Solutions to the Immigration Detention Camps

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (220 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

    Mike, (peoplepower73), is the impetus for this topic, but I hope all will participate.

    Let me state what I think are some 'givens':

    1) The number of unaccompanied minors and family units with minors crossing our borders is at crisis proportions.

    2) The numbers of minors and family units with minors crossing our borders has overwhelmed our CBP facilities and manpower capabilities.

    3) The current conditions of overwhelmed CBP officers and facilities is real and is at a crisis point.

    4) The conditions at the detention camps* can be honestly described at substandard at best and deplorable at worst.
    *I think there should be a distinction between CBP border station detention facilities and off-location detention facilities. A quick Google search will show you the reason I make that distinction.

    5) Saving the most important for last, the incoming flow of immigrants is increasing.

    So, with those givens, what solutions might be proposed to fix the deplorable overcrowded and understaffed conditions at the border detention camps? And, should money not be a consideration?

    Back to my reference to Mike; he suggested we need to think "outside the box." My thoughts are that without first stopping the inflow, we have no choice except to spend whatever is need to build and properly staff new detention centers. I don't see an in-the-box or outside the box workable solution.

    Can you think of a detention camp solution that doesn't include stopping the inflow of new family unit immigrants?

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      One thing that might help some is a quick DNA test - it seems that many of these "family units" are nothing of the sort.

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

      If the Trump administration had been thinking in humanitarian terms from the beginning, instead of law enforcement terms, they would at least be helping the situation instead of worsening it.

      As I stated back when the first caravan was on its way, we are capable of incredible resourcefulness in times of crisis. The military can build temporary facilities to house and feed thousands of people quite quivkly.  The Red Cross could be utilized. Instead, we pay a private company exhorbitant sums to provide substandard care.

      This administration should be offering lawyers and judges high pay and other incentives  to learn and perform the legal duties required to quickly and lawfully process asylum seekers. A lot of of this can be done via video chat. A similar recruitment should be done for interpreters, social workets,medical petsonnel, etc. Whatever it takes.

      We should be working with the source countries to help them clear out the criminal element and provide for their citizens. This help should be proactive and ongoing until no longer needed. Instead, the Trump administration cuts off aid as "punishment." Stupid and shortsighted but his supporters eat it up.

      This problem is not easy to deal with, but it can be handled much more humanely and efficiencly. It just takes the will and the competence to do so, neither of which is displayed by this administration.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        "It just takes the will and the competence to do so, neither of which is displayed by this administration."

        Apparently it just takes an acceptance that we are responsible to support and care for the rest of the world.  Once that is done, solutions are obvious - they just take money, but we can always borrow more to care for foreign citizens.

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

          "....support and care for the rest of the world." No, but we are obligated to follow the law governing asylum seekers.

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

        Remember Ms. this is a discussion, not a you are wrong and nuts response.

        First, the root of this humanitarian crisis is a law enforcement problem Our immigration laws pull immigrants to our borders, rather than deter them.

        The immigrant's own statements support this. They come knowing our laws force us to give then "A Notice to Appear' and then release them into our country.

        How can we solve this humanitarian problem without also addressing one of the root causes of the problem?

        Now, remember I have agreed with you. As things stand I think our only choice is to do what you suggest, but it will not solve the problem. For every immigrant, we process via this new and great surge of effort, many more will get the message that effort sends and head our way.

        Can you see that the solution you propose and I agree with, (at least until Congress does its job), will only exacerbate this already decades-old problem?

        Can you see that this demanded 'humanitarian' solution is only going to draw more immigrants and make the problem worse?

        This compassion demanding a humanitarian solution to the images we see can do nothing less than turns us into the world's homeless shelter.

        Geesh, I might have to turn into a "wall" supporter.

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I thought you already were, Gus...

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

            Sorry bud, you thought wrong.

            GA

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

          You know, most people vastly prefer staying in their own familiar home country over traipsing thousands of miles to seek asylum in a foreign country with a different primary language and less familiar culture. If they do so, it is almost always because their life has become dangerous or untenable. We can change all the laws we want, but it won't make that potential immigrant more likely to stay in that dangerous or untenable situation. They will still flee. We might be able to decrease the numbers by becoming an unwelcoming country....oh, wait, hasn't Trump already tried that with his family separation policy? Did it "deter" anyone from fleeing their dangerous or untenable situation hoping for something better?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Sometimes we forget how this country was created...and why.

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

              Yes.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              There is an enormous difference between how this country was created, and the current scenario.

              People came here for the first couple hundred years for OPPORTUNITY...

              For a chance at FREEDOM...

              NOT for free housing, food and income.

              People willingly sold themselves into INDENTURED SERVITUDE (just short of slavery and for many a fate just as bad, with lives just as short) for a chance to make a life for themselves here.

              The difference between coming here with nothing promised, and a hefty price to pay for it... and being told you will be handed everything for free, for life, is very different... monumentally different.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                It's very easy, and very common, to pretend that because there were open borders 200 years ago we should have them now.  That it is a different world, with very different conditions, is forgotten and set aside as we pretend nothing has changed.  It is NOT the same world and pretending that it is, or that we do not have different needs, is unrealistic in the extreme.

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

                  It's a little ironic that this is the same argument people use when discussing the need to tighten up gun laws.I absolutely agree with this sentiment on immigration. A new world is a new world....we are no longer a new world.

              2. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                "People came here for the first couple hundred years for OPPORTUNITY...

                For a chance at FREEDOM...

                NOT for free housing, food and income."


                I have no issue with people who are concerned about immigration. I do have an issue with people who demonize people who are simply trying for a better life, by pretending they are freeloaders without offering anything other than anecdotal evidence. That is literally prejudice and xenophobia.

                So can you provide evidence that the majority of asylum seekers who enter the country are unwilling to work, or can we safely dismiss this comment as xenophobia Ken?

                1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  You can choose to dismiss whatever you want, however factual it is or not, this is the quintessential truth of our day, that there is no truth but that which a person chooses to believe.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7KIYO8F1s

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJlOmMj21uM

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBder6pUGWU


                  The reality is this, no one would try to come to America if they thought they would be treated the same way China or Russia or a hundred other nations deal with immigrants.  They make their way to the UK, Canada, and America because they KNOW they will be taken care of, that their children will be taken care of, by the system. 

                  As I said, I don't blame them, I would pack up my family and make my way to America to, if I were in their shoes... I know this as matter-of-factly as I packed up my family and moved from NY to FL... because it offered my family more opportunity, lower taxes, better weather, etc.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    A video of lots of black and brown people doesn't scare me Ken, and it certainly doesn't prove your point.

                    Neither does anecdotal evidence from a Faux News "journalist".

                    Neither does the fact that 8 immigrants are suing the government for taking their children away.

                    Where is your evidence that the majority of asylum seekers are freeloaders as you have suggested? If you have none, then what you said constitutes prejudice and xenophobia.

                    Question you have to ask yourself Ken is, am I'm only using those terms because that's what we on The Left label anyone who disagrees with us? Or am I using them because suggesting an entire group of foreign people are freeloaders without evidence, is literally prejudice and xenophobia. Think about it Ken.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      OMG, I thought this thread was about problem-solving. So far we have a solution that suggests we overthrow several countries governments.

      Come on people let's get serious. This all started with a pleasant plan to build towns for immigrants.  Now we have the suggestion to troops all over the world... We can all do better.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        "So, with those givens, what solutions might be proposed to fix the deplorable overcrowded and understaffed conditions at the border detention camps? And, should money not be a consideration?"

