|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 14:45:23 GMT -5
What are you talking about? No government gives citizens of other countries "permission to travel." It can only give them permission to enter. Yes, that's what I meant. You are argueing that in order to enter a country, the government needs to give permission first, are you not? That is not mentioned at all in the text you quoted. There is no mention of requiring the government's permission to enter a country. In fact, it says this: "A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas."
How is it "free movement" when you need the government's permission to move?
The article also says: "Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."
Now how do you find out if a person "has a record of violence, credible plans for violence" if you don't check them out first?
In other words, the people entering the country have to be checked first.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 19:03:01 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I meant. You are argueing that in order to enter a country, the government needs to give permission first, are you not? That is not mentioned at all in the text you quoted. There is no mention of requiring the government's permission to enter a country. In fact, it says this: "A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas."
How is it "free movement" when you need the government's permission to move?
The article also says: "Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense." Now how do you find out if a person "has a record of violence, credible plans for violence" if you don't check them out first? In other words, the people entering the country have to be checked first. Bob
What exactly does this have to do with needing permission from the government? Are you saying that only government agents can see whether somebody "has a record of violence" or is "acting violently"? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 19:26:34 GMT -5
The article also says: "Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense." Now how do you find out if a person "has a record of violence, credible plans for violence" if you don't check them out first? In other words, the people entering the country have to be checked first. Bob
What exactly does this have to do with needing permission from the government? Are you saying that only government agents can see whether somebody "has a record of violence" or is "acting violently"?
"Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."
Next question: how exactly should that be accomplished? Private Vigilantes?
The government is the only organization that can accomplish these actions within the rule of law.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 19:39:00 GMT -5
The government is the only organization that can accomplish these actions within the rule of law. So you do believe that only the government can see whether somebody is acting violently. Do you also believe that the government is always correct in its assessment? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 20:39:29 GMT -5
The government is the only organization that can accomplish these actions within the rule of law. So you do believe that only the government can see whether somebody is acting violently. Of course not. Same answer. Of course not. But only the government can be responsible for taking legal action. Unless, of course, you believe that private vigilantes can do a better job. Do you? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 22:19:07 GMT -5
So you do believe that only the government can see whether somebody is acting violently. Of course not. Yet you trust the government as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "violent" or "a threat". Actually, scratch that. You trust Donald Trump as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "a threat". I believe that governments are evil. You clearly do not. Do you believe that the government is more competent than private actors? Where's your evidence for that? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 23:33:49 GMT -5
Yet you trust the government as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "violent" or "a threat". Actually, scratch that. You trust Donald Trump as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "a threat".  That's totally wrong. I don't trust the government. And I don't have to. America is a Constitutional Republic. We have Checks and Balances. The President cannot do anything without MONEY. Money must be appropriated by both houses of Congress. And the Supreme Court can always overrule them both and declare their actions Unconstitutional. On top of that, the public gets to vote every 2 years. If they don't like what Congress has done, they can vote them out of office. The same goes for the President every 4 years. The government, in short, is LIMITED. On top of that, what's the alternative to government? There is none. Wrong again. I also believe that government is evil. That is why the government has to be limited in what it can do and the actions it can take. But do you really believe that government is evil? Then why do you want the governemnt to keep doing more and more things? As government tasks grow, so does the power of the government. More departments, more government workers, and more power to the government. Do you really want to increase the power of an organization that we both consider to be evil? LOL! Whatever gave you that idea? The government is usually more incompetent than private actors. That's why I want to reduce the size of the government and limit the number of things it can interfere with. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 2:44:05 GMT -5
Yet you trust the government as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "violent" or "a threat". Actually, scratch that. You trust Donald Trump as the sole arbiter as to who is considered "a threat". That's totally wrong. I don't trust the government. And I don't have to. America is a Constitutional Republic. We have Checks and Balances. The President cannot do anything without MONEY. Money must be appropriated by both houses of Congress. And the Supreme Court can always overrule them both and declare their actions Unconstitutional. So based on your ongoing support for your government's conduct at the border and in these "detention centers", you believe that Donald Trump's government is acting correctly and is able to assess the threat from immigrants objectively and with as much accuracy as humanly possible. And you believe that the judges of the Supreme Court will never do anything wrong, despite years of "activist judges" allegedly misinterpreting the constitution.
Then again, it is never a misinterpretation when migrants are being brutalized.
After all, the US constitution says it clearly: "The government alone decides who is allowed to live here."
