Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: "We need to take away children"

  1. #1

    Default "We need to take away children"

    NYTimes with another major story:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    They are evil fascist xenophobic scumbag twunts not conservatives.

    A belief in family is a key part of being a conservative. This is utterly repugnant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    They are evil fascist xenophobic scumbag twunts not conservatives.

    A belief in family is a key part of being a conservative. This is utterly repugnant.
    They are all those things as well as being conservative. Being okay with subjecting outsiders to harsh punishment is very common among conservatives. Trying to prevent the law from protecting outsiders—or disapproving of such protection—is also common. Policies that break up families of brown people are common features of conservative political platforms.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #4
    No they're not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    They absolutely are—including in your own country. True Scotsmen—or Englishmen, as it were.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    No idea what you're talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #7
    Racism and white supremacy are baked into the conservative belief system at the DNA level, especially in America. I think you can be a conservative without those things, but it's something you have to make a conscious effort to do. Like, you have to actually sit down and go through conservatism and excise all the racism, homophobia, patriarchy etc. So the idea that sudden those things are actually mutually exclusive with conservatism is farcical.
    Who can now look back with a sense of pride?

  8. #8
    Racism is baked in to much of America yes, that wasn't disputed.

    Breaking up families and trying to separate children from their parents . . . that is a new monstrosity.

    American conservatives always bang on about and are supposed to believe in the importance of family.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #9
    It's actually not new. For example, taking children from indigenous families for adoption by white families was quite popular in Australia and Canada during much of the 20th century.
    Who can now look back with a sense of pride?

  10. #10
    That was evil, an attempt at genocide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  11. #11
    Yes, it was. Based on the belief that the children would be better off raised with a white, christian (etc) upbringing.
    Who can now look back with a sense of pride?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No idea what you're talking about.
    How could you possibly be unaware of the impact the UK's onerous immigration rules have had on brown families?

    Illustrative example:

    https://www.freemovement.org.uk/moth...hem-in-the-uk/

    Overview of research findings:

    http://www.bris.ac.uk/policybristol/...tion_families/

    In addition to this, there is the practice of separating children from parents by placing parents in detention even in situations where that leads to a child being taken into care:

    https://news.sky.com/story/children-...he-uk-11418129

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-from-parents

    And there's also the practice of keeping refugee children separated from their families:

    https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/202...ily_report.pdf


    Similarly gross mistreatment of refugees and other asylum seekers have been systematized under conservative govts in Australia, and, indeed, over much of the western world. Conservatism is, in practice, characterized by extremely parochial altruism, which leads even "values"-oriented conservatives to make exceptions for people who aren't in their tribe—people who can be cast as criminals, undesirables, or just outsiders. You can't be so naïve as to be unaware of this. You're not fooling anyone except yourself, as always.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Restricting immigration isn't the same as deliberately separating people from their children while they're in the country. Nor is detaining convicted criminals.

    Your own source says that policy here is to not separate children from their parents, which is completely the polar opposite to Sessions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Restricting immigration isn't the same as deliberately separating people from their children while they're in the country. Nor is detaining convicted criminals.

    Your own source says that policy here is to not separate children from their parents, which is completely the polar opposite to Sessions.
    Please read before replying.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  15. #15
    I did. You didn't it seems.

    From the Sky News article:
    Government guidance says children must not be separated from both parents for immigration purposes, and set out that the decision to detain any parent should be "necessary and proportionate" with regard to the children concerned.

    A spokesperson said immigration procedures would not result in children being taken into care unless in exceptional circumstances, and said children's welfare and safeguarding was at the heart of family returns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I did. You didn't it seems.

    From the Sky News article:
    Government guidance says children must not be separated from both parents for immigration purposes, and set out that the decision to detain any parent should be "necessary and proportionate" with regard to the children concerned.

    A spokesperson said immigration procedures would not result in children being taken into care unless in exceptional circumstances, and said children's welfare and safeguarding was at the heart of family returns.
    Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) says it deals with around 170 cases of families who are split up because of immigration enforcement each year.

    [...]

    BID argues, however, that following this guidance amounts to "little more than a tick box exercise" and says the government is putting individuals in detention with little consideration for the impact on the child.
    While current Home Office guidelines state that children should not be separated from a parent if that results in the child being taken into care, Bid says this has happened to three families in the last 16 months.

    In two cases, fathers were taken into immigration detention after local authorities warned that the children’s mothers were unable to care for them alone, and that the children would need to spend their childhoods in care. Both men were eventually bailed.