        The money allocated by Congress will enable the government to construct more facilities, and hire more staff to run them. The money will also be spent to hire more judges to accelerate asylum applications ( new and backlogged). The bill is very clear how the money is to be spent. I would recommend reading the bill.  In my opinion, this is a bandaid, that will need replacing frequently. It will somewhat alleviate poor conditions at the facilities, and perhaps work to catch up with the asylum backlog.

        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr3401/text

        "Can you think of a detention camp solution that doesn't include stopping the inflow of new family unit immigrants??

        If I am understanding you correctly, you are looking for solutions to keep up the flow of immigrants coming into America, but to make their experience more comfortable while they await their decisions on their applications for asylum. The only way we can continue handling the flow is to build more facilities. The new bill stipulates there is to be no overcrowding at our current facilities. (which actually is adding to the current problem). Not sure what Congress plans to do with all the people in the current facilities, while new facilities are constructed? So, the only solution would be catch and release at this point or just give up and have open borders.

        We either slow the progression of migrants now and handle our backlogs and come up with new methods to apply for asylum.  It very much seems we have hit a wall. Maybe time once again to put our heads in the sand...

    4. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Instead of a detention camp, what we need is a labor camp. If you come to this country seeking asylum, then while your case is being judged, you work to fund the cost of staying, just like you would if it were a hotel. By getting the labor in an exchange, we could use the money to create better camps. And perhaps those cities are on the Mexico side of the border and we work with Mexico to shuttle people in and out.

      To be honest, I have no idea how to solve this problem and it doesn't seem like anyone else does either. It's not really that different than Palestine.

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

        Is that a 'chain gangs' type of proposal?

        GA

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I don't think it needs to be punitive. I'm just saying, if you want to come into this country and stay here while your case is being ejudicated, then perhaps there has to be an exchange - your labor for the U.S. supplying food, water, and shelter. Those who perform well might receive more positive reviews or something. The companies who benefit from that labor would pay the government to subsidize the shelters.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Reasonable, at least as a discussion point.  It would remain to figure out how to ensure contact and what to do with adults and minor children.  Not unsolvable, at least if an honest effort is made rather than simply wringing hands and declaring that anything like that (workfare, just as we do for our citizens in some areas?) is unacceptable.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I'm genuinely trying to think of something because neither party has come close to figuring something out. I want to be humane and fair. Because America is such a land of opportunity, everyone wants to come here. By exchanging consideration for work, we convey the message about what it takes to succeed and that living here is not going to be some kind of free pass. Even better if the jobs these potential citizens get turn into real jobs.

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

            I don't think that is a workable idea Crankalicious, Several important deal-breakers come to mind, but, as you say, for the sake of discussion let's look at it.

            "Those who perform well might receive more positive reviews or something."

            First, I don't think positive performance or behavior can have any consideration in their asylum request. Asylum isn't something you earn, you either qualify for it or you don't. So maybe that thought should be nixed?

            Before we can go further we have to decide what would we use their labor for? Are we considering some type of project that would help decrease the overcrowding, (like Mike's desert towns or new detention facilities), or some way of defraying the costs of detention?

            As food for thought, consider the make-up of the available labor pool. Of the families and minors population, which is what is exploding our detention facilities; two-thirds to three-quarters are 15-17 years old, and two-thirds to three-quarters of those are male.

            I haven't seen numbers, but my perception is that the adult male population in these centers is a very small number.

            Obviously, I think the posed questions point to problems I see with this idea, but I tried to not be too negative so this can be a discussion and not a 'you are wrong and I am right 'debate.

            GA

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              The question really comes down to - what is our obligation to the people who come to our border? Technically, we don't have any obligation since they aren't citizens of this country. However, do we have an obligation to treat them humanely and consider their request for asylum? If so, then we need to house them I guess or turn them back and ask them to go elsewhere. That elsewhere, right now, is a Mexican town run by drug cartels even less equipped to handle them.

              There are jobs here, so contract with companies (mostly agricultural I would guess) to hire these migrants in exchange for payment that provides them with housing. You'd need to set up different centers around the country where the most jobs were. The attraction for the companies is reduced wages while the attraction for the migrants is earning their stay.

              Seems to beat what we're doing now.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                We could give them agricultural jobs currently held by green card holders.  Of course, we'd just find those green card holders sneaking across the border one night...

                GA has a point about the workers coming in vs those that expect us to just support them without doing anything themselves.  Even so, with the numbers we're seeing (and the skill set) there just aren't enough jobs to go around.  Sure, we can cobble together some "make work" tasks, but those aren't going to help pay the cost of supporting them for we don't truly need the task done.

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Lots of negativity with no alternative solutions. I presume you believe we should just close the borders completely?

                  That is certainly an option and one I don't necessarily disagree with. Just literally turn everyone around. Don't provide any facilities.

                  It's a cruel option though.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Close them completely? 

                    No.  I have no problem with limited numbers of legal immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers.  I DO have a problem with unlimited numbers of unskilled people demanding that the people of the US support them.

                    I fully support the concept being floated about only accepting those people that have something to actually contribute to the country (beyond grunt labor).  And I fully support limited numbers of refugees.  The problem is that we are taking anyone and everyone and then end up simply supporting them forever, and that's something that must stop.  Cruel?  Only if we disregard the huge negative effect on Americans that continued acceptance of millions of unskilled people will produce.

                    (Before you ask - I don't see even 100,000 immigrants per year doing great harm (say perhaps 10% unskilled)...if they assimilate.  If they group on conclaves and try to continue their old lifestyle, or demand we convert to their philosophy then I most definitely see a problem.)

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

                With Wilderness' point about agriculture jobs and displaced Green Card holders, let me point you back to the labor pool details of my previous response; teenagers and mom's with young kids. I don't think those demographics would fit well with your idea of further displacement, (set up different centers around the country), and an unknown time-frame.

                But, but, wait ... that idea may work for detainees that have been found to have credible fears and are moved to the asylum court process because, (unless I am remembering wrong), those folks do get released from the detention centers in what's called an ATD program, (damn, can't remember what that stands for), that uses electronic ankle bracelets to monitor and ensure their appearance at their court hearings.

                I say that may be a possibility because that court process can take from one to five years. A fair timeframe for temporary employment.

                But even if that were a workable idea it wouldn't do anything to decrease detention center overcrowding because those folks, (those entering the court process), are going to be released from the centers anyway.

                Oh well, back to the drawing board . . .

                GA

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  My next suggestion would be to create a massive infrastructure jobs program. We have all this potential cheap labor and a very serious need to fix our nation's infrastructure. Put the two together!

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Only if we go back to pick and shovel construction.  Precious few illegals can operate a dozer, a backhoe or any other modern construction equipment.  Most can't even read, let alone read a set of blueprints.  Nor are they familiar at all with US rules and regulations concerning building codes or even workforce rules.

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I submit the following additional 'givens' which I think have implications for any proposed solutions:

      6) Separating families with the stated goal of punishing them to deter others, is immoral and represents a failure to meet the country's legal obligations.

      7) Leaving asylum seekers in squalid conditions to deter others, is immoral and represents a failure to meet the country's legal obligations.

      8) Providing for the most basic human needs of asylum seekers while their claims are processed, is morally right.

      9) The behavior of asylum seekers and economic migrants is driven by hope for a safer and more prosperous life. No government has ever defeated the capacity of human beings to hope for, and pursue, a better life.

      10) The severity of measures taken to deter asylum claims, must be tempered by ethics.

      11) Anyone within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution (regardless of their citizenship status) has constitutional rights, including a right to due process, right to legal counsel etc. 

      12) Democrats rule, Republicans drool.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Well, I was going to respond, right up to the point I read #12.  I think that one says it all: any self proclaimed moral guide than ends with name calling doesn't have anything at all to offer.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          You know there was a time when 12 would have been so obviously ridiculous and absurd it would be taken as the joke it was intended to be. Alas times have changed.

          Anyhoo, are you suggesting 6 - 11 are not a given?

          You think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?

          You think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government?

          You think measures to deter asylum seekers should not be tempered by ethics?

          You think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights?

          Is that what you are suggesting?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You're putting your set of morals, and morals solely concerning illegal aliens, as the only thing possible, while ignoring the moral implications your philosophy has on the rest of the people.

            Moral to separate children from parents that have committed a crime?  We've done it since time began - how is it different now?  When we jail a criminal is that moral, or should we set them all free if they have children?

            Most of the people you're concerned about never had those "basic human needs" - what makes it morally imperative we supply them with it?

            Did you consider the ethics of requiring others to give up what they have to support those asylum seekers?  Why not?

            They do not have the same rights as citizens do.  It is not moral to require Americans to supply the world with the rights they supply themselves, as a nation, with.

            Are you suggesting that American citizens are morally responsible for the care and support of the world's population?  Sounds like it.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Moral to separate children from parents that have committed a crime?  We've done it since time began - how is it different now?

              Again, it is not lawful to punish people for crossing the border illegally if they are eligible for asylum status. It's not possible to know if someone is eligible for asylum status until their case has been processed. Therefore punishing people before their case is process, is not only immoral (you may be separating families for no reason) it also means the government is failing to meet its legal obligations.

              "Most of the people you're concerned about never had those "basic human needs" - what makes it morally imperative we supply them with it?"

              Are you seriously suggesting asylum seekers be treated according to their level of comfort in the place they are seeking asylum from? So an asylum seeker from Somalia, for example, should not be given enough food or water if they were mostly thirsty and hungry in Somalia? Is that what you're suggesting? If so, what do you think might possibly be the issue with that wilderness? If that's not what you mean, please explain.

              "They do not have the same rights as citizens do." 

              I didn't ask if they have the same rights citizens. I asked if you think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution have constitutional rights? Are you suggesting they don't? You might want to do some research before you answer.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Again, it is not lawful to punish people for crossing the border illegally if they are eligible for asylum status.

                I get that you're trying to make a moral case that people coached to lie about their status be turned loose to disappear into the countryside and that we are morally responsible to care for them.  I disagree, that's all.

                Are you seriously suggesting asylum seekers be treated according to their level of comfort in the place they are seeking asylum from?

                Again, I get that you're to make the claim that I am morally responsible to support people at the same level I support myself.  Again, I disagree.

                Finally, I don't think the framers of the constitution had in mind that our constitution applies to everyone in the world, within our borders or not.  I get that liberals today are insisting that they do, but I disagree again.  There was never an attempt to write our constitution for the world; only for the people of the United States.  In any case, the constitution does not say that we are morally (or legally) required to support even American citizens, let alone citizens of a foreign country that are violating our laws.  On the other hand, they have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that any other prison inmate has.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "I get that you're trying to make a moral case that people coached to lie about their status be turned loose to disappear into the countryside and that we are morally responsible to care for them.  I disagree, that's all."

                  No, I'm saying that punishing asylum seekers for crossing the border illegally before you know if they are eligible for asylum (and therefore immune from prosecution for that crime), inevitably means some people are being punished for a crime the law says they have immunity from. If you also separate those people from their children as part of the punishment, then the separation is unnecessary.

                  I believe it's a given that separating families unnecessarily in a way that does not comply with the law is both immoral and unlawful. You are saying it's fine because essentially those asylum seekers are liars. So then it comes down to this simple question:

                  Is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've established if they are lying or not? Sorry but there are not two equal sides here. If you think it is right, then your sense of what is morally right and wrong is grossly distorted.

                  "Again, I get that you're to make the claim that I am morally responsible to support people at the same level I support myself.  Again, I disagree."

                  I've made no such claim. I am saying it's a given than in civilized societies we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities. Even criminals who have committed the most despicable crimes have their basic needs met. That is not a measure of their decency (they may have none) it's a measure of ours. Again, if you think providing for basic human needs is not a given, then not only is your moral compass is skewed, but you're also clearly unaware of several international treaties the US is a signatory of that requires the government to respect basic human rights.

                  "Finally, I don't think the framers of the constitution had in mind that our constitution applies to everyone in the world, within our borders or not."

                  This one is not debatable. It's just a matter of fact. Anyone within the jurisdiction of the Constitution is afforded constitutional rights. As per the American Bar Association:

                  ". . . U.S. Supreme Court cases, dating back to 1886, have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to "persons" or "people"
                  https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew … act_check/

                  Are you suggesting asylum seekers are not people wilderness?

                  If not, then how is it not a given that asylum seekers have constitutional rights?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    No, I'm saying that punishing asylum seekers for crossing the border illegally before you know if they are eligible for asylum (and therefore immune from prosecution for that crime), inevitably means some people are being punished for a crime the law says they have immunity from.

                    Yes, I caught that you suddenly went from the morality of it to the legality.  I responded to the original question; whether it was moral or not (the law often isn't).  There is also the question of morality given the circumstances; we immorally demand thousands of times the taxes from the rich for the exact same thing - an immoral action - but if we don't we won't have a nation.  Circumstances and necessity sometimes dictate immoral behavior and the invasion of our borders is one such time for we cannot continue to allow it to happen.

                    I've made no such claim. I am saying it's a given than in civilized societies we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities.

                    No, you don't get to grossly exaggerate what is happening, turning it from not having a toothbrush into starving them to death.  Doing so is not a moral action.

                    ". . . U.S. Supreme Court cases, dating back to 1886, have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to "persons" or "people"

                    OK - they have the same right to be jailed for breaking the law.  You seem really, really hung up on this "asylum seekers" even though you have to know that the vast majority of the invasion does not meet the criteria.  And they know the same thing or, at best, have made zero effort to find out if they do. 

                    Don, you may find it reasonable for people to search for loopholes or lies that allow them to violate the intent of the law, but I don't.  And I won't give them a break for doing so.

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

        Sorry Don, but I reject 11 of your givens. I do accept #12 as long as you add the qualifier "dead."

        However, I will admit that this agreement makes as much sense as the inference of your "givens."

        You must be suffering from a drought of legitimate threads to join. I can understand your feeling. Maybe there are some citation opportunities in the "Concentration Camps" thread?

        GA

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I'm glad you at least didn't take 12 as a serious suggestion. But same question to you as to wilderness.

          You think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?

          You think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government?

          You have an example where a government has managed to remove all capacity to hope and pursue a better life?

          You think measures to deter asylum seekers should not be tempered by ethics?

          You think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights?

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

            I will leave your "questions" ball in Wilderness' court.

            We have discussed them before, I think my thoughts on those questions have been made clear before, and lastly, they fit in the category of that "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. So I will just pass on this opportunity.

            GA

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I think you're over-complicating it. These are not trick questions.

              If we're not able to say it's a given that any solution should take into ethical considerations into account, or that it's morally right to ensure people's most basic human needs, then something is very very wrong.

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

                No Don, I am not over complicating things. You are posing philosophical questions that are divorced from reality.

                Of course, it is a moral "given" that basic human needs should be met, but if you have the capability to provide those basic needs for 100, are you immoral for not being able to provide them for 10,000?

                That same question would apply to your other questions also.

