think they have to work in the real world. At least some degree of pragmatism, I think. I mean, it's fine to be anti-nationalist in theory, but if your morality doesn't work in a world with nation-states, I'm not sure how useful it is?


I'm hugely late in replying to this, but I did want to give some sort of response. Personally I don't think I'd be able to reorganize my morals on pragmatic lines, and I don't feel that it's desirable either. Pragmatism IMO is best applied as a layer on top of, but separate from, an underlying moral framework. That way if the world is bloody awful about x, with no way of changing it, that doesn't mean that your views on x need to be bloody awful too.

The underlaying framework can still have an influence on what sort of arguments you find convincing. An argument that is straight "this is good for the US, therefore we should support it" is unlikely to convince someone with underlying anti-nationalist morality (unless the overall negative consequences are already obvious, which to me they are not, excepting extreme cases like unilaterally opening the borders).

Sure, one can say that we ought to simply ignore the national interest, but if we do, and everyone else does not, significant problems crop up. Other nation states are advantaged by offloading problems on us. This resulting state of affairs doesn't seem morally desirable.


There are degrees between always ruthlessly maximising the national interest and abandoning it all together. To my mind the pragmatic optimum probably lies somewhere between those two extremes. That is, there are likely some things a nation can do that aren't in the national interest, but don't engender the severe negative consequences you envisage. Sheltering refugees, and treating all migrants, regardless of legal status, with dignity and compassion, seems to me to be one such thing.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:40 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Mod voice would be red, that was not red text.
Yes, I know about red text. But when a person makes a threat, veiled or otherwise, that they can actually carry out, that's different from a person making a threat that they are powerless to carry out. For me to say "you'd better find another forum" is ignorable. For a mod to say it, it carries enough weight of red text no matter the color it's written in, because it can be followed up in red text. Or, as gmal says ("Though I may just skip the step of saying anything about it first"), even without it.

So, I wanted explicitly to know whether or not I was being threatened.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:49 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:I'm hugely late in replying to this, but I did want to give some sort of response. Personally I don't think I'd be able to reorganize my morals on pragmatic lines, and I don't feel that it's desirable either. Pragmatism IMO is best applied as a layer on top of, but separate from, an underlying moral framework. That way if the world is bloody awful about x, with no way of changing it, that doesn't mean that your views on x need to be bloody awful too.

The underlaying framework can still have an influence on what sort of arguments you find convincing. An argument that is straight "this is good for the US, therefore we should support it" is unlikely to convince someone with underlying anti-nationalist morality (unless the overall negative consequences are already obvious, which to me they are not, excepting extreme cases like unilaterally opening the borders).


No worries, nobody's on the forum all the time, a late reply's always cool in my book.

I do agree that sometimes, all the reasonable options are pretty shitty. Sure, if all the existing options are immoral, but a moral option would work perfectly well, push for the moral option. If the moral option, however, would not work(not merely is unpopular, but simply could not work), it's different, though. It's a sign that perhaps morals need to be re-examined.

It is very easy to claim positive things like "everyone deserves x", for just about any positive variation of x, and get general agreement. It's far more difficult to actually deliver on that. If you're looking at morals as an actual guide for what you ought to do, rather than simply feel-good statements, you have to take a hard look at some of those things.

In the case of open borders, we certainly *can* have them, or something very close to them...but it does involve a lot of tradeoffs. One such set, ditching a lot of social safety nets, is one solution that can be consistently held to be moral. If, however, someone has a set of beliefs including "the borders should be open", "we should provide extensive social safety nets to everyone, even new immigrants", you're going to have some conflicts. Well, unless you consider poverty a virtue, I suppose.

Sure, one can say that we ought to simply ignore the national interest, but if we do, and everyone else does not, significant problems crop up. Other nation states are advantaged by offloading problems on us. This resulting state of affairs doesn't seem morally desirable.