And they can vote people into office that are even harsher and brutal on all those Mexican criminals and Muslim terrorists that are invading your country. Good to know that courts and the general public are supporting American concentration camps. For a moment, you had me worried that people might not be okay with the brutal neglect of little children, or the abuse of adult migrants. You are right. There is no alternative to abusing migrants. It has to be done, for the good of the country, to keep you safe from those irritating refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 21, 2019 12:18:51 GMT -5
That's totally wrong. I don't trust the government. And I don't have to. America is a Constitutional Republic. We have Checks and Balances. The President cannot do anything without MONEY. Money must be appropriated by both houses of Congress. And the Supreme Court can always overrule them both and declare their actions Unconstitutional. So based on your ongoing support for your government's conduct at the border and in these "detention centers", you believe that Donald Trump's government is acting correctly and is able to assess the threat from immigrants objectively and with as much accuracy as humanly possible. And you believe that the judges of the Supreme Court will never do anything wrong, despite years of "activist judges" allegedly misinterpreting the constitution. Where did I say that? Do you have exact quotes of what I actually said? Please use exact quotes of what I actually said instead of making things up. Does a government have to right to decide which citizens of other countries may enter? Yes. Is the USA handling the large influx of citizens from other countries entering the USA is a satisfactory manner No. The system is being overwhelmed by a huge number of people and not enough money was authorized for handling this. "Brutalized" implies a deliberate conscious intent to be brutal. There is no evidence here of such a conscious intent. No problem here. That's what the courts are for. The courts can and have stopped the government from going too far. Three cheers for Checks and Balances! So far, you haven't proved any of that. All you do is keep repeating "concentration camps" to make people think that they are like Nazi Death Camps or Forced Labor Camps. But there is no deliberate plan to kill thousands of people. And they certainly are not being forced to work. Once again I never said that. You made it up. Without government there will be nothing to stop people from forming armed groups to kill anyone they don't like from coming into their territory. Is that what you prefer? The present trouble with the migrants is due to the system being overwhelmed by too many people overwhelming the system. But you make it sound as if this is deliberate brutality (for which you have provided absolutely no evidence, by the way). Perhaps you would rather see boatloads of immigrants being turned away as is happening now in Europe (especially Italy) with no chance to even apply for entry. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 14:26:01 GMT -5
So based on your ongoing support for your government's conduct at the border and in these "detention centers", you believe that Donald Trump's government is acting correctly and is able to assess the threat from immigrants objectively and with as much accuracy as humanly possible. And you believe that the judges of the Supreme Court will never do anything wrong, despite years of "activist judges" allegedly misinterpreting the constitution. Where did I say that? Do you have exact quotes of what I actually said? What you are implying here is that your government is acting according to all checks and balances, and within the boundaries of the constitution. Or am I misinterpreting you here? Could you please clarify whether you believe that the Trump government is acting correctly and within the bounds of your constitution? Exactly. There are no "checks and balances" here. The Trump government has the right to decide, for any reason it choses. How would a satisfactory handling of immigration look like to you? Of course, you now blame private individuals for being too numerous, and not the government for confining them in these facilities in the first place. brutalize: to treat (someone) with brutality. ( source) No mention of conscious intent there. Do you disagree that the Trump government is treating immigrants with brutality? Did I miss something? As far as I could tell from my reading, all challenges to the concentration camp system have been upheld in court so far. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise? Ad Hominem. I am using the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: Emphasis mine. Based on this definition, the "detention centers" are concentration camps. As for proof, I have posted numerous articles from mainstream news sources over the course of almost a year. If you still can't find any evidence that people are being abused in US government "detention centers" then the problem is not a lack of sources. You don't need a deliberate plan to kill thousands of people when you detain them in confined spaces without adequate food, water, or medical care. You just need a little bit of time. Didn't you claim in another thread that thousands of illegal immigrants are being forced to work? You have claimed numerous times that the US government is acting correctly by putting refugees into "detention centers", and even compared it favorably to European immigration policies. Since the abuse and neglect going on there is common knowledge, the logical conclusion is that you approve of the treatment migrants suffer in these facilities. You mean people forming private militias as protected by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution? I guess only foreigners are a dangerous threat when forming armed paramilitary groups? You keep insisting on this but I have never seen you produce any sort of evidence. When are you finally going to show your work? False dichotomy. The choice between "let's put immigrants in concentration camps" and "let's drown immigrants at sea" is a false one. Instead, your government could provide food, shelter, and adequate housing if it decided to do so. And if you do not believe in governments, then charities could take up that task. Austrian charities have helped provide housing for tens of thousands of refugees, and Austria's population is thirty times smaller than the US - presumably one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries on Earth, but apparently too destitute and devoid of charity to feed a few more people who just so happen to be born in a foreign country. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 21, 2019 19:47:50 GMT -5