                GA

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "You are posing philosophical questions that are divorced from reality."

                  Here is a Justice Department lawyer arguing in federal court that providing children with soap, somewhere to sleep, and warmth has nothing to do with the "safe and sanitary" environment it is legally obliged to provide.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLh7JOQHc

                  So I don't accept this issue is "divorced from reality".

                  We are at the stage where the government literally needs to be told by a bench of judges that not giving people it has detained soap, a place to wash, a warm place to sleep, is unsafe and unsanitary. Explaining right and wrong in relation to how we treat human beings, is therefore not a matter of philosophy (I long for the day when it would be) but a matter of practical necessity.

                  "Of course, it is a moral "given" that basic human needs should be met, but if you have the capability to provide those basic needs for 100, are you immoral for not being able to provide them for 10,000?"

                  While it may be a moral "given" for you and I. Sadly the government does not appear to share that view, or at least the view that being able to sleep, wash and stay warm are basic human needs for a safe and sanitary environment.

                  And the operative word there is "should". I have no issue with that wording, i.e. it's a given that any solution should ensure basic human needs are met. 1. it does not rule out the practical possibility that extraordinary circumstances may negatively impact that endeavor temporarily (though they would truly need to be extraordinary circumstances); 2. it still places the commitment to provide for a safe and sanitary environment up front as a key principle, which is clearly (sadly) necessary.

                  At a time when immigrants are literally being hated on by the president and his supporters for simply wanting a better life and having the determination and ingenuity to trek thousands of miles to try to achieve it, the idea that basic human needs should be met, must be a fundamental guiding principle of any "solution" to the problem. Likewise, the idea that the measures taken to deter asylum seekers, must be tempered by ethical considerations.

                  There aren't two equal sides to this GA. The idea that the government should provide soap, warmth and a place to sleep to people it detains, is a given. The idea that deterrents should be tempered by ethics, is too. Sensible people need to say clearly that those who don't believe this (including the government) are lacking in moral judgement, relative to the best values and traditions of the country.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    You are free to provide all the soap and toothbrushes your version of morality requires of you.

                    You are NOT free to demand resources from someone else, simply because you think it should be done.  That is unethical and immoral.

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

                    "should" and "extraordinary circumstances," there is the separation between the philosophical and reality.

                    GA

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        All you have listed should be put on a flyer and dropped in all the problem countries as an open invitation to come on down... Your problem solving seems one-sided. only respecting the wishes of Americans that see your point of view. I think there is such a dived though process in regards to immigration in our country. It seems we have some that hope to open the borders to any and all. And some that just hope to have some decent fair laws that not only dictate how many can claim asylum but a fairer way to choose who can become citizens. We seem to be forgetting we have hundreds of thousands of people that apply to come in legally without the claim of need for asylum just to become citizens. Do we ignore all of them that have been on back burns for years due to this overflow of asylum seekers that are being put at the front of the line? In the past 10 years, the number of an asylum seeker has gone up 2000%.

        https://time.com/longform/asylum-seekers-border/

        As for my point of view.
        1. We need to deter the caravans from coming to our borders.

        2. Handle our backlog, treat the people we have in these facilities humanly.

        3. Let asylum seeker apply for their own countries or if in bodily danger they need to seek asylum in the first country they cross into that would be considered a place of safety. If they are seeking asylum from Mexico or Canada they need to present themselves at a legal border crossing.

        4. Democrats sit on the fence, Republicans use common sense..

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          The opening comment lists a number of things GA believes are "givens" (and presumably should be considered as part of any solution)

          I am suggesting the things I have listed are also a given.

          Are you suggesting they are not?

          If so, does that mean you think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?

          Do you think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government? And by basic needs I mean sufficient food, water, soap, a place to wash, a place to lie down or sit. You know basic human needs.

          Do you believe the hope these people have for a better life can be defeated by a fence, barbed wire, guards etc. History tells us that physical punishments cannot defeat human hope. So I think it's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments. Why do you disagree?

          You don't think it's a given that we should be ethical in our dealings with asylum seekers?

          You don't think it's a given that people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights? I can assure you they do.

          So far two people have balked at the things I have listed as given, but neither have actually explained why they are not. I hope you'll be different.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            "Do you think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government? And by basic needs I mean sufficient food, water, soap, a place to wash, a place to lie down or sit. You know basic human needs."

            We are already doing all of what you mentioned. And it should get better with the new funds that will be spent. 

            "Do you believe the hope these people have for a better life can be defeated by a fence, barbed wire, guards etc. History tells us that physical punishments cannot defeat human hope. So I think it's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments. Why do you disagree?"

            I do not disagree - I listed methods of deterrents. Please read #3.
            I as a citizen do not want immigration laws that enable this overcrowding to happen. I gave my solutions to decrease overcrowding at the border.  I am in no way condoning we be the saviors of the world...  Many American citizens have hopes, maybe time to help some of our own less fortunate.

            "You don't think it's a given that we should be ethical in our dealings with asylum seekers?"  I don't think we should be having this problem with overcrowding. I don't think we owe them anything our laws don't cover.

            "You don't think it's a given that people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights? I can assure you they do."
            I realize they have certain rights and I am not going to argue should they or shouldn't they.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "We are already doing all of what you mentioned. And it should get better with the new funds that will be spent."

              I didn't asking whether we are doing those things. I asked if it is a given that we should do those things. Based on your response, I assume you think it is a given. I agree.

              In terms of whether basic human needs are being met, the Office of the Inspector General begs to differ with your assessment:

              "For example, although TEDS standards require CBP to make a reasonable effort to provide a shower for adults after 72 hours,!? most single adults had not had a shower in CBP custody despite several being held for as long as a month"
              https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1

              I strongly recommend you read the report.

              "I do not disagree - I listed methods of deterrents."

              So you did. Seems we agree then. It's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments.

              "I don't think we should be having this problem with overcrowding. I don't think we owe them anything our laws don't cover."

              I don't know if that's a yes or no. I think our response must always be tempered with ethical considerations. Why don't fill the Rio Grande with land mines? Or shoot to kill everyone who crosses the border illegally including families? Because obviously we consider the ethical implications of that. The fact it's so obvious is exactly what makes it a given.

              "I realize they have certain rights and I am not going to argue should they or shouldn't they."

              Yes, regardless of what people think about it, it's a fact that anyone within the jurisdiction of the Constitution has constitutional rights. That is a given.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Each and every question you have accused our government of not compiling with they are compiling with to the very best of their ability.  They are daily dealing with the overcrowding crisis. With the new bill passed more funds will help them with the humanitarian crisis. To bad the Congress did not help sooner...

            I am sure you have read the reports from the visitors that were allowed tours of facilities on Friday. If not you may want to do some research on their findings.
            Yes, they found overcrowding that has resulted in problems. However, one can see all the hysteria was brought about by ill-informed people that were reporting without real knowledge of what is actually the truth.

            This thread is repetitious and getting downright ridiculous.
            Time to realize, the government is doing its best, and no one forced migrants to make the trip. All this rhetoric serves as an open invitation for more to consider making the trip.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "no one forced migrants to make the trip."


              Well, this depends on if they are fleeing bloodshed and violence towards their families.  And it's "complying," not "compiling."  tongue

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                To repeat my sentiment,  this thread is repetitious and getting downright ridiculous.
                Time to realize, the government is doing its best, and no one forced migrants to make the trip. All this rhetoric serves as an open invitation for more to consider making the trip.

                "Well, this depends on if they are fleeing bloodshed and violence towards their families."

                Do you really feel that is true of the overwhelming number of migrants that are making the trip are due to fleeing bloodshed?  Please have a look at how many asylum seekers are turned away due to our courts not buying into your sentiment.  At any rate, I hope we start enforcing our immigration laws and cut the number of asylum seekers we accept until we take care of our backlogs.

                "The truth is, about 20 to 30 percent of asylum requests have been granted annually since 2009, but experts said that does not mean that the remaining 70 to 80 percent of cases are invalid. There are many reasons why an asylum case might otherwise be dismissed or closed."

                https://www.politifact.com/texas/statem … out-merit/

                "Nearly 20,500 individuals in FY 2016. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum, which is about 28 percent out of the 73,081 cases."

                https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/

    6. James A Watkins profile image86
      James A Watkinsposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I have long thought a crocodile filled moat would solve most of this problem with these invaders.

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

        James I am not surprised you would entertain that thought.

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, James gave a true Xtian response to a serious humanitarian problem, Gus. Jesus would have certainly approved....

    7. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      It is a problem that will only continue to escalate, and the reasons are simple, obvious, and ignored by the politicians and media.

      We now have tens of thousands a month coming from countries as far away as Africa, through the border with Mexico.  That is a pretty daunting trek for anyone who does not have the legal documentation to do so... yet the numbers are increasing as the weeks go by.

      This is because the US of A offers those who reach the border:
      Housing
      Food
      Money
      Opportunity for a better life

      They are being told they will get a place to live, free food and income for life.  True or not, they are being told this by various sources working on behalf of non-profits and U.N. backed agencies whose efforts and intent is to increase immigrant traffic to America.

      If you were living in a country like Somalia or Venezuela today, its not hard to imagine why you would risk everything to make the journey as well, if you could.

      So, I expect this to become a matter of not thousands coming a week, but hundreds of thousands a week, it will be like a faucet that has a broken valve and cannot be turned off.

      Until the economy collapses, or ruin and violence become the norm here in America, it will never stop... so long as there are non-profits and government agencies giving them places to live, free food and income, the numbers will continue to grow.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Out of all the Hispanic immigrants I have met, every single one had a job. None of them get anything for free.

        The real problem is businesses that hire them for cheap labor and a government that won't fine those businesses for breaking the law.

        Cut off the jobs for illegals and you cut off their main reason for coming here.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          African Migrants Are Becoming A New Face Of The U.S. Border Crisis

          Filipe and Mireille took their four young children and fled violent militias and civil unrest in the Democratic Republic of Congo nearly five months ago.

          They flew to Ecuador, then traveled on foot across Central America to reach the U.S.-Mexico border, where they waited for weeks in a long line of asylum-seekers before being allowed to cross and make the last leg of their journey.

          Finally, they reached their destination: a makeshift emergency shelter in Portland, Maine — a converted minor-league sports arena now filled with cots. Filipe describes it as "paradise."

          "I was thinking ... what could I wish for in life? And this is what I wish for," Felipe says through a translator. He and his wife did not want to give their last names to protect their privacy.

          The crisis on the southern border has been driven by a surge of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Now there's a new face of the crisis: Thousands of African migrants have crossed the border in recent weeks, many to seek asylum.

          Like the families from Central America, they are traveling great distances after seeing thousands gain entry to the United States in recent months.

          "When conditions at home are desperate, and the Europe option doesn't look good, the high-priced, long-distance option to come to the U.S. might be worth it."

          First, many of these migrants fly to South America. And when they get there, they find well-traveled roads to follow north, Capps says.

          "That journey through Central America and Mexico has been facilitated by these large migrant caravans, by more sophisticated and faster smuggling routes, and it's an easier journey from Guatemala onward than it has been in the past," he says.

          Capps says the U.S. can expect more migrants from all over the world to seek asylum in the United States unless Mexico does more to stop them.

          Many of the African asylum-seekers have then made their way to cities like Portland, Maine, with large, established African immigrant communities. And just as the surge of migrants is overwhelming border agents and the nation's immigration court system, it is also taxing social services from Portland to San Antonio, Texas.

          Large communities of mainly Somali and Sudanese refugees have formed in Maine's largest cities, Portland and Lewiston.

          The rate of poverty is rising among African immigrants in the Portland metro region. That’s according to a report from the Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University, which details changing demographics in the African community.

          According to the report, Africans in the Portland metro area come from 28 countries, with the largest numbers coming from Somalia, Egypt and Sierra Leone.

          It also shows that more than half the African immigrants in the region live in poverty – and that two-thirds of the children in these communities are living in poverty.

          Just as the surge of migrants is overwhelming border agents and the nation's immigration court system, it is also taxing social services from Portland to San Antonio, Texas.

          In that border city, migrants pile into white vans once they cross the border. The shuttles drop the families off on a busy street corner downtown, outside the city's migrant service center. When migrants started arriving from places like the Congos and Angola, it didn't take city workers long to figure out they would need translators.

          "So we're down here working with the city right now at the relief center, helping purchase bus tickets, and we brought down a lot of staff who speak Swahili or French to help with language needs," says Peter Stranges, who works for Catholic Charities in San Antonio.

          ---- and the article goes on but I'll END here----

          The point is, thousands cross the border daily, and most of those coming do not have jobs, and do not have places to live, they are relying on the generosity of non-profits and the local governments that they are sent to and the donations and generosity of Americans who help out.

          It is a falsehood, a fabrication, or outright lie, to say the people who come here all have jobs, almost none of them do when they arrive at the border.

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            "Almost none of them do when they arrive at the border."

            For crying out loud, of course not. They get the jobs when they cross the border.

            Odd that conservatives want to stop illegal immigration, but they don't want to cut off the jobs that attract illegal immigrants.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          "None of them get anything for free."

          You don't know of a single illegal that receives food stamps?  Housing assistance?  Medical care?  Not a single one educates their children in public schools?  Not one has used the services of an interpreter in court somewhere?  None have gone through a soup line in a church somewhere?  No one got a free turkey on Thanksgiving or Christmas? 

          You either live in a fantasy world where closed eyes are the norm or all your friends wear wings.

          But you are absolutely correct; cut off the jobs and a great deal of the flow will end.  So why don't we do that?  We've had the opportunity, and the incentive, for decades - why isn't it done?  Because, just maybe, it could affect the votes of the politicians, or even their pocketbooks?  Just maybe?

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            No, not a one. Do you? How do you know what they get and how they get it? Do you stop them on the street and demand answers?

            "You either live in a fantasy world where closed eyes are the norm or all your friends wear wings."

            Now, don't be silly. I am much more in touch with real life than you any day of the week.

            I have done a lot of volunteer work for 7 years at an agency that provides so-called "free" help for people that truly need it. I haven't seen an illegal there yet. Do any illegals ever get something for free? Sure, but doesn't just about everyone?

            ALL of the illegals I have met have jobs. You might try opening your eyes yourself and stop one siding everything.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              "How do you know what they get and how they get it?"

              I sit in the courtroom and watch as interpreters are required.  I sit in the welfare office and watch.  I visit schools and watch, then look at the budget and the expense for ESL teachers.

              While you sit back and pretend it doesn't happen because you turn your head when it might be seen.  Or pretend that hordes of people speaking no English surely have permission to be here.

              Yes, most have jobs.  At least one per family and sometimes more.  But that wasn't the topic, was it - it was whether illegals are getting aid to supplement a salary that will not support a family or, often enough, even an individual.  How do YOU think a family of 5 or 6 is surviving on less than minimum wage if not with freebies?  How do YOU think the schools get the funds to operate when illegals do not pay anywhere near enough in taxes to educate even one of their children in the public system?