There are degrees between always ruthlessly maximising the national interest and abandoning it all together. To my mind the pragmatic optimum probably lies somewhere between those two extremes. That is, there are likely some things a nation can do that aren't in the national interest, but don't engender the severe negative consequences you envisage. Sheltering refugees, and treating all migrants, regardless of legal status, with dignity and compassion, seems to me to be one such thing.


Treating everyone with respect and compassion is certainly an ideal to strive for. Honestly, there's fairly little payoff for being a dick to people, regardless of if it's on a personal level or a national one. Even if you have to have a tough policy, you want to implement it with professionalism and courtesy. This is actually one of the things I disliked about Arpaio. Much of his policy seemed to go beyond merely being tough on crime, and into the area of simply being a dick for the sake of being a dick. Stuff like that's a problem.

I don't see detention as inherently being dickish, or even necessarily wrong. Criminals are often detained, after all. They still have rights, certainly, but detainment is widely accepted as an acceptable abridgement of rights when dealing with crime. It certainly does not constitute genocide, and isn't a concentration camp unless further definitions are met.

ucim wrote:So, I wanted explicitly to know whether or not I was being threatened.

Jose


I suspect that any reasonable person would read that as yes, you were being threatened.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:So, I wanted explicitly to know whether or not I was being threatened.

Jose


I suspect that any reasonable person would read that as yes, you were being threatened.

I guess I'm unreasonable?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:59 pm UTC

What dya think gma was attempting to convey to ucim, then?
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:00 pm UTC

To be clear, "Maybe find another place for that opinion" was not a threat, but "I may just start banning fascism apologists" was.

SDK wrote:It boggles my mind that talk about how effective certain approaches to dealing with any social issue are tends to get shut down so hard around here.
If you don't like how quickly I try to shut down discussions about how "effective" camps are in dealing with a problem Trump's policy invented/created in the first place, you're welcome to find another place for that opinion as well.

Safe spaces are only strictly enforced where [safespace] tags are used, but overall on this forum the priority leans more toward letting vulnerable people feel safe than toward the freedom of white men to debate their lives as an intellectual exercise.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8268
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:What dya think gmv was attempting to convey to ucim, then?

That he thinks it's a bullshit position to have and he'd like ucim not to stick around? There's a difference between "I don't like you" and "I don't like you so I'm going to act against you".
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

The bit about
"Yeah, when I tell you to find another forum in mod voice, you'll find yourself no longer able to post on this one.

(Though I may just skip the step of saying anything about it first."

He quoted the latter bit.

It also appears SDK read that as talking about a ban. I'm reading it the same way.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:11 pm UTC

Come on guys this isn't hard. I explicitly stated which part was the threat. ucim asked about something I'd said before that, which I explicitly stated was not a threat.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If the moral option, however, would not work(not merely is unpopular, but simply could not work), it's different, though. It's a sign that perhaps morals need to be re-examined.


I disagree with this, quite strongly. I'm going to explain why in pseudo-algebra, because that makes the most sense to me in my head.

So for me morals work something like this, where F is some sort of ethical optimization function (mine is broadly consequentialist, but I'm not familiar enough with philosophical ethics to be more precise):

F{(what is morally good), (the realities of the world)} = (what should be done)

A moral view not being workable is not an indication that anything is necessarily wrong with the view, it's simply not currently achievable. It therefore gets factored out and doesn't feature in "what should be done". It is vitally important not to discard the view itself though, because "the realities of the world" change, sometimes suddenly and dramatically. If your moral framework is totally tailored to the present realities it is difficult to be responsive to new realities. If you keep the impractical, impossible hopes in your thinking, you may find that they become practical and achievable due to some unforeseen external change.

Take for example the view that "animals should not be exploited for their labour" (not a view I hold in the most part, but it serves as a convenient illustration). Prior to the mid 20th century such a view was wildly, hopelessly impractical. Nowadays, it would be simple, if unpopular, to achieve in many places, with relatively few edge cases (assistance dogs being the most obvious).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:49 pm UTC

I'll grant that, should technology or what not in the future change, it might be possible to be more moral than we can be today. I can definitely come up with a number of problems that future technological advances might negate, or at least, might make easier to cope with.

