Tender Age Shelters

nsacpi said:
I wonder if any doctors have had the opportunity to check on these kids.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure these facilities are mandated to have a doctor on hand at all times like jails and prisons. To drug them up they had to have a doctor. The doctors likely developed strong bonds with their co-workers and seeing the inmates as less human doesn't help. I bet most of these people abusing the kids go home and live normal lives. It's that feeling of authority over people you consider animals combined with no fear of getting caught that results in abuse almost every single time.



I know 100% the abuses will be bad because these people thought this would not get public. Now that it's out there I bet they get a lot better treatment.
 
Melania wears a $39 jacket (since when cheap clothes?) that says "I really don't care. Do u?" on the back to visit children at the border.
a jacket. in june. in texas. that says "i don't care." to visit victims of her husband.
you can't make this **** up.
she is either extremely dumb and tone-deaf, or just blatantly evil. or both.
 
sturg33 said:
I think in order to fix this, we should keep giving government more power
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to me that people, whether they're seeking asylum or opportunity, are going to be crossing the border no matter what. How is this not supppsed to involve government? Certainly, we could minimize government involvement by removing the imperative that they be warehoused in camps, but I'm scratching my head as to a solution here that doesn't involve the government.

I agree with you that having a huge bureaucratic border enforcement agency is not desirable, and neither is contracting functions of same to private entities. What's the solution here?
 
Befoe creating any solition to any problem we should first indetify the source of the problem.

Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History has a unique take on immigration and the history of the issue
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, it seems to me that people, whether they're seeking asylum or opportunity, are going to be crossing the border no matter what. How is this not supppsed to involve government? Certainly, we could minimize government involvement by removing the imperative that they be warehoused in camps, but I'm scratching my head as to a solution here that doesn't involve the government.

I agree with you that having a huge bureaucratic border enforcement agency is not desirable, and neither is contracting functions of same to private entities. What's the solution here?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much an open boarders guy... And immigration shouldn't be regulated by the federal government (not authorized in constitution)

I'd remove all welfare for illegals. Take the incentive away from the moochers and then let the people who are trying to better themselves in. They will provide benefits to us.

Don't need much if any government for this
 
nsacpi said:
what is the federal government providing to them
Click to expand...

That's salient question #1. Salient question #2 is more academic, but worth asking. Whether one could obey the law and work hard and still be poor enough to need social assistance? Talk about "moochers' shows how thoroughly some skewed rhetoric has been internalized.
 
Super said:
Melania wears a $39 jacket (since when cheap clothes?) that says "I really don't care. Do u?" on the back to visit children at the border.
a jacket. in june. in texas. that says "i don't care." to visit victims of her husband.
you can't make this **** up.
she is either extremely dumb and tone-deaf, or just blatantly evil. or both.
Click to expand...

No way that's a tone deaf mistake.

I think it's a clever way to get her position out there without having to answer annoying family separation questions. She doesn't give a hoot about poor, illegal immigrants. Why would she? If she were the type of person to really care about such things she would've never married a rich, cold-hearted old man.
 
Julio3000 said:
That's salient question #1. Salient question #2 is more academic, but worth asking. Whether one could obey the law and work hard and still be poor enough to need social assistance? Talk about "moochers' shows how thoroughly some skewed rhetoric has been internalized.
Click to expand...

I think my position is pretty consistent.

Take welfare. Let them in.

Once that's done, take welfare from citizens too
 
Sure, you have a clear and consistent position. My inquiry is aimed at exploring just how practical these broad ideological brushstrokes are.

So take away food aid, direct payments, Medicaid, everything...what does that look like, exactly?
 
Julio3000 said:
Sure, you have a clear and consistent position. My inquiry is aimed at exploring just how practical these broad ideological brushstrokes are.

So take away food aid, direct payments, Medicaid, everything...what does that look like, exactly?
Click to expand...

I am not sure how to answer your question... what do you mean, what does that look like?

It looks like the same country with less federal entitlements
 
Julio3000 said:
That's salient question #1. Salient question #2 is more academic, but worth asking. Whether one could obey the law and work hard and still be poor enough to need social assistance? Talk about "moochers' shows how thoroughly some skewed rhetoric has been internalized.
Click to expand...


life's pretty cheap if you don't have kids. Also there is no such thing as a law abiding citizen. If you think you abide by the law then you don't know enough about the law.
 
Runnin said:
Tender Age Shelters = Prison for kids
Click to expand...

You mean child rape centers.











What do I tell yall. Every single time the government gives people power over others in a facility like jail, prison, detention center, etc, if there is no independent person there to ensure there are not abuses there will always be sexual assaults and misconduct. I bet these places do have a designated integrity person but that person is not independent. They eat, talk, and comingle with the employees and see the people in custody as animals. Every single one of these facilties should have human rights lawyer, instead what they get are people whose job really is to coverup crimes. I bet you there any number of cases where an employee sexually assaulted a migrant and they got a slap on the wrist instead of calling the police and having them charged.
 
I’d rather not have to warehouse the undocumented at all, but maybe sometimes (i.e the surge of unaccompanied minors a few years ago) circumstances might necessitate it. But there should be broad agreement on a few things: No family separation. No private detention facilities. Full transparency and accountability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top