              Hint: it's called "welfare", or maybe "freebies" or even "charity".  But whatever it's called, the illegals (as a group) are not providing for their own needs, not by any stretch of the imagination.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Your reply is nearly all opinions. Let's try facts. What illegals don't receive:

                - Medicare
                - Obamacare
                - Social Security
                - Food stamps
                - Unemployment compensation
                - Medicaid (except for emergencies)

                I grant that illegal children can attend school.

                Otherwise, what government programs do they get for free?

                1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  This too is essentially a falsehood, there are many state and a few federal programs that provide illegal immigrants with assistance.

                  Twenty-six states make immigrants eligible for state-funded benefit programs. Most of these states either offer assistance to families or provide access to healthcare to otherwise uninsured immigrants. Examples of these programs are New York’s Safety Net Assistance, California’s CalFresh Food Assistance Program, and California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI).

                  29 percent of noncitizen adults use SNAP (AKA Food Stamps) this is a federally funded program.

                  In accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in Plyer v. Doe, all immigrant children, regardless of status, have access to a public education and are eligible to attend public schools for grades K-12. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Head Start program as it is not considered a federal public benefit program – any child who is otherwise eligible, regardless of their or their parents’ immigration status, may enroll in Head Start or Early Head Start.

                  All of this information is easy to find and verify. Support for immigrants, illegal or however you want to label them, is supported with different named programs perhaps... but it equates to the same as what American citizens are entitled to from welfare, food stamps, etc.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    You thoroughly misunderstand my post. I am talking about illegal immigrants. You are talking about "noncitizens", including SNAP.

                    Please address my list and explain which ones serve illegal immigrants for free.

                    And I already said that illegals can go to school.

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

              There are many hard-working illegal immigrants, years ago, I worked with some of them for a couple years. However, I also know of a large circle of illegal immigrants who come here for two things..run drugs and guns. They laugh about how easy it will be for them to come back, change their name, and start over when they are deported following their sentences. It's much easier being an illegal immigrant felon/criminal than it is to be an American criminal.

              Indeed, there are two sides to everything.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 7 months ago

    Are we doing anything to help ease the fighting and misery in their home countries? It seems to me to be the answer to stopping them coming here instead of staying home. We've pissed around in other countries for little or no reason--Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.--so why not a country close by?

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Are you suggesting war as an answer?

      That's novel. I hope the government doesn't pick up on that idea.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I simply suggest helping the people there take their country back. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Bush and Cheney couldn't wait to help out the rich city. But these people are fleeing a poor rife stricken country...big difference I suppose.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I don't know Randy. I appreciate the sentiment but I don't know if war is the solution. I'd say investment that creates jobs.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            War isn't necessary if you have the right diplomats, LTL.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              You are the one who suggested war. Or were you just suggesting an invasion and takeover?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I said what I meant. Helping those people take back their country is on way to stop them from coming here. I think Trump has cut aid to them causing the problem to become worse.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  You're being serious?  You would involve us in a hundred civil wars to stop illegal immigrants, while pretending there is a moral justification for doing it?

                  It's hard to imagine a worse "solution".

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

                    Of course, you always dream up the worst possible scenario and actk as though it is the only option thereby killing, in your mind, any idea that might help people you personally don't want to help.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Wilderness, you are correct.  We cannot save the world.  America has done more than enough to help people.  This explains why we as a nation is in debt.  Let nations help themselves.

                  3. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    What was the moral justification for the Iraq War, Dan? No WMDs were found as Dubya and his ex- Haliburton VP claimed. After being told Iraq wasn't responsible for the 911 attack, Cheney said, "They have better targets."


                    Are you positive there are a 100 civil wars in the region? A link supporting your claim would be nice.

                  4. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Seriously. And many of the problems 'solved' would make us look heavy handed and imperialistic.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Take their counties back?  Like we helped the people of Iraq. Do you really think we can just waltz into any given country and train a military, and usurp a government?  Perhaps you are being sarcastic?


          If you feel we can wage war on three countries tri[ple the possible cost of lives.
          "As of June 29, 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of the Iraq War."

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      We give aid to all three counties involved in the current migration crisis.  Are we to be the saviors of the world? Can we afford it? Do the majority of American's feel obligated to step into other counties politics, and dictate to them?  We have the UN to address your concerns.  Randy, do you know how many we lost in Vietnam and Iraq?  Pissed around...   I for one am not willing to send our troops into harm's way to police these three problem countries.   I am willing to predict I am not alone in my sentiment.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Did you vote for Dubya and Cheney, Shar? And are you up to date on the military power of these countries? They are nothing like Viet Nam or Iraq.


        You act as though they are a world power and they're only banana republics. No comparison....

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Are you up to date on the military power of these three countries?
          You have made my point... It would take our military to over through all three of these governments. 

          Not sure what Bush and Cheney have to do with our current situation in regards to solving our border problem? Very imaginary deflect...

          You have given your opinion on how you feel the border problem could be solved.  Not sure if overthrowing three countries would help solve our border problem?  It most likely would create more people fleeing their countries seeking asylum due to their counties collapsing.     

          Again, I don't think many Americans would condone such a plan.  We would end up paying for the venture to militarily overthrow three countries and the cost of taking in millions of displaced immigrants.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          No, I did not vote for Bush. I did not support going into Iraq  I did not support Obama pulling out of Iraq.  I think we have had this very conversation many moons back... I was a Democrat, I voted for Obama both of his terms.  I then voted for Trump, due to his aggressive agenda appealed to me. I will in all likelihood be voting for Trump once again, I am satisfied with his job performance.   Hopefully, I have answered your questions, and a few more that I am sure would be coming...

          Randy, Why not do GA the courtesy of staying on subject. This subject should be bipartisan. The immigration problem has been around a very long time, and I think we can all see no one party is to completely blame. It has been swept under the rug for many years and has grown worse as the years have gone by.

  3. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 7 months ago

    Stop offering them free money and the problem will solve its self.

  4. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 7 months ago

    Kinda reminds me of when the Great Potato Famine caused tens of thousands of Irish families to flee starvation and poverty. There's always those who don't want anyone else to take part in experiencing the land of the free. Usually those already here...

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

      Would you put any kind of limit to the number of refugees/immigrants we allow into our country Randy?

      GA

  5. hard sun profile image89
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    I think we must limit immigration and stop illegal immigration, to the extent that this is possible. Yes, more white American ancestors came here illegally than we like to acknowledge, but this is not the 19th or 20th century. I looked into moving to Australia when I got of college. Getting into that country was not easy. You have to prove your merit. Of course, Australia has the luxury of being an island, making illegal immigration more difficult. But, while I'm far from a nationalist, a nation must have some sort of sovereignty, unless your all far one-world government...not me.

    One part of the solution is to end the war on drugs. This is from a 2014 American Conservative article about the child migrant crisis:

    "Fortunately, there is one true impartial expert who is not afraid to speak truth above this bipartisan hullabaloo. Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, head of the United States Southern Command, penned an essay for Military Times earlier this month pointing to the direct cause of the problem: “Drug cartels and associated street gang activity in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, which respectively have the world’s number one, four and five highest homicide rates, have left near-broken societies in their wake.”

    Conservatives may be skeptical that the drug violence is the immediate source of the problem, since Central American countries have been in a state of unrest of decades, but the most recent crime statistics are hard to ignore. “By U.N. statistics, Honduras is the most violent nation on the planet with a rate of 90 murders per 100,000 citizens,” Gen. Kelly  out. Bordering Central American countries are not too far off either, with Guatemala at 40 and El Salvador at 41. By comparison, the murder rate in current combat zones like Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are starkly lower at 28 per 100,000 as of 2012."

    https://www.theamericanconservative/201 … -drug-war/

    Of course, this is not a solution for what we do with those who arrive here, but I think it decreases the flow in the long-run and makes our nation closer a free-republic.