That said, I think it is entirely excusable that morals in earlier times justified exploiting animals. If they had no better options, what else could they do? There are other examples where they might have done better, and those, sure, totally fair to blame 'em. For instance, even if exploitation is necessary, cruelty beyond necessity remains objectionable.

Basically, it boils down to not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Particularly when the standards for perfect are unreachable with modern technology.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:50 pm UTC

Perhaps we can't give everyone [X], but making [X] as accessible as possible for as many people as possible (with both of those "as possible"s varying with the circumstances) is still the logical best course of action based on the principle that everyone deserves [X]. A maxim like, "Everyone deserves to have enough to eat" doesn't become more or less morally correct depending on that year's harvest.

In any case, we don't have to want totally open borders in order to see that the current policy is excessively cruel, and it takes no more than a very brief investigation to see that it costs orders of magnitude more without being demonstrably superior in any way other than satisfying the xenophobic bloodlust of Trump's white supremacist base.

And detention isn't the only thing this policy has in common with concentration camps. The fact that they're literally building camps for it is another similarity, for example. Plus, forcibly taking children from one group and giving them to another (which is still happening to many who were already separated from their parents, the recent EO notwithstanding) is indeed a kind of genocide, even if it's not the extermination kind.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Perhaps we can't give everyone [X], but making [X] as accessible as possible for as many people as possible (with both of those "as possible"s varying with the circumstances) is still the logical best course of action based on the principle that everyone deserves [X]. A maxim like, "Everyone deserves to have enough to eat" doesn't become more or less morally correct depending on that year's harvest.


Indeed it does not. And thus, extreme scenarios can be illuminating from a moral perspective. We might agree that nobody particularly deserves to be run over by a trolley, but examining your beliefs through a thought experiment requires making a choice, whereas a bland statement about everyone deserving something doesn't.

In any case, we don't have to want totally open borders in order to see that the current policy is excessively cruel, and it takes no more than a very brief investigation to see that it costs orders of magnitude more without being demonstrably superior in any way other than satisfying the xenophobic bloodlust of Trump's white supremacist base.

And detention isn't the only thing this policy has in common with concentration camps. The fact that they're literally building camps for it is another similarity, for example. Plus, forcibly taking children from one group and giving them to another (which is still happening to many who were already separated from their parents, the recent EO notwithstanding) is indeed a kind of genocide, even if it's not the extermination kind.


Costly, probably. I suspect the immigration system as a whole could be handled much more economically. Cost does not seem to be a strong driver of this, but rather, a desire for strict enforcement of illegal immigration.

When existing facilities are inadequate, building more is fine. That's pretty much the default answer basically always, and it is far superior to crowding too many people into substandard facilities. Obama's administration built camps, but no genocide occurred, nor was that the intent of his administration.

We've already talked at length about the prioritization for family placement for children, and nobody has yet challenged it as unreasonable. If you'd like to call it genocide, could you explain what about the process is wrong with it? Note that "placing them accidentally with human traffickers" is a failing of the last administration, and has been fixed.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

wait were children actually vérifiably placed with human traffickers before, or was that just a continued speculation about things that COULD potentially have happened because the government didn't keep tabs on all of them? i saw a lot of people speculating about all the things that might have happened but if there were concrete stories i missed those.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:15 pm UTC

natraj wrote:wait were children actually vérifiably placed with human traffickers before, or was that just a continued speculation about things that COULD potentially have happened because the government didn't keep tabs on all of them? i saw a lot of people speculating about all the things that might have happened but if there were concrete stories i missed those.


Cited and linked up-thread. Child farm kept coming and claiming to be the family of unrelated children and getting more.

