"Concentration Camps"?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (138 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    Yesterday, AOC and a group of members of the Congress visited some migrant camp facilities. They denounced the conditions they saw. Today, they were called liars by GOP members, FOX, Limbaugh & co, and even some right-wing pastors.

    But tonight the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General released a report (and photos). According to the report:

    -Detention facilities in South Texas were subjected to "serious overcrowding" and prolonged detention.

    -Photos of migrants in five Rio Grande Valley facilities show many packed into crowded standing-room-only cells and behind fences. Others are shown sleeping on the floor with aluminum blankets.

    -At three facilities, government auditors said they observed children lacking full access to showers and a change of clothes. Some detainees were given wet-wipes in lieu of showers and many adults hadn't showered despite being held for as long as a month.

    -At two facilities, inspectors said children were not provided hot meals until the week they arrived. Around 3,400 people had been held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted under Customs and Border Protection standards. Of the 2,669 children detained by the Border Patrol, 826 had been held longer than 72 hours.

    -More than 50 children under the age of 7 were waiting to be moved to long-term facilities, the report said. A senior manager at one facility called the situation "a ticking time bomb."

    https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/07/1862/1048/b1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

    https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/07/1862/1048/b3.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-cggu4WsAE0PSQ.jpg
    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-07/2/20/asset/b0c0b0eb3a41/sub-buzz-926-1562100701-1.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-cggu4XYAAjxh2.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-cggvAXYAApK7X.jpg

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Islandbites, are you aware that your point is applicable to Pres. Obama's administration? I believe your sincerity, but does it matter to you that this is not a new issue?

      I too abhor these conditions, but I do not place them at Pres. Trump's doorstep.

      I truly believe that this is being projected as a Trump criticism when it was in fact first occurring under the Obama administration.

      Does that make a difference to you?

      It is obvious the border detention facilities are overwhelmed but do you lay that solely at Pres. Trump's feet?

      If we looke back to previous forum comments would we find your combinations of Pres. Obama's administration for these conditions?

      To be clear, these conditions are not new. They are not solely the responsibility of the Trump administration and to paint them so is disingenuous.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I could say "I decline to make Pres. Trump a focus point of every conversation." but I won't. smile



        Yes, even if that's not entirely true. That's not the point anyway.

        It does not make a difference to me. More importantly, I doubt it makes a difference to them. And I don't think they care who do I (or you) blame.

        I don't know if you'll find comments. But who cares? Well, maybe you. But then again, who cares (no offence).

        There is a more important issue. (And that wasn't the point anyway. I didn't even mentioned Trump)

        Salud!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          It's the same old, "But Obama did it" excuse, IB. They won't address when the Cons had all 3 branches of Govt. and did nothing at all.

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          You are right, I made an assumption. And that assumption prompted me to introduce Trump into the thread. Maybe I was wrong.

          What do you think should be done to fix this?

          GA

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Take the men and put them to work on the wall and repairing our infrastructure.  Give them a decent wage and quit trying to finance something that is intangible.

            Make them build houses for themselves and their families, establish towns out in the desert where it is still livable and educate them in English.  That's just for openers.

            That's what FDR did to come out of the depression.  He had CC camps that gave us our national parks and WPA to improve our infrastructure. He put millions of people to work and gave them a purpose. 

            But when a government is hung up on an "us and them mentality", none of that is possible.  Trump and Stephen Miller are racist, pure and simple. And CC camps and WPA are social programs...God forbid!!!

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              This seems not only self defeating, but expensive almost beyond comprehension.

              First, it will most definitely encourage more of the same; an unending stream of people that we must support. 

              Second, none of these people have the skills to do what you are wanting them to do.  No heavy equipment operators, no one familiar with construction requirements and methods even for housing.  Before they can do anything at all they must be trained; I assume you would train any foreign national that can get into the country with a usable skill, doubling the cost of any project we might set out to accomplish whether a new bridge or the wall.

              Where do you suggest we get the billions (trillions?) of dollars to accomplish this?  Soak "the rich" yet again? 

              Finally, FDR (and others) did indeed buy our way out of a depression/recession...by providing jobs to Americans and improve our nation at the same time.  A method that works, but you're proposing to hire foreign labor to do it and the does not seem to offer anything to Americans at all.  Except a giant bill far in excess of the value received.

              Declaring an "us and them mentality", coupled with a claim of racism, because we don't try and support the world lends no credence to your argument.

            2. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I see that Wilderness has addressed several aspects of your proposal so I will just ask about one; would you then give those workers and families Green Cards or a path to citizenship? I can't imagine you would have them build houses and towns and then deport them if their asylum requests failed.

              My perception is that the bulk of detainees are women and children - very few able-bodied men, (relatively speaking). So that firest proposal probably won't do much to reduce the over-crowding.

              GA

              1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                GA and Wilderness:  What I have suggested requires planning and organization, and careful thought. As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll. (Oh, oh, my bad socialism again.)   They can even be given aptitude tests to see what skills they do have.

                Just because they had to leave their country does not mean they don't have skills. As far as cost goes, our infrastructure is crumbling and nothing is being done.  That has a cost as well. Who do you think we are going to hire to do those "shovel ready" jobs.

                As far as Wilderness' claim about hiring foreign labor goes, Who in the hell do you think built this country? 

                This administration and Trump are not capable of careful thought,  organization, and  planning, so you don't have anything to worry about. If the only tool  you have is a hammer, every solution looks like a nail.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll."

                  Yes they could.  Again, at our expense.  And when we have taught them we can pay them to teach more foreign citizens how to do the work in our country.

                  My daughter-in-law once discussed how we are becoming a nation of white collar workers and how it was the wave of the future - we are changing from a nation of producers of goods to an information base.  Sounded good...right up until she was tasked with training the people in a new office in Korea - her job was being shipped out and they wanted her to train the new people.  You're asking our workers to do the same thing - train someone else to do the job they had.

                  Beyond that, when I moved across country and took up a new trade it required 4 years of school plus 8000 hours of work (4 years), and this is not unusual.  Training by an experienced worker was only a part of the package of the 8,000 hours, so for 4 years wages were very low.  Not enough to support a family - what you're proposing would mean welfare for at least that long.  Or should we force a change in all state laws, effectively outlawing apprenticeship programs?

                  "Just because they had to leave their country does not mean they don't have skills."

                  Yes, they have skills and yes, they are often hard workers.  Shall we then give all of the a pickaxe and shovel to build a new dam with, returning to the construction methods of the 1800's?  If they have skills that we can use we don't need to train them, yet you have proposed a method to do exactly that!

                  "As far as Wilderness' claim about hiring foreign labor goes, Who in the hell do you think built this country?  "

                  Americans.  Not foreign labor.  That the rules of immigration have changed does not mean that we need millions of foreign citizens to build - we have plenty of skilled, trained people to do it ourselves.

                  "This administration and Trump are not capable of careful thought,  organization, and  planning, so you don't have anything to worry about."

                  If your concept of what to do with the massive influx of illegal aliens is to train them and pay them to take American jobs, while encouraging more millions to repeat the process (as we've done historically with the resultant mess we face now) I'd have to say that you aren't capable of that careful thought, organization and planning either.  Your "solution" will only raise taxes on the rest of us while becoming even more of a haven for people that don't like their own country.

                  There are other countries that have taken what they had (nearly nothing) and built a thriving economy for their people.  S. Korea, Kuwait, Israel - even China (and India is coming on) all come to mind.  But it cannot be done with a political climate that cares nothing for its people, and as we are incapable of changing those climates about all that's left is to deny entry.  You, on the other hand, are proposing unlimited immigration of unskilled labor, and public support of that labor, until we have been reduced to the same third world status.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Actually, the slaves built a significant part of our country. Even the White House was built by slave labor. Of course, white men taught them their trades as well.  Sounds sorta familiar...

                  2. MizBejabbers profile image90
                    MizBejabbersposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    The only way to stop the influx of refugees is to try to do something about the conditions in their own countries. I finally heard somebody say something to that effect on TV today. He was proposing a coalition of wealthier nations, like the U.S., to go in to these countries, militarily, if no other way, and boot out the drug lords and the corruption so these people can live in their own countries.
                    It sounds good as a sound bite, but I don't know how practical that would be. However, the alternative is the seemingly endless parade of these people coming into Mexico and the U.S. Perhaps some of the "great military might" that our fearless leader proposes to show off a la Hitler/Kim Jung Un-style could be used to accomplish this.
                    A wall simply ain't gonna work against this ballooning problem. Putting too much air into a balloon exerts so much pressure against the sides that they eventually break.