  6. hard sun profile image89
    hard sunposted 7 months ago

    A Fair and Welcoming Immigration System by Elizabeth Warren https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-fair-a … ff69cd674e

    I felt this thread would be a good place for this. There's a lot in here, some good IMO. However, I don't see much of ANYTHING meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration other than:

    "Address the Forces Displacing Migrants from Their Home Countries" This seems to entail throwing a lot of money around and --"Investigate and prosecute human trafficking, employ targeted financial sanctions against drug kingpins and money launderers, and provide robust funding for efforts to counter gangs." --Are we not doing this already???

    It's curious that in the fifth paragraph she states "We need real reform that provides cost-effective security at our borders, " Yet nothing is truly proposed for effective security that reduces illegal immigration.

    She wants to significantly reduce immigration detention yet raise the refugee cap:

    " ’ll welcome 125,000 refugees in my first year, and ramping up to at least 175,000 refugees per year by the end of my first term."

    I don't disagree with this in its entirety, but is this the "plan" moderate Americans want?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I had a detailed list but lost it.  Some of the highlights, though:

      Lost of Trump bashing.  It seems more important to campaign than to present a plan.

      Make the entire country a sanctuary, prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing our laws, or even assisting in the task.

      Increase the number of refugees by a factor of 8 and legal immigrants by an unspecified amount

      Allow any illegals that make it well into the country to remain without fear of the law.

      Amnesty (for the third time) for all illegals that have managed to evade the law and live here.

      Throw vast sums of money into educating immigrants.

      Fix all the problems of the world that make people want to immigrate.  Primary method is to throw money at it.

      Address transnational crime.  Presumably force other countries and peoples to obey US law.

      About the only thing I saw that was even vaguely acceptable was to make the path to citizenship easier; our system simply takes far too long and is too difficult.  The rest of it was either to take care of the world or simply Trump bashing.

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

        This is about what I got out of it. I think this is supposed to be an outline, a rough draft or something, but I thought Warren was supposed to be good at legislation. It disappoints me that this is all she has now. Of course, this is all just politics of someone running for President. I don't think anything like this could pass, without more on what to do to stem the tide of illegal immigration, even with a Democratic lead House and Senate. If we ever get that, some of those Dems will be from states like Indiana, and I don't think they'll go for it. The Gang of 8 billl we discussed was much closer to what we need, but the biggest security measures were contingent upon certain things happening first pertaining to those who are already here.

        I don't think there is an entirely humanitarian way to house families with children. This means if you really care, the number one priorities should be stopping them from getting here and then doing something about the situations where they come from, without just throwing money at it..unless we get something in return other than cheap labor for the wealthy. Call me selfish.

        The camps have actually made me more bullish on border security. I think GA is right as well when he states we need fundamental changes to asylum laws.

        Even Germany, the country with the second highest number of immgrants annually (according to some source I read yesterday, lol) adjusted its fundament right of asylum, in part, "in order to give the state the legal opportunity to impose an upper limit or quota."

        So, why would Warren say we should raise our cap now?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          "Of course, this is all just politics of someone running for President."

          That's how I saw it, particularly with all the bashing of Trump and the administration.

          "I don't think there is an entirely humanitarian way to house families with children."

          There isn't, not if you want them in court at some future date.  And just as you say, that means stopping them, preferably before they cross the border.

          "So, why would Warren say we should raise our cap now?"

          She expects votes from those that allow their sadness to override their reason.  And she might get them, too, especially if she can convince a gullible populace that Trump is to blame for the whole thing rather than the congress that actually shoulders the blame.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 7 months ago

      Don, I accept your rejection.

      However, I am not sure exactly what you are rejecting.

      I didn't say your ethical "givens" were only philosophical declarations, I said that your insistence on the application of them to the reality of conditions on the ground was a philosophical application.

      And I certainly didn't associate your ethical givens with political solutions.

      Since I agree that government should meet basic safe and sanitary conditions I am confused that you think I would think those needs irrelevant.

      Whatever you may take as the position and intentions of " [T]he current administration, and many of its supporters . . . " it is my view that you take that perception as a political stance not influenced by the reality of the circumstances on the ground.

      It really seems like you expect CBP to perform as Jesus did in The Gospels of John.

      GA

    3. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 7 months ago

      I handed my tablet to my husband to read through this discussion between wilderness and Don W while I get ready to go to a movie. Keep in mind, he is not a political junkie who enjoys these types of discussions, and I view him as moderate. He was a registered Republican until 2016 when he changed affiliation due to disgust with the Republican party. He fought in the Viet Nam War for three tours, spent 22 years in military intelligence, and idolizes Ronald Reagan. He handed me back the tablet and said, "Sounds like f@ck!n' Hitler."

      I'll butt out now and head to my movie. I agree with Don.

    4. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 7 months ago
      1. hard sun profile image89
        hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Okay um...stutter and stammers...This isn't the clip of that hearing that CNN is showing.

    5. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 7 months ago

      There have to be procedures implemented to PERMANENTLY CLOSE the detention centers & send the illegals back.  We Americans are taxed more than enough already.  We don't need anymore unskilled illegals in this country.   Just send them back to their respective countries & establish harsher immigration laws.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Oh, I think we can afford, culturally and financially, to support a few thousand refugees each year.  But when the total applying reaches the obscene levels it is now it becomes obvious that we cannot.  There are forces at work here other than a few people fleeing violence in their own country; we are seeing systematic efforts to destroy who and what we are.  And it is working.

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

          Wilderness, I have been following your thoughts and I can align with most of them, but I would offer one caution; do not make this a money issue.

          I have been looking for a place to interject this thought; I believe the financial argument ranks well below your other more important points.

          It is important, but I don't think it is as important as the implications of accepting the persuasion of the "inhumane" criticisms.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I disagree, GA.  If we look at the total cost of the illegal aliens currently residing in the country, and project what 10X that number will require, well, we can't afford it. 

            We already can't seem to provide homes for our people, or decent care for injured vets; bringing in another 50 million or 100 million unskilled laborers will balloon that problem to something catastrophic from a financial point.

            The problem that I see is that costs are being projected based on refugees numbers from years ago, rather than that we are currently trying to handle.  Now add in that encouraging that activity will very quickly multiply the numbers again and again and I don't see us able to afford it.  Trying to do so will simply turn us into another third world country, with no one but the uber rich (if there are any left) enjoying any kind of life style.

            We won the cold war by ruining Russia's financial capabilities; we could go down the same path by trying to support the world's poor within our borders.  Or without, for that matter.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              You know. Good point. If this issue was framed as money that would have gone to our veterans that is instead going to illegal aliens, I think that would be hard to argue with. Our veterans suffer because we're redirecting their health care money to make sure illegal aliens have shelter.

              Again, not sure what the answer is because if there's a humanitarian crisis, we're supposed to try to behave humanely, but we can't solve everyone's problems when we're not even solving our own.

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

              Maybe my point is wrong, or, maybe it was misunderstood.

              In the context of a debate of this issue, when the goal is to persuade a public group that primarily gets the information used to form their opinions from media sources, I think to argue against obvious humanitarian issues--particular when they are framed around mothers and children--with costs arguments would not be as productive as first addressing the reality of those humanitarian issues.