    In a study published in 2013, Bid studied a sample of 111 parents who had been separated from 200 children over a three-year period. The average period of detention had been 270 days.

    Almost half the 200 children were placed in foster or local authority care during their parent’s detention. In 92 cases, the parent was eventually released. In 15 cases, however, the parent was deported or removed from the UK without their child.

    In follow-up research in 2014, Bid studied a sample of 47 immigration detainees, and found that 11 were removed or deported without their children.


    Bid says that in most of the cases it handles, the children’s second parent is not in immigration detention. It has represented single parents who have been in detention facing deportation, however, and cases where both parents have been separated from their children and detained pending deportation.

    Celia Clarke, director of Bid, said: “What has been happening in the United States with families arriving at the border being forcibly separated is utterly reprehensible.

    “But in the UK we do not have the moral high ground. Our government has been separating parents from their children for the purposes of immigration control for years. Parents are detained with no time limit on that detention and no automatic legal representation, leaving their children in the community.

    “The impact of this is devastating and long-lasting. Children of parents we have supported regressed, developed behavioural difficulties and suffered from night terrors. The enduring legacy was a constant fear that their parent or parents might be taken from them again.”

    There appears to be limited awareness, even within government, of the extent to which the government’s “hostile environment” strategy for migrants has resulted in children being separated from a parent.


    Case study
    AA was detained after overstaying his visa. His son, a British citizen, was born while he was detained and taken into the care of the local authority due to the mother’s inability to care for him without support. She suffered from depression and had a history of self-harming. Before the birth, the local authority had warned the Home Office that the baby would need to be taken into care, and urged that AA be “released from detention without delay”.

    During subsequent court hearings, the Home Office argued that because AA had been in detention when boy was born, he had had no meaningful involvement in the child’s life, and so there was no legal barrier to his removal. According to Bid, the Home Office also said it considered it “reasonable and proportionate” for the child to be separated from his father and spend his childhood in care.

    A stay on AA’s removal from the country was eventually granted, and he was released after nine months in detention. The local authority said it was more than happy for the child to live with his mother, as long as AA was also there to support the mother.
    I repeat: read before replying.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #17
    I did read. Disagreeing with you is not a case of not reading.

    That "BID" doesn't claims the guidance is a box ticking exercise doesn't make it so. What makes BID neutral and impartial experts? The fact is that the guidance is the polar opposite of what Sessions said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I did read. Disagreeing with you is not a case of not reading.

    That "BID" doesn't claims the guidance is a box ticking exercise doesn't make it so. What makes BID neutral and impartial experts? The fact is that the guidance is the polar opposite of what Sessions said.
    Read the post to which you're replying. Read the whole post.

    The fact is that a conservative British govt. is actively enforcing policies that separate children from their parents, through taking them into custody as well as through denying them the right to live with their parents in the UK (in the case of visa restrictions and refusal to children seeking asylum). You're defending these practices. The reason is that, even though you and the conservative govt. purport to value the family, you don't value it above all else. You can justify making exceptions. So can the people in the US. They have eminently reasonable justifications for separating children from their parents—to deter illegal crossings, to protect the children from awful conditions in ICE detention facilities, etc. There's always a way to justify it. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that you're pretty good because you aren't as bad as the Nazis, which is kind of a low bar to clear and not a particularly compelling argument in defense of your claim that there's something inherently un-conservative about separating children from their families.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #19
    Denying parents the right to move into the UK isn't actively seeking to separate children. If the parents want to migrate then they need to meet immigration criteria. If criminals need to be detained because they've broken the law they need to be, but it is a last resort.

    Sessions actively sought to separate children from parents as an objective in its own right. The Tories have never done that. Apart from the Australians foul treatment of the aborigines I can't think of anyone in a liberal western nation actually seeking to do that as an objective in its own right.

    If you don't understand the difference that is on you.

    There is a difference between trying to do something because its what you want to do, and trying not to do something but needing to as a last resort in emergencies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Denying parents the right to move into the [US] isn't actively seeking to separate children.
    The Trump administration, and Lewk, have used this to justify the illegal detention of minors.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  21. #21
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,074
    Don't forget the third option of not actively trying to do it, but also not trying to avoid it that much either, because you don't really care so much.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    The Trump administration, and Lewk, have used this to justify the illegal detention of minors.
    Minors aren't being detained in the UK.

    Aimless is trying to say that someone who lives in Sri Lanka not being given a visa to move to the UK is comparable to what ICE is doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #23
    detention = separation

    or are you challenging Aimless' claim that families are being broken up in their questo to find a better life due to UK policies?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Minors aren't being detained in the UK.