                  3. peoplepower73 profile image93
                    peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Wilderness:

                    W: Yes they could.  Again, at our expense.  And when we have taught them we can pay them to teach more foreign citizens how to do the work in our country.

                    M:  You mean like picking strawberries, working in a car wash, and maids in hotels?  We need infrastructure repair and improvement.  Do you think blue collar and white collar people are going to be doing those jobs?

                    W: But it cannot be done with a political climate that cares nothing for its people, and as we are incapable of changing those climates about all that's left is to deny entry.

                    M: Here is a thought. People in our country are the buyers and users of those drugs.  We not only have to stop those cartels, but we have to do something with the people that are already here. 

                    You want to deny entry.  That is what we are doing now.  Trump could care less about these people.  If they all suddenly died he would be very happy.  That is what he is doing in those detention camps is creating a slow death for those people and their families by separating them and making life miserable for them as an example for the ones who are waiting on the other side of the border. 

                    All I'm trying to do is find a way of  turning a crisis into an opportunity and utilizing those people in some humane way is part of it.

                2. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  What about the 'what next' question Mike? If your proposals were considered, what would be the status of the men and their families after the houses and towns are built?

                  Green Card? Citizenship?

                  I think I understand your concept, but I think this question is the most basic one to answer first.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    I assumed the end goal was to have an unlimited supply of new citizenry; without that we remain in the same position with millions of people wanting the benefits of being an American but without actually being one.

                3. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  " What I have suggested requires planning and organization, and careful thought. As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll"

                  All this and a boat full of our tax dollars... What a pipe dream. No really!

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                    peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Sharlee:  Please read this all the way to the end.  You will find that tax payers are paying $750.00 per day for each detainee to private companies.

                    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ty-florida

              2. profile image76
                Hxprofposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                And to boot, we'll likely have to detain tens of thousands more people soon, so we better buckle down and provide the necessary resources to get the job done.

            3. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Would you want your tax dollar spent on such a venture?  Would you as a citizen be willing to increase the national debt to complete such a venture?  Unfortunately, it is us or them...  Our infrastructure is crumbling, our education stinks,  we have people living in the streets, and children going to bed hungry. And you think it wise to take on such a plan to establish towns for immigrants?

    2. profile image76
      Hxprofposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      The conditions are sad, and the conditions need to be addressed. 

      We certainly need to apply far more resources to these detainment facilities, because it seems as though this stream of people isn't going to stop soon.

    3. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I saw on the news that a private company is getting $750 per day per child for a facility housing children, yet they cannot afford to give them each a toothbrush.  John Kelly sits on the Board of that company.

      Why do we continue to pay them for such derelict service?  Disgusting.

      This situation alone is reason enough to vote out this corrupt and shameful administration.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        This is reminiscent of the Dubya/ Haliburton no-bid contracts. The same idiots voted for Trump....

    4. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      It is more than clear there is a horrendous problem with overcrowding at these facilities. The problem has gotten worse over the past 6 months. Congress has known about the growing crisis, and finally, have allocated funds to help alleviate the problem for the time being.

      This problem has been growing for several years, and one not blame anyone administration.  Trump is clearly trying to take steps to deter more migrants from presenting themselves at the border. he has pleaded with them to present themselves at legal border crossings. He has made his concerns about the need to change our immigration laws, and to enforce the laws we have.

      We need problem-solving not just wringing of hands...

  2. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

    Today, a federal judge on Tuesday blocked an order from Attorney General William Barr that stated certain asylum-seekers can be detained indefinitely.

    The attorney general had written in the order, issued in April, that asylum-seekers who are able to demonstrate a "credible fear" and are sent to full deportation proceedings cannot be released on bond.

    That directive overturned a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2005 that found asylum-seekers could be released on bond if they are able to exhibit they have credible fear of persecution or danger if they leave the U.S.

    “I conclude that such aliens remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States,” Barr wrote at the time, invoking a statute included in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Washington state wrote that it was "unconstitutional" to deny asylum-seekers a bond hearing while they wait for their asylum claims to be processed.