              As long as an opinion that is swayed by the detention camp images we are all seeing, and as long as those perceptions are buttressed by the 'obvious' truth that we won't even give them a bar of soap, addressing those opinions with "costs" rationalizations seems to me like it might firm the other's opinion rather than inform it.

              I think the most important first step would be to force those "other" opinions to understand that their perception of the detention centers' reality--relative to the government's purposefulness in it--is different than is being portrayed.

              Get the door open, then further support the point with the reality of the costs.

              To do that in reverse is to turn the debate into one of human compassion, illustrated by those children's images vs, dollars. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

              That was my point in recommending that the cost issue not be the lead issue--even if in reality it is an important 'real' issue.

              I suppose my point was to ask the question; "Do you want to be just right, or successful and right?

              GA

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I haven't been following but I am surprised at this comment.

            The financial angle is the cold splash of the ice water of reality.

            It's the thought experiment everyone needs to try.

            What are the costs involved? What will existing society have to forgo, in order to implement an unprecedented influx of the poor?

            Many elements on the left are quite adept at 'caring' about every single issue they can ferret out as a possible desire by specific groups. I find this particular issue most compelling but, seriously?

            What are we, as a nation, willing to give up in order to solve this problem in a manner which gives those outside our borders demanding entry (and those within it illegally) a shot at citizenship?

            What sacrifice is the average person willing to make to accomplish this? Sacrifice would be necessary by those already here, to accommodate all those coming; to pay for it.

            Social services we all enjoy would have to be cut. Concern for the homeless already here would have to be put on the back burner. Taxes would have to rise considerably. That's the tip of the iceberg.

            Claims of compassion, without forethought or willingness to sacrifice, are nothing more than virtue signaling.

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

              Live to Learn I hope you see my explanation to Wilderness, and I hope it adds some context to my original response.

              "The financial angle is the cold splash of the ice water of reality.

              It's the thought experiment everyone needs to try."


              Those are very true statements. Ones that I can heartily agree with, but . . .

              . . . I think the "reality" of the discussion is that your splash of cold water and the thought experiment you think is important is going to be up against the perception of reality that the whole issue is just the inhumanity of mothers and children cold, dirty, and sleeping on concrete floors.

              Would you argue which "reality" comes out on top of that debate with the average media-informed public?

              GA

      2. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
        JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        https://hubstatic.com/14602101.jpg

        lol, I guess if we don't need anymore "Unskilled Immigrants" here in the USA which is already a vast melting pot of immigrants, I guess you, wilderness, GA and every other alt rightie around here will soon apply for the job of cleaning the toilet in my hotel room after I check out ?? lol

        By the way, there is no "CRISIS" at our southern border aside from the humanitarian one which was voluntarily and unilaterally CREATED by the 73 year old impeachee / indictee idiot lurking in our oval office:

    6. hard sun profile image89
      hard sunposted 7 months ago

      This is exciting stuff to me, but maybe I'm a dork.

      The DHS and DOJ just issued a new rule bypassing any need for an agreement for those who cross into the US through the Southern Border. It is to be published in the Federal Registry on July 16.

      "1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or
      torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United
      States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2)an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.
      In all cases the burden would remain with the alien to establish eligibility for asylum
      consistent with current law,
      ---Nations that are parties to the convention include Mexico, Belize, Venezuela, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Hounduras, etc.

      Actual Rule: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ntral.html

      A list of nations bound to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugess: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSG … rticipants

      Story about the rule: https://politicallydc.com/2019/07/15/tr … ng-asylum/

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

        This would help if the rule survives the coming court challenges.

        The rule reads like it does cover its authority issue by equating it with other lawfully allowed discretionary rules conditioning the asylum process.

        I bet we will get a quick court opinion.

        GA

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

          Yes, that should be mentioned. I think the ACLU challenged Trump's order meant to deny asylum to migrants who enter the country illegally the day after it was issued back on November 9, 2018. Twelve days after the order was issued " U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … 561a12c1b1

          This new rule does seem well though-out with some behind covering as to Congressional authority provided to the AG and repeatedly stating it will be done in keeping with certain exception that may apply under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

          We will see.

    7. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months ago

      https://hubstatic.com/14603778.jpg

      Just FYI to all the white nationalists on this pathetic thread, Donald Trump is a disgusting ugly RACIST and almost everything he blabs about is laced with seething racism: As major social media sites finally begin to BAN alt right crazies, Bozo’s last remaining base of fools, I’m still surprised that hubpages allows venomous vitriol to be spewed in such abundance around here, they should be ashamed of themselves:

      Moreover, it’s too bad a crocodile filled moat wasn’t in place surrounding the USA when the Watkins, Trumps, Pences, McConnells, Romneys, Cruzs and Hannitys tried so desperately to get into the USA after their ancestors from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Poland, Japan or wherever, fled their nations of origin to get away from whatever calamity they were forced to endure back home such as famine: If they were denied entry into this FAILING Collapsing once great nation, we would certainly be much better off today:

      Just remember, the Irish, Scottish, English, Germans, Poles, Japanese and immigrants from every other ethnic jurisdiction around this globe, regardless of legal or illegal entry into this once great nation, suffered the very same Unlawful HATE Filled Harassment as the Mexicans of today are forced to endure and that’s an APPALLING Abomination here in the year 2019:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcklUUIsdcw

    8. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 7 months ago

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/66631643_1175493005956840_7350537455646277632_n.png?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQn1rRgNvq9sZ_LoHt4D-A2RT1TWWWo6XLj_bhKBKuDWDAcQedtGhTUaXVRbaWWA6nE&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=1b143e75423ab72e0fb7efe455829ad8&oe=5DA4931F

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
        JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        lol, did you know crossing the border is only a "Misdemeanor" just like your ancestors did decades ago but there are at least 1,000 and counting lawyers who can't wait to INDICT Donald Trump for High CRIMES including Obstruction of Justice ???? A reckless elderly man who is now considered by many experts as an "Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator" ??

        1. Onusonus profile image77
          Onusonusposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          I have ancestral immigration documentation that would suggest otherwise. Also, I don't care about Trump.
          The real solution is to stop promising to give taxpayer money to them for nothing.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          " can't wait to INDICT Donald Trump for High CRIMES including Obstruction of Justice ?"

          I can' wait to see what you come up with why Trump wins a second term... One thing I can truly say about you Jake is you have a fabulous imagination.

    9. KC101 profile image61
      KC101posted 7 months ago

      GA Anderson
      What a great questioned to ask.

      We  had a civil war dividing this country the North against the South you had to take a stand and pick a side (thank God the South lost.) there was no running away.

      If I were in charge I would take a South American country go in with troops and help them build a country with the infrastructure that was like ours. Yes we still have our problems but people still want to come here.

      We can help them and learn from our mistakes. work with them. It wont be an easy task, It will take time and a lot of money.

      People will want to stay in their country, be loyal to it and educate the people, build schools, healthcare, make it a place were they feel free and safe.

      It would take the pressure off the border. But it will take time.

      I really think people don't want to leave their homes and family.
      If they can live in peace and are protected.

      I am not a warmonger. I served in the military for 37 years and the last thing I want to do is send young Americans in harm's way. 

      I really like your question, thank you for letting me responed.

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

        Thanks for your thoughts KC101. However, I am not sure how citizen's of any of the South American countries would feel about losing their sovereignty, or how our citizens would feel about dying for such an effort.

        GA

    10. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 months ago

      Promoting one's own articles is a clear no-no on HubPages. Not only is it cheesy, it breaks HP rules. But then, Ken's hero cares not for rules either.

     
    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)