Blew up a while back, and republicans led a big stink over it(probably didn't hurt that it was making the democrats look bad), and added some requirements for identity verification for who you're handing kids to.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That said, I think it is entirely excusable that morals in earlier times justified exploiting animals. If they had no better options, what else could they do?


I agree, but I think it would have been even better to have recognised, explicitly, that this was a sub-optimal necessity forced by the lack of better options. That way, when those options expanded, one wouldn't be left with "outdated" morals which take a long time to change (if they ever do for an individual person).

Retaining idealism as a foundation leads to one being able to exploit moral opportunities which a pure pragmatist would miss. It also encourages one to think on a larger scale. "I believe X, X is impossible, I should not believe X" vs. "I believe X, X is impossible, what might I research/fund/promote that might make X possible in the future."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:25 pm UTC

There's an outdated morals problem, to be sure. However, I think, largely, it's not that folks abandon idealism in principle. Even most elderly folks still have ideals, after all. It's that most people are not likely to question decisions. They're simply not going to re-evaluate a belief to see if it needs updating at all. It's not so much an idealism/not idealism thing, as it is heuristic laziness.

They probably don't even remember, specifically, why they believe those things. Most people, if you ask them *how* they know a thing, will have a good deal less certainty than they do when you ask them what they know. Even if they claim to know, it may be a post-hoc rationalization for a belief they keep, but for which the original justification is long gone.

I like large scale stuff, but that mostly just involves a broader range of what's possible. Probably not a mental reach for the sort of people who can significantly alter the realm of what's possible via research, etc. I'm sure ol' Musk has a more expansive version of what's possible than most people do, but thanks to his position, he's got a wider range than most for what he can do to change what's possible. The average person may simply not be able to impact the same things, and thus, not bother to think about them. A mental shortcut that, for the vast majority of cases, is probably fair.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10238
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:26 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Hitler still needed to be stopped regardless of whether he genuinely thought he was doing good for the world by exterminating "lesser" races.


A bit off topic, but the nazi ideology was never about doing good for humanity but doing what was best for germans. Anti-semitism has usually been couched in terms of "punching up"; where as anti-Africanism has been of the form "they are beneath us therefore we should get rid of them", anti-semitism is "they are above us therefore we should get rid of then". The "best for the world" was always a post hoc justification for making germans dictators of the all else, in much the same way slave owners claimed they were civilizing black people, imperialists claimed to be uplifting "savages" in spite of many of the civilizations had predated the Roman Empire, and xenophobic isolationists insisting that Trump's policies are not racist.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
In any case, we don't have to want totally open borders in order to see that the current policy is excessively cruel, and it takes no more than a very brief investigation to see that it costs orders of magnitude more without being demonstrably superior in any way other than satisfying the xenophobic bloodlust of Trump's white supremacist base.

And detention isn't the only thing this policy has in common with concentration camps. The fact that they're literally building camps for it is another similarity, for example. Plus, forcibly taking children from one group and giving them to another (which is still happening to many who were already separated from their parents, the recent EO notwithstanding) is indeed a kind of genocide, even if it's not the extermination kind.


Costly, probably.
What's "probably" costly?

I suspect the immigration system as a whole could be handled much more economically.
For many families it already had been getting handled more economically, at something like $36/day/family instead of several hundred per day per person.

Cost does not seem to be a strong driver of this, but rather, a desire for strict enforcement of illegal immigration.
Right, but one of the most commonly claimed reasons to be so strongly against illegal immigration (which, again, asylum *isn't*) is economic, and the billions and billions of dollars in increased costs mean that's not actually the reason anyone is really going with.

We've already talked at length about the prioritization for family placement for children, and nobody has yet challenged it as unreasonable.
The claimed priorities might be fine, that doesn't mean they're being followed.

If you'd like to call it genocide, could you explain what about the process is wrong with it?
When those children end up with foster families that don't speak their language, and when no special effort is made to even figure out whose kids they are, let alone reunite them, then there's something wrong with the process.

Note that "placing them accidentally with human traffickers" is a failing of the last administration, and has been fixed.
I seem to remember saying something about the next time you bring up a "but the Democrats!" point. It was, by the way, meant to be a threat.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
In any case, we don't have to want totally open borders in order to see that the current policy is excessively cruel, and it takes no more than a very brief investigation to see that it costs orders of magnitude more without being demonstrably superior in any way other than satisfying the xenophobic bloodlust of Trump's white supremacist base.

And detention isn't the only thing this policy has in common with concentration camps. The fact that they're literally building camps for it is another similarity, for example. Plus, forcibly taking children from one group and giving them to another (which is still happening to many who were already separated from their parents, the recent EO notwithstanding) is indeed a kind of genocide, even if it's not the extermination kind.


Costly, probably.
What's "probably" costly?


Detention. The first part of the quote I'm responding to says that detention costs a fair bit. That's logical enough, jail ain't usually cheap.

Cost does not seem to be a strong driver of this, but rather, a desire for strict enforcement of illegal immigration.
Right, but one of the most commonly claimed reasons to be so strongly against illegal immigration (which, again, asylum *isn't*) is economic, and the billions and billions of dollars in increased costs mean that's not actually the reason anyone is really going with.


Yeah, and we're against theft because it's costly, even though enforcement isn't free.

ICE is spending about $2 bil a year on detainment.

Trump claimed that current immigration policy cost the US $300 bil annually. Politifact rates this claim as "half true", pointing out that support is much better if the number is lower(either $279b or $43b, depending on economic assumptions).

It is trivially true that it's more than $2 bil, though. $43 bil is a good, conservative estimate of direct costs. So no, being in favor of illegal immigration enforcement is not at odds with wanting to save money.

We've already talked at length about the prioritization for family placement for children, and nobody has yet challenged it as unreasonable.
The claimed priorities might be fine, that doesn't mean they're being followed.


If you're alleging some kind of grand conspiracy to repatriate a specific race's kids to parents of another race, I'm interested to hear whatever evidence you have.

If you'd like to call it genocide, could you explain what about the process is wrong with it?
When those children end up with foster families that don't speak their language, and when no special effort is made to even figure out whose kids they are, let alone reunite them, then there's something wrong with the process.


They attempt to place them with parents first, then with family, and mostly, that appears to be successful. So, they do appear to be putting effort into figuring out whose kids they are.

Note that "placing them accidentally with human traffickers" is a failing of the last administration, and has been fixed.
I seem to remember saying something about the next time you bring up a "but the Democrats!" point. It was, by the way, meant to be a threat.


Hard to tell what's a threat and what's not. So now we're banning discussion of facts on the basis that they are inconvenient?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Detention. The first part of the quote I'm responding to says that detention costs a fair bit. That's logical enough, jail ain't usually cheap.
The point isn't just that it's expensive, it's that it's orders of magnitude more expensive than a nearly 100% effective alternative.

ICE is spending about $2 bil a year on detainment.
Is as of when? You can't use the budget for years when they didn't have a zero-tolerance, detain-everyone policy and just assume that somehow that's going to remain the same now that we're apparently planning to lock up asylum seekers indefinitely.

Trump claimed that current immigration policy cost the US $300 bil annually. Politifact rates this claim as "half true", pointing out that support is much better if the number is lower(either $279b or $43b, depending on economic assumptions).

It is trivially true that it's more than $2 bil, though. $43 bil is a good, conservative estimate of direct costs. So no, being in favor of illegal immigration enforcement is not at odds with wanting to save money.
Are you talking about the money the government spends on enforcing immigration policy, or the economic consequences of illegal immigration? Because I was talking about the cost of letting people into the country, not the cost of trying to prevent that.

If you're alleging some kind of grand conspiracy to repatriate a specific race's kids to parents of another race, I'm interested to hear whatever evidence you have.
That's what is in fact happening, however grand or conspiratorial you think it is is up to you.

They attempt to place them with parents first, then with family, and mostly, that appears to be successful. So, they do appear to be putting effort into figuring out whose kids they are.
That's what the stated priorities are, but since they didn't bother keeping detailed records of whose kids were taken, when, from where to where, it's pretty naive for you to suppose they'll all end up with their parents or other relatives. Especially when people who've actually worked in ICE say otherwise.

So now we're banning discussion of facts on the basis that they are inconvenient?
On the basis that they're generally off-topic tu quoque derailments.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:53 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Detention. The first part of the quote I'm responding to says that detention costs a fair bit. That's logical enough, jail ain't usually cheap.
The point isn't just that it's expensive, it's that it's orders of magnitude more expensive than a nearly 100% effective alternative.


Detainment is not new. A lot of folks have always been detained. I agree that non-detention was cheaper, and the payoff for getting a few more people may not be very good, but this didn't make up most of the budget, so the overall change is not nearly that large.

ICE is spending about $2 bil a year on detainment.
Is as of when? You can't use the budget for years when they didn't have a zero-tolerance, detain-everyone policy and just assume that somehow that's going to remain the same now that we're apparently planning to lock up asylum seekers indefinitely.


ICE itself expects less than double the number of detainees.
Since you are concerned about budgetary requirements, the 2018 budget is available here. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICE%20FY18%20Budget.pdf
If we use their numbers, and include the modest increase for per-bed cost that they expect, we might be spending an additional half billion this year over that ballpark figure.

It certainly does not significantly impact the profitability of immigration enforcement.

Trump claimed that current immigration policy cost the US $300 bil annually. Politifact rates this claim as "half true", pointing out that support is much better if the number is lower(either $279b or $43b, depending on economic assumptions).

It is trivially true that it's more than $2 bil, though. $43 bil is a good, conservative estimate of direct costs. So no, being in favor of illegal immigration enforcement is not at odds with wanting to save money.
Are you talking about the money the government spends on enforcing immigration policy, or the economic consequences of illegal immigration? Because I was talking about the cost of letting people into the country, not the cost of trying to prevent that.


The economic consequences of illegal immigration. The cost of attempting to prevent that is far cheaper than the cost incurred by failing to do so. Roughly an order of magnitude so. You are welcome to read the politifact article for yourself, and pursue it's sources if you wish. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/23/donald-trump/does-immigration-policy-impose-300-billion-annuall/

If you're alleging some kind of grand conspiracy to repatriate a specific race's kids to parents of another race, I'm interested to hear whatever evidence you have.
That's what is in fact happening, however grand or conspiratorial you think it is is up to you.


As I said, I am interested in hearing evidence. Allegations without evidence matter significantly less.

They attempt to place them with parents first, then with family, and mostly, that appears to be successful. So, they do appear to be putting effort into figuring out whose kids they are.
That's what the stated priorities are, but since they didn't bother keeping detailed records of whose kids were taken, when, from where to where, it's pretty naive for you to suppose they'll all end up with their parents or other relatives. Especially when people who've actually worked in ICE say otherwise.


Ah, yes, the "lost children" canard. Poltifact has noted this is not true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/may/29/sorting-out-facts-about-nearly-1500-lost-children-/, and pretty much every major news organization has also published a retraction/debunking*

Basically, it's the number of sponsors who didn't bother to return an attempt for contact when HHS does their check-back after placing a child. It's not a lack of vetting, and failing to return this contact is not illegal in any way, so there's no wrongdoing here. Also, the involved children were placed prior to the new Trump detention policy, so they're not in any way a result of this, but a result of prior enforcement policies.

The number of unconfirmed children is actually slightly lower than it was for the Obama administration according to the IG.

*CNN: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-bord ... act-check/

So now we're banning discussion of facts on the basis that they are inconvenient?
On the basis that they're generally off-topic tu quoque derailments.