    1. Zack Dylan profile image80
      Zack Dylanposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      You do realize that being held without bond pending a deportation proceeding is not being held indefinitely? If a person comes across trying to claim assylum, and this individual has a violent background, and may have legitimate ties to cartel activity, the order is now to release them on bond rather than detain them pending proceedings.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Are you sure about that Zack? The information I find doesn't support your thought. Can you point to a source that confirms it?

        What I found says that regardless of classification; individual or family unit, male-headed family unit, or unaccompanied minor, if there is a record of a criminal conviction or if there is a record of criminal association, then detention is mandatory pending review and deportation procedures.

        GA

        1. Zack Dylan profile image80
          Zack Dylanposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us … ocess.html
          Eligibility for Bond - Mandatory Detention

          In some instances, an alien is NOT eligible for bond. Section 236c of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth several instances when an alien is subject to mandatory detention while in removal proceedings. Among them include: aggravated felonies, suspected terrorism, crimes of moral turpitude and possession of controlled substances (except marijuana less than 30 grams). The law in the link mention previously was initially signed by Bill Clinton - confirmed in this wiki article (not a fan of this a source but it has its own citations) 2nd paragraph

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati … ted_States

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Your links don't support your comment that I replied to Zack, they support my contention that your statement was wrong, why did you offer them?

            You said; "If a person comes across trying to claim assylum, and this individual has a violent background, and may have legitimate ties to cartel activity, the order is now to release them on bond rather than detain them pending proceedings."

            Both of your links support my contention that your statement is wrong. What am I missing?

            ps. I hope you hang around in this forum, maybe we can get some of these misconceptions cleared up.

            GA

            1. Zack Dylan profile image80
              Zack Dylanposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              What I said was in response to islandbites comment. A federal judge blocked an order that Barr was wanting to hold certain asylum seekers indefinitely. The issue is this isn't a new law, and it applies to bond hearings, not indefinite detentions. The point is that no one is being detained indefinitely, even the most heinous of criminal class have an end to their punishment which they may not outlive.

              My point was also that this isn't a Trump or Barr issue, these are laws signed into play by Clinton- allowing detainees to be held at the border no bail/bond.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Glad you cleared that up Zack. That is different from your comment that I quoted and replied to.

                GA

                1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                  peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  This is from Bloomberg News and is a different perspective on the Southern Border.

                  Why did Mexicans stop coming in large numbers? The answer isn’t a reduction in violence. Since 2006, the Mexican drug war has claimed tens of thousands of lives every year. Instead, it’s probably because of the economy. With a gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity of $20,602 in 2018, Mexico is now a comfortably upper-middle-class country, with standards of living approaching East European levels. With a robust manufacturing industry, including high-value products such as cars and airplanes, Mexico’s economy is on a stable long-term footing. For many Mexicans, it’s therefore simply not worth it to make the dangerous trek to the U.S. just to do low-wage manual labor.

                  The same solution can work for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. These countries have very high levels of gang violence, but so does Mexico. The key difference is that the Central American countries, unlike Mexico, are still very poor:

                  Waiting to Prosper
                  2018 gross domestic product per capita


                  Source: International Monetary Fund

                  Guatemala and El Salvador are right around the point where migration pressure tends to peak — in other words, as these countries get richer, fewer people will want to leave. This means that boosting the economies of these countries should reduce the flows of migrants. (Honduras is a little trickier, since it’s still poorer than the peak migration level, so it will probably take longer before prosperity helps to reduce the outflow.)

                  To boost the economies of the Northern Triangle countries, the key is investment and trade. The U.S. should immediately give major tax credits for any U.S. company that invests in Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras. It should also eliminate tariffs on products from these countries. Additionally, the U.S. should work with the governments of Northern Triangle countries to improve infrastructure and education, and establish supply chains from those countries to the U.S.

                  This policy — exactly the opposite of what the Trump administration has done — would be a win-win for everyone involved. It would stanch the flow of desperate families accumulating at the U.S. border, and it would improve the lives of citizens of some of the hemisphere’s poorest countries. To fix the border crisis, fix Central America.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    You make a good case that searching for asylum as a refugee is not why they come, and should not be granted asylum as a result.  Which pretty much fits for the large majority of aliens wishing to enter the country.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    That is one perspective Mike. I think it is an optimistic one.

                    I agree that the reduction in Mexican illegal immigrants can be attributed to Mexico's growing economy, but I don't see the quoted production factors as being a realistic option for the Northern Triangle.

                    But that is just an uninformed opinion based on recollections and perceptions. For instance, I think it is the auto industry that has greatly contributed to Mexico's recent prosperity. I don't see how any Northern Triangle country could steal Mexico's positive attractions for that industry.

                    GA

                  3. hard sun profile image89
                    hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Bettering conditions for everyone in the Western Hemisphere is a great goal and is likely part of the equation to reduce immigration. I know, until Trump, free trade was one of the conservative rallying cries for strong economies--and not really disparaged by US liberals.

                    However, in terms of asylum seekers, we are not supposed to be granting asylum status simply do to people coming from bad economies.

                    CNN's Jeffert Toobin lays it out clearly here: "It is worth remembering that asylum is different from economic migrants," Toobin said on CNN's "New Day." "You are not allowed to come to this country just because you want a better life. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but asylum is for people who have a well-founded fear of persecution." https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4176 … he-us-just

                    This may have been disucussed here previously, but I think it's pertinent here. If we make it clear that you're not getting asylum based on solely economic factors, then maybe we will get more of the legitimate asylum claims....persecution, violence, natural disasters, etc. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … lum/asylum

                    On this one specific immigration matter, I think Trump may have it right.

                    Ending the war on drugs would likely lessen the number of qualified asylum seekers and eliminate the need for the dealers to come here for business. Yes, the majority of refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers are good people, but I also know how the system is abused by criminals.

  3. hard sun profile image89
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    Interesting discussion. At this point, I can only add that the type of programs Mike is suggesting would indeed bring some costs, but many of those costs would surely go right back into the American economy.

    For example, we pay the trainers decent wages, we get back some of it in payroll taxes, and the benefits of all the other cash that the trainer and laborer jobs will pump back into the economy. I think people often overlook that there's a big difference in the types of government spending. 

    Money that results in the lower and middle class having more money means more money being spent. This is not akin to say, rebuilding Iraq and having the vast majority of those funds being spent on the infamous no-bid Haliburton contracts where most of that said cash winds up in executive foreign bank accounts.

    "Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops. en contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday." https://readersupportednews/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war

    As Mike stated, some ingenuity would be needed. In addition, some degree of accountability would be warranted, but I think this is, at least in part, the type of thinking we need.


    Also, to one of MizBeJabbers'  END THE WAR ON DRUGS. That SHOULD be an easy one.

    Dierks Bentley and Rupaul can do it...I mean we did elect Trump and wouldn't those two appeal to a wide variety of voters? Wouldn't this ticket please both the left and the right...but should it be Rupaul/Bentley? That would be the problem. Oh, the mind-numbing intricacies of garnering American voter support are too much for me.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Hard Sun:  Thank you for your comments.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      "Money that results in the lower and middle class having more money means more money being spent."

      Unfortunately, there would be no money for the lower OR middle classes - virtually all of it (except the original round of training) would go to foreign citizens...with much of going back to their relatives still in their own country.

      1. hard sun profile image89
        hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I think if something like this were done correctly, it would provide plenty of money directly to American lower and middle class pockets. It could be taken much beyond the original training, into supervisory roles,  etc. Of course, this is where that ingenuity and accountability would come in.

        Yes, money from immigrants flows back to other nations but I see direct evidence every day of that money being put into American Midwestern economy. They shop in our stores, eat in our restaurants, pay utilities, etc. I don't know the exact figures on this and I'm sure there's some numbers out there we could throw around and argue about. However, I just have to go with what I think many of us see on this one. Immigrants, even illegals, put a good amount of money into our economy.

        IMO This is another one of those issues where it seems like Americans have to choose one side or the other...and the real word solutions just don't fit into those boxes.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Trump wants to build a wall that already exists for the most part. But to him, he thinks he is building his wall (promise made, promise kept).  What it really needs is repair and upgrading with high tech sensors and funding for more personnel.
           

          The Great Wall of China was built by the people and it had places along the wall where the guards lived with their families.  Instead of putting these people in detention camps, why can't we have them live along the wall and guard it like the Chinese did? 

          They can speak the language of those who try to cross the border and it will gives them some purpose.  This is just for openers, but it is one step that could be taken, while we figure out what to do with them.  They could be taught English as well, so that they could be assimilated into our society.  It would put school teachers to work.  Of course the government would have to pay the teacher's  salaries, but the return on investment would be a win/win situation.

          But when you have an us and them mentality, this becomes a threat to the "us people."  We need a president and an administration that thinks outside the box, not one who's only concern is how to make himself look better to get re-elected by dividing the country into fake news and artificial fox news.  Trump even uses fox news to shape his policy.  Sean Hannity even has an office in the White House, but he is not an official government employee.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            "Instead of putting these people in detention camps, why can't we have them live along the wall and guard it like the Chinese did?  "

            And put the wolves to guarding the sheep flock.  You HAVE to know how that sounds, and the value of it.

            No, PP, unlimited immigration and open borders for anyone wanting to feed at the American trough is not the answer.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You are pulling our leg aren't you Mike. "The Great Wall of China"? This is satire, right?

            You had me going for a minute there ;-)

            GA

            1. peoplepower73 profile image93
              peoplepower73posted 7 months agoin reply to this

              GA: Nope...If you have a better idea let's hear it.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                My first thought would be one that has been mentioned before; change our immigration laws to comport with the Internation Asylum laws. An asylum seeker that just crosses our borders seeking an asylum claim must be coming directly from the country they are seeking asylum from.

                If our borders aren't the first border they cross trying to escape the tragedies of their country, then they are not asylum-seeking refugees, (the first safe country border they cross would meet their asylum needs), then they are economic refugees.

                It is as simple as that. If they are economic refugees then where is the logic of making then wards of our nation and putting them in front of the refugees that have followed our normal immigration processes - just because they were able to get across our borders?

                I understand that accusations of cruel heartlessness and "That's not what America is" will follow, but the only other choice is either open borders or Trump's wall. I am not a supporter of either of those choices.

                If compassion rather than reality was to become the new touchstone of our immigration policy, I could live with that too. Just expand our legal immigration processes and immigration numbers so that more economic refugees would be admitted - as many as you think we can economically and socially handle.

                Even with that policy, is there any limit to the number you would accept Mike?

                GA

  4. Zack Dylan profile image80
    Zack Dylanposted 7 months ago

    Let us first agree that a picture is worth a thousand words, and remember that assumption is a word, lies are made of words, and every badly politically motivated individual uses their words. The pictures submitted show people being detained. That is all they show. The words accompanying them have so little value to me as anyone can place any caption with any photo and if later outted for flat out lying, claim that it was an editorial error.

    The photo showing all of the detainees in "pod 2" for all we know is nothing more than an initial holding cell that processes all of those inhabiting it within four hours. The photo showing the encampments outside, while not something anyone can say is a favorable condition, is certianly more favorable than the journeys they went on to get to where they are. Some come across packed into the back of semi trailers with no AC, ventilation, water, bathrooms, or room to sit down. Some walk thousands of miles through desert land, mountainous areas,  and sleep on the ground everyday, no running water, no roof, little to no food, all because they believe that they will be able to get past immigration, claim asylum, cross the river, or hide once they get here. These conditions are horrid, but to pretend like what they have in detention, no matter how unpleasant it may seem to us is far better than what they previously endured. They have access to emergency medical care, they have access to water, they have access to proper toilets, they have food. If you don't believe me then ask yourself how only twenty four of the 593,000 detainees from October 2018 to June 2019 died? Remember these are people that are no different than you in me in the fact that they have health issues like diabetes that require insulin (which must be refrigerated and it can be difficult to keep a few month supply of clean needles hidden from junkies as well-they sometimes want to go north to the US too.) Some of the immigrants have drug use issues that if bad enough can kill if you are not weaned properly sometimes even with intervention.

    If the conditions were so deplorable, there would be far more dead. The current average detention is right about a week in length, and this is a known risk when they leave their home to come here without filing the proper paperwork. 

    I also feel that prisons are too comfortable as they are currently as well. As prisons have become more and more comfortable, the recidivism rates have increased with it. This is because the conditons in a prison are more favorable for someone who is living a hard life. It beats being constantly hungry and unable to visit the doctor.

    If you honestly believe that the best solution would be to open our borders, I would propose that we simply offer the necessary transportation for anyone caught to be dropped off in Canada. Their healthcare is free from what I hear, and supposedly our issue of immigration is only one of race. I'm sure Canada would welcome them with open arms and poo poo us while they did it.

    There are legitimate solutions to the issues we face regarding immigration, and it is a solvable issue at that.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)