It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.
Anyone that doesn't is kidding themselves. The political landscape would be so much easier to assess if one side was pure good and the other side was pure evil, but alas, it's not the case. Extremists and far-leaning folks on either side are never a good thing.
It is pretty sad how many extremist conservatives and liberals there are, who refuse to see the evils and problems within their parties and just stay blind.
I have a few thoughts.
~ Are the children being forced to do hard labor, tortured, or killed? No. I mean, really, let's get a grip. Not from what we know (most of us would yell "of course not!").
~ So should we say "concentration camp"? Probably not the best approach, just my opinion. Because although the detainment of immigrants at this time meets the basic definition (it does) - those being detained are not subjected to forced labor, torture, or awaiting execution. Just my opinion. But I understand why a great many people are calling the tents/shelters/camps that. These people are detained for political reasons.
~ Is the WWII Japanese internment a fair comparison? In my opinion, yes. Although even there the children were not separated from their family members.
~ Are the children held by this administration being abused? No ... well, yes, to an extent. Emotional abuse for sure (and emotional trauma that will last), okay and some physical abuse (restraints used, physically restrained, drugs given to keep calm and quiet, etc.), verbal abuse (threatened to behave or implied they will never see parents again), etc. But not what we think of us physical torture or abuse on purpose. No (most of us would yell "of course not!"").
~ Are the children being reunited with their parents? No. Yes. Some. We don't know how many yet, but some, yes.
~ Is there a plan in place now to reunite the children with their parents? No. Yes, sort of. Well, no there is no definite plan put forth by the administration yet. Some children returned to parents, yes. Many are still being taken far away to shelters (is that a better word? Sure, let's use that for now, although the govt itself has said "camps" and "tent cities".)
~ Are there more shelters/detainment camps being prepared to detain children and adult immigrants? Yes, for tens of thousands of people.
Therefore, as it is today, trust is lacking - in a huge way, based on in person reporting by several sources (senators, reporters, and more) - regarding the care (present and future) of these detained children (which includes breastfeeding infants) and whether there will be a policy put in place and enforced (quickly we hope) by this administration to reunite the children with their parents, wherever their parents are. Trust is lacking and we are right to continue to demand answers and humane action. I hope we do not lose focus on this particular issue. Children's lives and well being are at stake (and that is, in my opinion, not an inflammatory statement).
You neglected to point out the people interned in those camps were American citizens.
It really is one of the most shameful acts in American history. Oddly enough, the guy in charge was Franklin Roosevelt, one of our most beloved presidents.
And according to our Constitution, immigrants who come here legally AND not legally both have a right to due process. Also, some who have arrived legally have still been deported and/or separated from their children.
--Barry Goldwater, thought by some to be the father of the modern conservative movement.
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." --kinda sorta Voltaire, after having been edited by history.
Holding children prisoner to force changes in others' behavior -- their parents', Democrats in Congress, whoever -- is just flat out evil, and anyone who defends the practice is abetting that evil. Sooner or later, we all have to decide: which side are you on? Choose now, and revisit that choice periodically just to make sure you're keeping an open mind about these things.
--BSE, here & now
YES.
THIS!
And IMO it's a pretty easy choice. There aren't many shades of gray here to get in the way...
Thanks so very much, Mr. Holier-than-thou.
Who was defending it anyway? I already made my position clear several posts back: I'm against the separation of families and against the inhumane treatment of illegal aliens in detainment centers.
I'm also in favor of immigration law, and I also believe that, after a reasonable period of detainment necessary to determine an illegal alien's asylum claim, people who do not belong in the country should be deported.
What I'm sick and tired of is people dancing around the question of whether we should be a country with borders. We can't invite everyone in -- you and I both know that, but I'm the one who's honest enough to admit it. It may seem irrelevant now (since everyone's so single-mindedly focused on this EVIL administration), but the Dems better get serious about the border crisis and they better have a plan in place, or they're going to be looking at a second term for Trump. And we don't want that, do we?
More deflection.
I have to ask, where do you stand on immigration law? If Trump were gone tomorrow and your ideal administration in place, what would you support in terms of securing (or not securing) the borders?
Color me not surprised.
Nobody I know is asking for open borders. At all. Things can be improved - that is almost always true for regulations and policies. Without Trump, we would work on improving the policies in a humane, Constitutionally correct way.
The attempt to instill fear into American citizens regarding immigrants is an ongoing assault and in itself a deflection.
Some info:
In part it reads: (underline is mine, not in the tweet)
Charles Soule
Jun 18
A fellow in my TL asked why I didn’t speak up while child separations were happening for eight years in the Obama administration. Answer (as an immigration attorney of over fifteen years) - they weren’t.
The idea of zero tolerance for border crossers, etc. began in 2005 in the GW Bush administration with a policy called Operation Streamline. It included mass “trials” with little to no due process - but it DID have exceptions for adults crossing with children.
Operation Streamline continued to be policy well into the Obama administration along the Mexico-US border, although discontinued in all but a few places by 2014.
Around 2014, the Obama administration made a policy change, which indicated that immigrant families (that is, adults who crossed with children) could be detained prior to case processing. That absolutely happened - but CHILDREN WERE NOT SEPARATED FROM PARENTS.
To me, there’s no argument here. Putting a child in a holding cell alone is objectively worse than letting that same child be in that same cell with her parent.
The decision to separate children from their parents began with the Trump administration. It was considered in earlier admins and REJECTED - the quote I’ve seen from former domestic policy adviser Cecilia Muñoz was “that’s not who we are.”
OK, and some news:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/06/26/oklahoma-voters-legalize-marijuana-for-medical-use/amp/
I have friends in Canada and have longingly thought of joining them.