It's extremely relevant to the topic. You're attempting to portray the Trump administration's detainment policy as new, extreme, and so forth. Comparing to the last administration is directly relevant, as you yourself are implicitly doing when you quote things such as "increased cost". Such facts are also commonly reported in news articles on the topic, so they're definitely on topic.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:04 pm UTC

You often request citations for assertions we make. Do you have any for the last few you've made? Starting with kids being repatriated and
That's what the stated priorities are, but since they didn't bother keeping detailed records of whose kids were taken, when, from where to where, it's pretty naive for you to suppose they'll all end up with their parents or other relatives. Especially when people who've actually worked in ICE say otherwise.


I might add, that quote sounds like a real easy way for human trafficking to happen.

Something else that I have always found troubling is that people will pay coyotes ridiculous amounts of money to get across the border (I'm not suggesting all do, but we have seen enough evidence that it does happen). That money flows directly to the cartels. The same cartels these families are trying to flee. The amount of money that does make it to the cartels (and the various officials in Mexico who are getting bribes) is not insignificant. WaPo fact checked DHS nielsen's claim of 500 million attributed to smuggling. They gave it two pinnochios. They noted that it's really not possible to know how big of a sum it really is.. it could be higher. The UN even pegged the number much higher (but based on immigration numbers that were higher).

I dont think it is a stretch to say that Mexican officials are against trump because they are the ones who seem to profit from illegal immigration.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Detention. The first part of the quote I'm responding to says that detention costs a fair bit. That's logical enough, jail ain't usually cheap.
The point isn't just that it's expensive, it's that it's orders of magnitude more expensive than a nearly 100% effective alternative.
Detainment is not new. A lot of folks have always been detained.
The scale is precisely the issue, though.

ICE itself expects less than double the number of detainees.
Is ICE itself who's going to be housing them?

Since you are concerned about budgetary requirements, the 2018 budget is available here.
And that includes the consequences of a policy that started this year?

The economic consequences of illegal immigration. The cost of attempting to prevent that is far cheaper than the cost incurred by failing to do so. Roughly an order of magnitude so. You are welcome to read the politifact article for yourself, and pursue it's sources if you wish. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/23/donald-trump/does-immigration-policy-impose-300-billion-annuall/
The politifact article that says once the immigrants stay here and have kids, their economic influence is positive? So the "cost of immigration" is, long term, actually negative? Yeah thanks for that.

Ah, yes, the "lost children" canard.
I'm not talking about those children, I'm talking about the ones currently being held in camps (and old Wal-Marts).

You're attempting to portray the Trump administration's detainment policy as new, extreme, and so forth. Comparing to the last administration is directly relevant, as you yourself are implicitly doing when you quote things such as "increased cost". Such facts are also commonly reported in news articles on the topic, so they're definitely on topic.
But you're just cherry picking individual bad shit that happened during the previous administration in an attempt to deflect from the big-picture fact that what's currently going on is new and more extreme than anything else in the 15 years of ICE's existence. They and CBP have long been a bit Gestapo-y, and as I've said before your ignorance of the criticism Obama got for that when he was in office is not my fault, but the current administration is openly embracing and encouraging it in a way and on a scale we haven't seen before.

trpmb6 wrote:
I dont think it is a stretch to say that Mexican officials are against trump because they are the ones who seem to profit from illegal immigration.
Yeah, sure, that must be it and nothing to do with him saying they're all rapists and drug dealers or expecting them to pay for his stupid border wall.

Something else that I have always found troubling is that people will pay coyotes ridiculous amounts of money to get across the border
Some people will, sure, but the ones coming openly in "caravans" to request asylum obviously aren't also paying people to smuggle them across the border.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Detention. The first part of the quote I'm responding to says that detention costs a fair bit. That's logical enough, jail ain't usually cheap.
The point isn't just that it's expensive, it's that it's orders of magnitude more expensive than a nearly 100% effective alternative.
Detainment is not new. A lot of folks have always been detained.
The scale is precisely the issue, though.

ICE itself expects less than double the number of detainees.
Is ICE itself who's going to be housing them?