Where did I say that? Do you have exact quotes of what I actually said? What you are implying here is that your government is acting according to all checks and balances, and within the boundaries of the constitution. Or am I misinterpreting you here? You're not misinterpreting here at all. The administration is acting in that way BECAUSE of the checks and balances in the Constitution. Congress did not appropriate enough money to handle the large amount of immigrants. So the system became blocked and thousands of people had to wait to have their cases heard. More money has recently been voted, but it will take a while for those funds to actually be utilized. Again what other choice was available? Either just let the the migrants in without fulfilling any of the paperwork. That would be a clear violation of the law. Or make them wait until the proper legal procedures are completed. Wrong. The Checks and Balances have already been put in place. The laws were enacted by Congress and the Administration is merely carrying out the laws that are already on the books. Congress should authorize enough money to hire sufficient people to process the applications of thousands of immigrants fast enough so that they wouldn't have to wait in camps for months. Wrong. That's not what I said at all. Large numbers of people have been coming to the Southern border for years. Congress should have authorized enough funds years ago. They didn't. I blame Congress. LOL! Your "definition" defines nothing. So "brutalize" is to treat someone with "brutality?" Then what is the definition of brutality? How about this definition? "Brutality: an act or behavior that is cruel and violent:" dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/brutalityWhere is the violence here? So far, I haven't heard of any. Complex Question Fallacy. You still haven't established that these temporary holding centers are Concentration Camps in the same way that the Nazi Death Camps or their forced labor camps were. And the courts apparently were not convinced otherwise. These camps are temporary waiting centers where people are waiting for hearings. so they are not being denied hearings. As for the "harsh conditions", are these people being denied food or shelter? Are they being beaten/ So far, I've heard of no cases where there are any beatings. Have you? And is there any barrier for them if they say "I've changed my mind. I don't want to go to the USA. Please send me back? That's your claim. Could you please re-post some of these articles so that we can double check? I've done the same for you on several occasions. So your claim is that these people are being deliberately starved to death and denied enough...water? Where is your evidence? After all, all you need for water is a water fountain. And as usual you did not post any quotes of what I actually said. I never made the claim that people in the government's temporary holding centers were being forced to work. And as usual, you are not giving a full quote. Here is what was actually said: Mcanswer - You are right. There is no alternative to abusing migrants. It has to be done, for the good of the country, to keep you safe from those irritating refugees. Bob - Once again I never said that. You made it up. So let me say again: I never said that there is no alternative to abusing migrants. You made that up. Putting people into temporary centers until their cases for asylum can be heard is not deliberate abuse. And there is an alternative:Hire more people so that cases can be heard faster. Provide better waiting centers. Alternatively, let them stay on the other side of the border in Mexico until their cases can be heard. Those armed groups are not enforcing the law. If there were no government, they would be. Is that the situation you are advocating? Rule by private right-wing militias? It sounds like you are. No problem. "Migrant families overwhelm Border Patrol processing centers By Associated Press Mar 21, 2019, 5:05pm CDT" chicago.suntimes.com/2019/3/21/18484003/migrant-families-overwhelm-border-patrol-processing-centers"The U.S. Immigration System May Have Reached a Breaking Point For years, there have been warnings that America’s immigration system was going to fail. That time may be now." www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/immigration-border-mexico.htmlReally? So you find no difference between putting people in temporary facilities until their applications can be processed, and -wait for it - LETTING THEM DROWN AT SEA! More money has recently been authorized: "$4.6 Billion in Aid Advances to Help Cope With Migrant Surge at Border" www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/politics/senate-border-aid-package.html Where are your supporting links? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 15:40:23 GMT -5