It is you who are using a common deflection tactic, exaggerating and lying in order to make your point. Like Trump in his propaganda speeches you make it sound like until now anyone could get into the US as they please, with no laws or regulations. It is not true, and you know that! You are allowed to viktigste å debate on immigration policy, but please make it a fair discussion!
So the question in front of us: when does normal political disagreement end and can we speak of evil behaviour. I wrote my thesis on a nazi mayor and I can tell you, the guy never thought, well, until the last year, he was on the wrong side of history (and morale).
What we do know by now for sure is this government has defended seperating children, even newborns, from their parents, so they could treat those parents as criminals. How wrong is that? Well, it's a violation of human rights. I think that's a fair line to draw. So I don't think the restaurant owner did a bad thing. By the way, gay weddings are not a violation of human rights, hence not baking a cake for them is highly unprofessional.
@4EverBonded indeed, Caanda is the second country in the world to legalise recreational marijuanna.
@Escalus5 it's an old but flimsy trick to put your opponent in discussion to the extremes, saying that anyone who opposes Trump is actually asking for open borders. None here have stated so. In fact, under the Obmama administytration the most people were deported. So that's for sure not the discussion, whatever some people on Twitter may have said, which then gets picked up by the far right. I know it's very difficult for Americans these days to look for the gray shades, but please stick to the facts, not the propaganda.
@Chrisisall especially for you, old socialist: ;-)
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html
@4EverBonded indeed, Caanda is the second country in the world to legalise recreational marijuanna.
[/quote]
Caanda ?
Is that a small African Republic somewhere ? ;)
and Harley Davidson CEO has some choice words:
I'm off to buy some more maple syrup now ...
There was no exaggerating, lying or propaganda involved. I clearly stated my position on illegal immigration (twice). I asked @chrisisall to do the same in the hopes of starting a discussion, and because I'm genuinely interested in where he stands. So what happened? He chose to ignore me, either because he's too afraid to be honest or because he has nothing of any substance to offer (which would explain his tiresome all-caps trolling).
Nowhere did I write that "anyone could get into the U.S." What I'm concerned about is how the Democrats intend to deal with the continuing problem of mass migration from Mexico and South America -- it's going to be a major campaign issue and there's no getting around that. I'm all in favor of enacting humane laws and procedures (who isn't?), but that was attempted during the Obama administration and the POTUS was still under constant pressure from immigration activists to curb deportations, even if it was justified. So where is the common ground? No one seems to know, and it's troubling.
It should be clear as day to you that the current POTUS indeed, isn't. He doesn't give a rat's arse. As I've stated in my post above, don't confuse activists (whom usually are a loud- but small group) and the ideas of one of the two-parties in your system. Voting agianst democrats because of these activists is as useful as voting against republican because of the Westboro Baptist Church.
The scary thing is though that within the Republican Party small activist groups have won the power. Again, not that Ilike his political preferences, but the Republicans need more McCains and less Palins.
Well, those activists are a numerous and very loud bunch, and they've had an increasing amount of influence on our politicians, just as the alt-right idiots have weaseled their way into the Republican party.
I still think it extremely odd that not one person in this thread -- not one -- has attempted to answer my question or even begin a discussion about immigration and how the Democrats might address the issue for the 2020 election (which is just around the corner).
But hey, I guess it's easier to post news reports and give sanctimonious speeches.
It was discussed quite a few pages back, and to be honest it's not really on the forefront of thought when kids are seperated from their parents now. I don't know the plans of the Democrats, but what I've seen up until Trump is the same as with the Republican Presidents. They want good border control. I haven't seen anyone here advocate open borders. None.
For such a discussion to take place, it is probably good if you could elaborate on some clear positions on the topic yourself: In what way exactly was the previous administration not hard enough on immigration? When you suggest the "dems should offer serious solutions on immigration" you should be able to justify and explain that statement, otherwise you risk not being taken seriously.
There is a lot of Republican propaganda on the subject:
1. "The Obama administration did not have strict laws on immigration." Not true. If you think their policies were not strict enough, you should explain why and how.
2. "Illegal mmigration is one of the most serious threats there is to the US". Highly debatable. From an outsider's perspective there are far greater problems the administration should adress, beginning with ridiculous tax laws, a total lack of welfare, g general ignorance within the population, an ever groving divide between rich and poor, non existing unions, gun laws etc. To blame unemployment rate, crime and violence on immigration is a cheap populistic trick which at times borders on pure racism.
3. "America has no ethical obligation to take in refugees and people in need, or to treat dreamers ås human beings with constitutional rights". Again a highly debatable theme which prompts a huge discussion in itself.
Here's something that may surprise you: some of us have enough of a life that we don't sit by our computers 24/7 waiting for someone to post something that MUST BE replied to IMMEDIATELY.
And here's another news flash: illegal immigration is by no means the urgent emergency that Trump would have us believe. A more pressing emergency, in California at least, is getting enough workers in the fields to harvest the crops that make California a major source of fresh fruits & vegetables for most of the USA. Back in Reagan's day, both sides were honest enough to acknowledge the fact that migrant workers played an important part in the process, and the laws were written to allow the workers in to help with the harvest, after which time they (theoretically) returned home to Mexico. I sure do miss the reasonable Republicans of 30 years ago.
I find it interesting that you demand to know what the Democratic Party's response to this Trumped-up issue will be. A few months back, Democrats were willing to work on a comprehensive immigration package, including funding for Trump's wall and a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers. Trump turned down the offer. Perhaps he felt the issue was more of a winner for him if it remained unsolved?