Depends on exactly what sort of "not splitting family" solution we're on nowadays. But beforehand, generally yeah, ICE had the adults, kids'll end up going to Health and Human Services. We're actually down by about 50% on the amount of asylum-seeking kids from the high of last administration. So no, these numbers are not hiding a vast increase somewhere.

Since you are concerned about budgetary requirements, the 2018 budget is available here.
And that includes the consequences of a policy that started this year?


It is the most up to date information available, and contains estimates through the end of the year, including an increase due to Trump's anti-immigration policy. I'm not sure what more you could ask for.

The economic consequences of illegal immigration. The cost of attempting to prevent that is far cheaper than the cost incurred by failing to do so. Roughly an order of magnitude so. You are welcome to read the politifact article for yourself, and pursue it's sources if you wish. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/23/donald-trump/does-immigration-policy-impose-300-billion-annuall/
The politifact article that says once the immigrants stay here and have kids, their economic influence is positive? So the "cost of immigration" is, long term, actually negative? Yeah thanks for that.


Did you skim for just the part you wanted? The second generation thing didn't distinguish between legals and illegals. Of course that will return a profitable result. Immigration as a whole is a net gain, it's only illegals who are costly.

This whole policy is about cracking down on illegals.

Ah, yes, the "lost children" canard.
I'm not talking about those children, I'm talking about the ones currently being held in camps (and old Wal-Marts).


If you've got actual evidence for the whole "forcible resettlement" thing, cool. Show me the new policy that Trump's instituting to make sure different parents end up with the detained kids. I've yet to see any data indicating that the Trump administration is keeping worse track of kids than the Obama admin.

You're attempting to portray the Trump administration's detainment policy as new, extreme, and so forth. Comparing to the last administration is directly relevant, as you yourself are implicitly doing when you quote things such as "increased cost". Such facts are also commonly reported in news articles on the topic, so they're definitely on topic.
But you're just cherry picking individual bad shit that happened during the previous administration in an attempt to deflect from the big-picture fact that what's currently going on is new and more extreme than anything else in the 15 years of ICE's existence. They and CBP have long been a bit Gestapo-y, and as I've said before your ignorance of the criticism Obama got for that when he was in office is not my fault, but the current administration is openly embracing and encouraging it in a way and on a scale we haven't seen before.


Trump is more anti-illegal immigration. Sure. There is a reason why. The number of immigrants has been increasing since the 60s, and it's become a bigger and bigger problem to deal with. Overall, it's been on a long term increasing trend. So yes, new facilities have to be built to handle the increased workload.

Now, why that's been happening, you've got a bunch of reasons, ranging from widespread cartel problems that nobody has, or appears to want to, fix. You've got historical reasons like the Reagan-era amnesty and the Clinton-era criminalization of illegal immigrants. But the last fifteen years has been pretty much a problem escalating ever larger, and getting ever harsher enforcement on illegal immigration.

But on the flip side, we've also been gradually allowing in more legal immigrants. The trend is not primarily towards hating immigration as a whole(though there is a side order of that, in certain communities, which is unfortunate). It's mostly towards strictly enforcement.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:On the basis that they're generally off-topic tu quoque derailments.


It's extremely relevant to the topic. You're attempting to portray the Trump administration's detainment policy as new, extreme, and so forth. Comparing to the last administration is directly relevant, as you yourself are implicitly doing when you quote things such as "increased cost". Such facts are also commonly reported in news articles on the topic, so they're definitely on topic.


Bloke A drives the minibus. Bloke A makes some mistakes, including scuffing the nearside rear wheels on the kerb on a particularly sharp bend.
Bloke B takes over driving the minibus. Bloke B swerves into oncoming traffic.
Family members of Bloke A try to persuade Bloke B to get the minibus back onto the correct side of the road.
Family members of Bloke B tell them that driving on the correct side of the road resulted in the nearside rear wheels getting scuffed on the kerb.
There is a cement truck coming.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi, WriteBrainedJR and 15 guests