"America is a Constitutional Republic. We have Checks and Balances. The President cannot do anything without MONEY. Money must be appropriated by both houses of Congress. And the Supreme Court can always overrule them both and declare their actions Unconstitutional."What you are implying here is that your government is acting according to all checks and balances, and within the boundaries of the constitution. Or am I misinterpreting you here? You're not misinterpreting here at all. The administration is acting in that way BECAUSE of the checks and balances in the Constitution. So these checks and balances did not prevent building concentration camps and letting people die there. So if there is money for more concentration camps, fewer people will die? Please explain. Not putting them in concentration camps was a choice the Trump government had. But not to give immigrants enough food, shelter, or medical treatment. That would be socialism, after all. So you blame "Congress" for not building enough concentration camps in time. Do you consider imprisonment, abuse and sexual harassment forms of violence? Yes, they have been beated, abused, raped, or denied medical care. Of course, you think that this is not harsh enough to be considered "harsh conditions". False dichotomy. What you are asserting here is that the only way to come to America is by way of these concentration camps. No. You know how to look for old threads. Do it yourself. This has not happened a single time since I've started posting on this forum. Not a single time. What you are very fond of, however, is making me dig through the forum archives for your posts by denying things you said in the past.  No, my claim is that these people are being starved and denied medical care. I made no claim as to whether this has been done deliberately. What is a deliberate policy, however, is to confine these people into places where they suffer from lack of food and medical care. And I never said anything about being made to work inside the camps, either. And as usual, you are not giving a full quote. How about the things you said in the very post I am just quoting? Where you at no point blamed the government for any faults in this? Correct, you never used these exact words. Instead, you are argueing that the only alternative to imprisoning people in concentration camps is forced deportation. It is when people are being abused and mistreated there. Implying, once again, that there is no alternative to keeping people in concentration camps. So immigrants to the US only have two choices: Be held indefinitely in a concentration camp to be abused, mistreated or neglected, or go back to your home country. Correct? Non sequitur. No problem. "Migrant families overwhelm Border Patrol processing centers By Associated Press Mar 21, 2019, 5:05pm CDT" chicago.suntimes.com/2019/3/21/18484003/migrant-families-overwhelm-border-patrol-processing-centers"The U.S. Immigration System May Have Reached a Breaking Point For years, there have been warnings that America’s immigration system was going to fail. That time may be now." www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/immigration-border-mexico.htmlDid you actually read the article? In an effort to send a “you’re not welcome” message, the administration has tried a series of strategies: prosecuting everyone who crosses illegally, taking their children from them, tightening asylum standards, slowing down the number of people allowed to apply for asylum each day, forcing asylum applicants to remain in Mexico while they wait for court dates. No mention, however, of the "detention" camps being "temporary holding centers" to process people's paperwork. Are you sure you posted the right article? Where are yours? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 15:42:50 GMT -5
You keep insisting on this but you have not posted a single source fot this claim. Where is your evidence for that the "detention" camps "are temporary waiting centers where people are waiting for hearings"? The NYT you cite as source for this information says nothing of the sort.
And where did you get the idea from that people were voluntarily moving to these "detention" camps so that they could attend hearings? You seem to believe that because they entered the United States on their own will, every single thing that has been done to them since was done with their consent and their express agreement, but there is no evidence of that happening.
There is however plenty of evidence suggesting that the US government forcibly moved people into these "detainment centers". Even the official name "detainment center" suggests detainment rather than a voluntary stay (although that could possibly an administrative oversight; I'm sure we'll see an eventual renaming that somehow incorporates the term "freedom" somewhere).
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 18:08:23 GMT -5
You're not misinterpreting here at all. The administration is acting in that way BECAUSE of the checks and balances in the Constitution. So these checks and balances did not prevent building concentration camps and letting people die there. You haven't established that these temporary holding centers where people wait for their cases to be heard are "concentration camps" in the same sense as the Nazi death camps or Nazi Forced Labor Camps. "The package provides $4.6 billion in funding, including money for the Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that some House Democrats opposed. The majority of the money is humanitarian aid to be allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services for the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The extra money will also be used to hire more people to process to applications" www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736721020/house-passes-senate-version-of-new-funding-to-ease-border-crisisSo the majority of the money is going to the office responsible for resettlement Wrong. Present laws don't give the government that option.
And as usual, you keep calling these temporary holding centers "concentration camps" so that people will think that they are like the Nazi Death Camps where people we takes against their will to be murdered. Or like the Nazi Forced labor Camps where people were used as slave labor.
But no one is being deliberately murdered or forced to do any work.
Therefore you are are using the wrong term.
Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 18:35:03 GMT -5
But not to give immigrants enough food, shelter, or medical treatment. That would be socialism, after all. Wrong. The government is obligated by law to take care of anyone in government custody. That's not socialism No. I never said that. You made it up. And you still haven't proved that these temporary holding centers are Concentration Camps in the same sense as Nazi Forced Labor Camps or Nazi Death Camps. Complex Question Fallacy. Are you claiming that the majority of these people are being sexually harassed or abused? Where is your evidence? As for "imprisonment", most of these people knew they had to wait in these temporary holding centers. Yet they came anyway. And they can apply to leave and go back to Mexico. Take a look: "A migrant can request voluntary departure at their initial hearing with the immigration judge. Getting a hearing takes on average 30 to 60 days, Shepherd said. If the request is approved, regulations state migrants have 120 days to leave the U.S, she said. If the person does not return within the time period granted, the voluntary departure can become an order of removal, hindering their chances of later returning to the U.S. For asylum seekers, applying for voluntary departure comes with steep consequences since they’d have to discard their asylum application. “If you are asking for voluntary departure that means that you are not afraid to return to your country,” Kelli Stump, an immigration attorney based in Oklahoma, told the AP. “The consequences are the judge is going to have my application withdrawn with prejudice meaning that I can’t file it again.” " www.apnews.com/afs:Content:6476040335Where is your supporting evidence? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 18:45:20 GMT -5
Hey. It's not my fault that America is so popular that enormous numbers of people want to come here and clog up the entrance line. Sorry McAnswer. Rules of the board. Anyone who makes a claim is responsible for providing supporting evidence. If you don't want to do that, then I claim I have proof that all the opinions you've posted here are false. If you want to see the evidence, then "do it yourself." Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 19:09:29 GMT -5
You keep insisting on this but you have not posted a single source fot this claim. Where is your evidence for that the "detention" camps "are temporary waiting centers where people are waiting for hearings"? The NYT you cite as source for this information says nothing of the sort. "The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection (CBP; principally the Border Patrol) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received (and prior to release into the United States by parole), and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked into ICE custody: 242,778 of whom were detained by CBP and 153,670 by ICE's own enforcement operations.[1] A daily average of 42,188 immigrants (40,075 adult and 2,113 in families) were held by ICE in that year.[2]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#AlternativesThese temporary holding centers have been well publicized. Most of the migrants know that they are there and that they are going to have to wait in these centers for some time. And if they don't, they always have the option of saying to the government officials "Wait a minute. I don't want to go there! Let me go back right now!" Did you ever hear of even one immigrant saying that? That's because none of them ever do. Wrong. There has been enough publicity about these centers and the long waiting time. Yet they come anyway. Why? Because they would rather be in a temporary holding center in the USA than in their home country. "Plenty of evidence?" Well where is it? Why are you claiming there is plenty of evidence and not posting it? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 6:22:34 GMT -5
You keep insisting on this but you have not posted a single source fot this claim. Where is your evidence for that the "detention" camps "are temporary waiting centers where people are waiting for hearings"? The NYT you cite as source for this information says nothing of the sort. "The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection (CBP; principally the Border Patrol) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received (and prior to release into the United States by parole), and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked into ICE custody: 242,778 of whom were detained by CBP and 153,670 by ICE's own enforcement operations.[1] A daily average of 42,188 immigrants (40,075 adult and 2,113 in families) were held by ICE in that year.[2]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#AlternativesFinally you are bothering to actually support your claims! Sadly, that article only says when your government starts to imprison people, not how long this imprisonment lasts or whether there is a definite end that these people in their suffering can look forward to. For all we know, the "processing" is never going to be finished.
It still begs the question why it is necessary to imprison people without trial simply because they allegedly crossed a border.
I also note that it doesn't say that immigrants are doing this voluntarily ,which is what you keep asserting without proof. That claim is unsupported and you know it. How many immigrants have you interviewed about this? How much have you read? So far, the sources for your allegiations have been extremely thin on the ground. Again with the unsupported claims. Where are you getting this from? And once again, a claim asserted without a source, let alone evidence. "Plenty of evidence?" Well where is it? Why are you claiming there is plenty of evidence and not posting it?[/quote] I've posted numerous articles in the past that you can easily find when you browse the forum. I am not going to post them here. You have failed to provide evidence for any of your claims so far, after several threads of me asking you to do so, you don't get any curtesy from me. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 23, 2019 10:49:40 GMT -5
"The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection (CBP; principally the Border Patrol) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received (and prior to release into the United States by parole), and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked into ICE custody: 242,778 of whom were detained by CBP and 153,670 by ICE's own enforcement operations.[1] A daily average of 42,188 immigrants (40,075 adult and 2,113 in families) were held by ICE in that year.[2]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#AlternativesFinally you are bothering to actually support your claims! I always support my claims. You would have noticed this had you read my articles more closely before responding. They are held until their cases are heard. And there is a huge backlog. Did you notice how many cases there are?396,448 cases in 2018 alone. It's not the fault of ICE that the USA is so popular. "Allegedly crossed a border?" They actually did cross the border, didn't they? Are you claiming that the immigrants traveled from their original countries involuntarily? It sounds like you are. Where is your proof that the immigrants were forced to make that trip to begin with? "Oh my God! Some people broke into my house, pointed a gun at me, and said they would kill me if I didn't go to the USA!" Is that what you claim happened to over 300,000 people? It sounds as if that is your claim. So you are claiming that out of the over 300,000 people who came to the U.S. border none of them was aware that there was a long waiting period? Your claim here is unsupported and you know it. There has never been even one case of a migrant saying "I change my mind. I want to go back." If you claim otherwise, all you have to do is show one case to the contrary. You can't because there is no such case. And here you are making a contrary claim the none of these 300,000 people ever knew about the long waiting time. Where is your evidence? LOL! You are not going to post them here because those "numerous articles" only exist in your imagination. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 2:29:09 GMT -5
I'm not going to see even the tiniest shred of evidence for your claims, am I?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 24, 2019 13:08:48 GMT -5
I'm not going to see even the tiniest shred of evidence for your claims, am I?
Perhaps that is because you are not looking for them.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 15:45:17 GMT -5
Can you show me where? You still haven't shown your sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 24, 2019 19:40:57 GMT -5
Can you show me where? You still haven't shown your sources.
Actually I showed a source here on Aug.22. Here it is again:
I guess you must have missed it.
I also posted just yesterday Friday the 23. Not only did I post a source. You even commented on it!
Perhaps you should do something about your faulty memory.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 8:32:57 GMT -5
How does that prove that immigrants move to "detention centers" voluntarily and with full knowledge of what happens there, as you have claimed above?
How does that refute my claim that the Trump regime is abusing and neglecting immigrants?
How does that refute that immigrants are dying in these "detention" camps?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 25, 2019 17:53:29 GMT -5
How does that prove that immigrants move to "detention centers" voluntarily and with full knowledge of what happens there, as you have claimed above?
How does that refute my claim that the Trump regime is abusing and neglecting immigrants?
How does that refute that immigrants are dying in these "detention" camps?
The article I posted says that $4.6 billion has been appropriates. That demonstrates the migrants are no longer going to be neglected.
It will also decrease the chance that people will die in the temporary detention centers.
As for your first question, the migrants have been coming to the USA for decades and put in temporary detention centers. There has been no shortage of information on this. These are people who come here and apply for asylum. How could they possibly know about asylum and not know they have to go through an asylum process that requites a long waiting period? Remember that we are talking about several hundred thousand people here.
Over the years, many have been sent back to Central America. Do you actually think they have kept quiet about their experiences with the detention centers?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 18:40:20 GMT -5
How does that prove that immigrants move to "detention centers" voluntarily and with full knowledge of what happens there, as you have claimed above? How does that refute my claim that the Trump regime is abusing and neglecting immigrants? How does that refute that immigrants are dying in these "detention" camps?
The article I posted says that $4.6 billion has been appropriates. That demonstrates the migrants are no longer going to be neglected. It will also decrease the chance that people will die in the temporary detention centers. Where is your evidence for that? What facts disprove the expectation that your corrupt government won't just dump all this money into the laps of a couple of crony capitalists? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 26, 2019 19:55:03 GMT -5
The article I posted says that $4.6 billion has been appropriates. That demonstrates the migrants are no longer going to be neglected. It will also decrease the chance that people will die in the temporary detention centers. Where is your evidence for that? First you say the migrants are being mistreated. Then when over $4 billion is appropriated, you say that this is no evidence that the government is trying to fix the problem. You are Moving the Goalposts. Complex Question Fallacy. And "expectations" don't have to be disproved. They have to be justified to begin with. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 11:57:20 GMT -5
Governments are intrinsically evil. Therefore, you should not trust them to do good.
How's that for a justification?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 27, 2019 16:54:50 GMT -5
Governments are intrinsically evil. Therefore, you should not trust them to do good. Yes, governments usually don't do a good job until people complain. But a lot of people did complain and now money has finally been appropriated. You "expectation" is not a justification. Your expectation itself has to be justified.
And if governments are intrinsically evil, how can you expect them to take care of public health and welfare?
Bob |
|
That's totally wrong. I don't trust the government. And I don't have to.