    Aimless is trying to say that someone who lives in Sri Lanka not being given a visa to move to the UK is comparable to what ICE is doing.
    Read what I posted. Actually, read what you posted as well.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    detention = separation

    or are you challenging Aimless' claim that families are being broken up in their questo to find a better life due to UK policies?

    Detention only happens if someone has broken the law and as a last resort.

    For Aimless's first example of a family in Sri Lanka having one part of the family move but the other wait behind then complain they can't get a visa, well if people do that then families aren't being broken up as a deliberate policy but if someone migrates here knowing in advance that their partner can't come, then they themselves chose to break up the family migrating that way. Why you would do that is beyond me. But having families broken up as a consequence of actions people take is entirely different to having families broken up as a goal as Sessions said in the OP. Sessions didn't say breaking up families was an unintended consequence or last resort, it was an actual deliberate intention to do that.

    Aimless grow up. If you have something so say then just come out and say it, don't keep saying "read it" because you can't be arsed to use your own words. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they haven't read what you've written or other people's opinions. Opinions are not facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    families broken up as a consequence of actions people take is entirely different to having families broken up as a goal as Sessions said in the OP.
    "If they didn't want their kids in cages, they shouldn't have crossed the border"
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  27. #27
    Kids in cages is never OK. We don't put kids in cages.

    Do you honestly not see a difference between putting kids in cages on the one hand . . . and simply denying a visa to someone who lives overseas?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Aimless grow up. If you have something so say then just come out and say it, don't keep saying "read it" because you can't be arsed to use your own words. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they haven't read what you've written or other people's opinions. Opinions are not facts.
    RB, grow up and read posts and articles before replying to or commenting on them. I keep telling you to do this because you keep posting as if you haven't read what you're supposed to read.

    You suggested that the people behind this policy were not conservatives, on the basis of the assumptions that this policy somehow goes against "a belief in the family", and that "belief in the family" is essential to conservatism. I responded with the argument that they are conservatives, and that their conservatism is not incompatible with their stance on upholding the family as an institution—esp. in the context of children being separated from parents—or with their positions on subjecting outsiders to harsh punishments and trying to prevent the law from protecting said outsiders:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    They are all those things as well as being conservative. Being okay with subjecting outsiders to harsh punishment is very common among conservatives. Trying to prevent the law from protecting outsiders—or disapproving of such protection—is also common. Policies that break up families of brown people are common features of conservative political platforms.
    You disputed this, so I provided three separate categories of policies and practices of the conservative British govt. that, in three different ways, attack families by keeping children and parents apart. You have since then been unable to keep track of which one category of policy you want to pretend to have read about, but all three remain as valid examples of a conservative govt. getting in the way of family. You pretended to read about children being separated from parents who are detained, by quoting one tiny part of one of the two articles on the subject. I therefore had to demonstrate to you that your objection was not compelling, by quoting the remainder of the relevant parts of those articles, which show that the British govt.—in spite of its purported compassion and its reluctance to break families apart—has actively implemented policies that have led to just one single organization representing over 150 parents who'd been separated from their children in a single year. The same British govt.—which also keeps parents from their children on the basis of arbitrary and tyrannically applied rules for income, or on the basis of a grotesque policy banning reunification—has made it much more difficult for vulnerable migrants to get adequate legal assistance by gutting legal aid, and that has also attacked lawyers for trying to ensure that migrants enjoy the full protection of the law. You refer several times to people being detained for committing crimes—being convicted criminals—but detention for immigration purposes is typically ordered without a trial, by an immigration official—with no upper time limit—typically for the crime of being in the UK when they're not allowed to be.

    You continued by justifying your govt's actions using the exact same type of arguments that have been used to justify the more serious abuses in the US. OG touched on this, but, in short, what the US decided to do was prosecute criminals—who were criminals by virtue of crossing over the border, into the US, illegally, or overstaying their visas—and to take their children into custody, ostensibly for their own good (because obv. ICE detention facilities are even bigger hellholes than detention facilities in the UK, and certainly no suitable environment for a child). If parents do not want to be separated from their children, all they have to do is to not enter the US illegally or overstay their visa. The no-exceptions prosecutions is a policy intended to help control (and obv also curb) illegal immigration.

    You're desperately trying to prove that the UK isn't as bad as the US, which is true—but you're also trying to make the case that the policies in the US are incompatible with conservatism—because of their impact on families—which is not true, in the US or in your own country. Conservatism can—and often does—make many anti-family exceptions.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #29
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  30. #30
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •