[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-June-25, 10:06, said:

As mentioned I don't think I even saw the pic so you are right I probably should have kept quiet.

So I googled and the very first thing that came up was something from USA today
https://www.usatoday...feet/721315002/
It begins:

Ok. USA Today did not say that that particular child had been separated from its mother. Still. On my recent trip to Minnesota I pretty much avoided news, but one of the hotels I stayed at did give free copies of USA Today. If I read that, I might have thought the child was separated from its mother. We do not always read so carefully that we see that the article did not specify that this child had been.
But of course many children have been. So, as barmar was saying, does it really matter if this particular child was or wasn't. And, as I said, there is a sense in which it does not matter.

What I really want to focus on is, first, that I do not need a picture of a crying child to get me to oppose separating children from their parents. Most people don't need it. Of course we oppose separating children from their parents.
And, as I also said, that's the easy part. Often saying what we should not do is the easy part. Now we have to figure out what we should do. I see that this child came from Honduras. Let's start with the following: Should everyone in Honduras who wishes to leave Honduras and come to the USA be allowed to do so? Ok, you said no MS-13. But again that's a (fairly) easy part. It is perhaps not a certainty, despite tats, whether a given person is or is not in MS-13 but no doubt the vast majority are not, and could easily be seen to be not. So can they all come? Same for El Salvador and Guatemala? Should it only be tose who manage to hike and wade to the border? I'm sure many more would like to come that cannot manage the trip. Should we provide transportation? Only for those who fear violence? How many people living in Guatemala are not fearing violence? Those with enough cash to hire a large security force perhaps.

You don't have to go with my framing of the questions. But we should start to address it somehow. Here is a question: Is it possible to somehow help these countries control the gang violence so that more of their citizens would feel adequately safe? Perfection is not possible. Rick speaking to Major Strasser on Casablanca: There are places in New York I would not advise you to go. But people live there. Of course the governments themselves are no doubt part of the problem. What to do about that? Are we to import everyone who lives there so that the government and the gangs, and nobody else, is left?

I understand things are better in Columbia than they once were, although it seems I have heard of some regression. Is this a viable model for how to be of real help? I have no idea.

Myself, I would not favor a policy that gives anyone, anywhere in the world, the right to relocate to the USA if they fear violence where they are. There are just too many. I see this as a bullet that must be bitten. Pictures of crying children do not help at all in trying to find a reasonable policy. Everyone who wants to come can come? Not a reasonable policy as I see it, and even if you do think that should be the policy there is not a chance in hell that it will ever become policy. So we need to stop with the pictures of crying children and work through what a reasonable policy would look like.

As to letting Andrei shape my views, no I don't think so. And I don't expect to shape his. Or yours, for that matter. My idea is that we express our own thoughts as clearly as we can. Some will ignore us, many in fact do that, some will think we are nuts, some might think what we say is worth thinking about. And of course some will say "I don't care, do u"?

Melania needs to issue a statement saying that she never wanted to be First Lady, hates being First Lady, and plans to live her own life. And then we should let her.

Ken,

My concern from your post was the attack on news gatherers and Time in particular for not being diligent in doing their jobs. Of course, mistakes happen, and good organizations admit and correct them. Time did not make a mistake and has no reason to apologize if someone in Minneapolis - with the help of right wing yelling - thought the Time cover purposefully deceived.

It does not help when reasonable people such as yourself contribute to that type of right-wing news-bashing.

Other than that, we're cool.

[blackshoe]

In fifty or a hundred years, the US will be a third-rate, if not third world, country. Today's minorities will have the power, and their revenge will be terrible to see.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-25, 11:07, said:

Ken,

My concern from your post was the attack on news gatherers and Time in particular for not being diligent in doing their jobs. Of course, mistakes happen, and good organizations admit and correct them. Time did not make a mistake and has no reason to apologize if someone in Minneapolis - with the help of right wing yelling - thought the Time cover purposefully deceived.

It does not help when reasonable people such as yourself contribute to that type of right-wing news-bashing.

Other than that, we're cool.

But to re-re-state: The part about separating children form the parents is the easy part. Donald Trump didn't understand this, true, but having more sense than DT is a very low bar. After the entire world, including many Rs, explained to him that we should not be doing this he sort of relented. Accent on sort of. David Brooks on PBS, and no doubt many others, summarized his approach as cruel incompetence. I agree entirely. But after that, we still have a refugee problem. It is still easier to say what we should not do than to work through what we should do.

[blackshoe]

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Perhaps this sentiment is obsolete. If so, maybe we should get rid of that statue.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-25, 12:48, said:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Perhaps this sentiment is obsolete. If so, maybe we should get rid of that statue.

We always should be restrained in believing what is written by a poet on a statue.

Love thy neighbor as thyself? To reject this does not require that we become selfish oafs, it just means that we set some sort of balance between decency and watching out for ourselves.

I have done things for people without expecting anything at all in return. I can say this without feeling like a braggart because many can say the same. Almost everyone, I think. So we can wish people well and we can try to assist someone when he is down. And yes, we can welcome immigrants. I do, very much so. Immigrants are good for the country, and the country is good for immigrants.

The world is being flooded with refugees. Some thought would be useful about what to do about it. Saying that we shoould not separate children from their parents is correct, but it is hardly the complete answer.

[cherdano]

Ken, I think your priorities went off the rails here.

There are three detention centers for toddlers. Yes, DETENTION CENTERS FOR TODDLERS. The US government separated them from their parents, and didn't even bother to track them and their parents so that they could be reunited if their legal situation got worked out (successful asylum claim, deportation).

Yet for Andrei all of this is a WIN since the TIME magazine got caught using a picture that could be read as misleading. Not misleading about what had happened, but misleading about whether this particular child was affected by this scheme.
And you think it is worth engaging with andrei about this???
Let me repeat, your government has just established three detention centers for toddlers, starting at ages below one year. There have been reports that the staff at these centers are not allowed to even give the detained toddlers a hug.

So your government has committed atrocities. Andrei has just revealed himself (again) as a horrible human being. And you think the important thing is whether US Today's description of the TIME magazine cover could, perhaps, be interpreted incorrectly.

[cherdano]

I would also like to congratulate andrei on his WIN!!! Yes, the US government has is, possibly permanently, separating children and toddlers from their parents and stores them away in detention centres. BUT ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT IT ALLOWED YOU TO CATCH THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA WITH A POSSIBLY MISLEADING COVER PHOTO!!! THAT'S SUCH A HUGE WIN!!! YOU CAN BE REALLY PROUD OF YOUR GOVERNMENT SEPARATING CHILDREN AND TODDLERS FROM THEIR PARENTS!!! FINALLY YOU HAVE THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE!!!!! YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW IT TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA!!! WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[y66]

From How the G.O.P. Built Donald Trump’s Cages by The Editorial Board at NYT June 23, 2018:

Quote

President Trump may have caved on his child-separation policy, after a public outcry that included significant members of his own coalition. But rather than waste time on self-congratulation, Republicans who spoke up this time should be asking themselves why a president of their party felt he was enforcing its principles by breaking apart families and caging children.

Not so long ago — less than a handful of years, even — you could still find prominent Republican voices willing to speak gently about immigration. (Remember Jeb Bush in 2014 calling illegal immigration an “act of love”?) But many, many other party leaders have been venturing ever deeper into the dank jungles of nativist populism for quite some time, exploiting the politics of fear and resentment. Mr. Trump did not invent Republican demonization of “the other” — it came about in two ways: gradually, and then all at once.

For a number of reasons — economic, cultural and demographic — immigration has been a growing concern among Republican base voters for decades. From the early 1990s to 2000, the conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan kept the Republican Party on its toes, running for president three times with an explicitly isolationist message. But it was during the George W. Bush years that anti-immigrant sentiment started to become more central to the party’s identity.

Mr. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a priority of his second term. Multiple Senate bills emerged, built on the pillars of border security, a guest-worker program and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. But conservatives in the House rejected the idea of legalization and instead focused on border security. Conservative talk radio took up the cause, smacking Mr. Bush as squishy on immigration. The very concept of comprehensive reform became anathema to many on the right.

President Barack Obama also took a run at reform. And as with Bush 43, his efforts shattered when they collided with the Republican hard-liners in the House. The Great Recession that Mr. Obama inherited did nothing to quell nativist resentment among working-class whites, and the rise of the Tea Party pulled the Republican Party further to the right, with zealots on immigration setting the tone. Politicians who did not follow risked banishment.

Just ask Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, who saw his fledgling political career almost snuffed out by his flirtation with comprehensive reform. In early 2013, Mr. Rubio joined a bipartisan group of colleagues, nicknamed the Gang of Eight, to hammer out a grand compromise. This was in the wake of Mitt Romney’s presidential loss in 2012, after which the Republican Party briefly decided that one of its principal goals was to improve its image with Hispanic voters. The resulting plan would have done everything from beefing up border security to overhauling visa categories to promoting a merit-based immigration system. It also provided for the legalization of undocumented immigrants, which meant conservatives hated it. That June, the bill cleared the Senate by an impressive 68-to-32 vote. But John Boehner, then the House speaker, refused to bring it up for a vote in the Republican-controlled lower chamber.

For his efforts, Mr. Rubio became a pariah to the Tea Party voters who had propelled him to office three years earlier. Soon, he was denying that he had ever really supported the bill.

The immigration moves Mr. Obama made on his own — such as instituting protections for Dreamers and expanding deportation deferments — further enraged conservatives. Party leaders fanned those flames, accusing Mr. Obama of being imperious and “lawless.” In one bit of twisted logic, Mr. Boehner argued that the House couldn’t possibly take up reform legislation because it couldn’t trust Mr. Obama to carry out said legislation. Thus, the battle lines continued to harden.

Along the way, Republican candidates continued to play to their base’s darker impulses. On the whole, the rhetoric was subtler than that of the current president, but now and again it turned Trumpian. Recall the remarks in 2013 of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, painting Dreamers as drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” Or the boast in 2011 of Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama: “I’ll do anything short of shooting them” — “them,” of course, being undocumented immigrants.

Nor was Mr. Trump the first Republican to promote the idea that within every immigrant lurks a murderer or terrorist. In 2010, Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, ran around warning of what came to be mocked as the great “terror baby” plot. As Mr. Gohmert told it, radical Islamists were plotting to impregnate droves of young women, who would infiltrate the United States to give birth here. The babies would be shipped back home for terrorist training, then return as adults to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting America.

Time and again, given the choice between soothing and stoking nativist animus, Republican lawmakers chose the low road. By the late Obama years, a skeptical-verging-on-hostile view of immigration had become a core tenet of party orthodoxy — like opposing gun control or denouncing Obamacare.

There is no question that Mr. Trump inherited a broken immigration system. There is also no question that he prefers ranting about its brokenness to making even a token effort at fixing it.

And he has even less interest in addressing the root causes of migrant families flocking to the border. In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security reported, “More individuals sought affirmative asylum from the Northern Triangle Countries (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) in the last three years than in the prior 15 years combined.” Between February and March of this year, border arrests and denials of entry took their biggest jump in five years, largely because of migrants from those same nations.

None of this is surprising considering the rampant violence in the region — in 2016, Honduras and El Salvador ranked among the five nations with the highest rates of violent death. People are desperate to escape, no matter what they may face at the U.S. border.

Helping these nations stabilize themselves is key to reducing the flow of asylum seekers. But Mr. Trump does not like complexity or long-term strategizing. He prefers casting blame and making threats. He has repeatedly vowed to cut off aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras unless they stem the flow of drugs and people into the United States.

In the administration’s budget proposals, it has sought deep cuts in aid to these countries — something Congress has wisely ignored. Removing a financial lifeline from nations already in chaos is hardly a recipe for progress.

At the same time, Mr. Trump’s move to kick out as many people who are from these countries as possible threatens to overwhelm nations ill equipped for such an influx. And without the money that many of the immigrants living here regularly send back to their families, the economies of these countries would further crumble. (In 2016, 17 percent of El Salvador’s gross domestic product came from remittances from abroad.)

America’s immigration mess is not going to be cleaned up anytime soon. The House’s efforts last week to pass legislation dissolved into squabbling. Maybe leadership can salvage the situation and squeak through some uneasy compromise between Republican moderates and conservatives. But conservatives are terrified that the base will punish them if they concede even an inch. Speaker Paul Ryan, with one foot out the door, has no juice. And pretty much everyone assumes that nothing will move through the Senate anyway.

For his part, Mr. Trump is planning fresh crackdowns in the run-up to the midterms, to reassure his base that he has not lost his resolve. If anything, given the fragility of his ego, last week’s flip-flop will make him all the more desperate to prove his strength.

More immediately, there is the matter of the 2,300-plus migrant children who need to be reunified with their parents as soon as possible. It remains unclear how the White House plans to handle that logistical challenge. Mr. Trump is more a breaker than a fixer.

Whether out of moral queasiness or political fear, a smattering of Republican lawmakers chose to say, “Enough is enough” to this particular Trump atrocity. The question now is whether the conference will learn anything useful from this episode. Dehumanizing undocumented immigrants may be one of Mr. Trump’s signature outrages, but it is hardly his only one. There is also his politicization of law enforcement, his attempts to undermine public faith in the democratic process, his attacks on the press, his family’s suspect business dealings and his habitual lying — so this is unlikely to be the last time the president puts members of his party in an uncomfortable, and perhaps untenable, position.[/b]i

The weight of this moment should be recognized. Mr. Trump’s capitulation was not a given. With a little less media scrutiny, fewer heartbreaking photos and fewer calls from angry voters, tent cities could have kept on filling with traumatized children. Congressional Republicans, even last week’s conscientious objectors, would have borne a significant share of responsibility for that disgrace as they bear significant responsibility for the Trumpism undergirding it.

It takes work for America to hold on to its values. Individuals must push back when those values are threatened — especially when that threat comes from the commander in chief. Republican lawmakers should feel this burden more than most. Having done so much to pave the way for Mr. Trump and his immigration policies, they now owe it to the American people to help keep him in check.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-June-25, 12:31, said:

But to re-re-state: The part about separating children form the parents is the easy part. Donald Trump didn't understand this, true, but having more sense than DT is a very low bar. After the entire world, including many Rs, explained to him that we should not be doing this he sort of relented. Accent on sort of. David Brooks on PBS, and no doubt many others, summarized his approach as cruel incompetence. I agree entirely. But after that, we still have a refugee problem. It is still easier to say what we should not do than to work through what we should do.

Ken,

IMO the first, second, third, ad infinitum priority should be surviving the Dennison presidency with as little damage as possible to democracies worldwide.

Trying to find a reasonable solution to immigration during his reign is mining for fool's gold. Resist - one more day. No compromise. Resist and outlast.

[Al_U_Card]

You go, Ken! Dare to express your opinion even if it doesn't toe the party line... that the faithful repudiate your heresy, as mild and well intentioned (and well reasoned) as it may be, is only a sign of their desperation and illegitimacy.
What hath God wrought?

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-June-25, 17:13, said:

From How the G.O.P. Built Donald Trump's Cages by The Editorial Board at NYT June 23, 2018:

I want to pull out one quote:
"Helping these nations stabilize themselves is key to reducing the flow of asylum seekers"
I hope that this will be considered. How to do it? I have acknowledged that I don't know how, but I sure think it is worth thinking about as part of how we should deal with the flow of refugees.

There is an election coming up I think voters, some of us anyway, might be interested in the thoughts the candidates have on this. .

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2018-June-25, 13:42, said:

We always should be restrained in believing what is written by a poet on a statue.

Ken, I don't know about you, but when I went to school these sentiments seemed to be universally applauded.

The fact that we have abandoned them because of a ridiculous campaign of fear waged by a lunatic demagogue is incredible depressing.
The fact that we are resorting to torture is horrific.

[hrothgar]

Haven't heard much from Drews or Andrei in the last couple days...

Wonder whether Trump's attempt to abandon due process was too much for them?
How about it guys? How does a government decision to violate due process sound to you?

Alternatively, Trump just told asylum seekers:

"We'll give you your children back if you abandon you asylum claims and accept immediate deportation" (Not verbatim)
How do you feel about extortion as official government policy?

Speak up! I'd love to get a better idea about what you support...

[cherdano]

I think Andrei is still drunk from celebrating his WIN!!!

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-26, 04:23, said:

Ken, I don't know about you, but when I went to school these sentiments seemed to be universally applauded.

The fact that we have abandoned them because of a ridiculous campaign of fear waged by a lunatic demagogue is incredible depressing.
The fact that we are resorting to torture is horrific.

This could be a little lengthy, but it gets to how I think.

Yes, in school I was taught the words on the Statue of Liberty. I memorized them, along with the Gettysburg Address and many other inspirational items. I was also sent to Sunday School and took it all very seriously. Now let's move forward a bit to my adolescent years. I am starting to question things. Is there a God? This became crucial when I was 14. The minister told me I had to get my parents to come to church more often so that they would not burn in hell. What to do? And there were other matters. When I was 12, I was reading a book on Greek mythology. It seems that some unlucky guy came across the goddess Diana when she was bathing nude and she turned him into stone. Ok, more thinking.

Now to adulthood. There is no God. I don't insist that others see it that way, but I am sure of it. Dostoevsky says if there is no God then anything is possible. This was an argument for the existence of God. Other religious people have made the same argument. Well, it is true that if there is no God then we must choose our own path. As best we can, we choose. In the 1950s I was pretty much an outlier in my rejection of religion. Much less so today. I regard it as a central problem of our age. If there is no God to tell us what to do, then what?
We should try to make things better. I cannot prove that, just as I cannot prove that there is no God. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I believe that. Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is Charity. Charity is not just donating, it is taking a restrained view of others. Lots of good stuff in the Bible.

Now, back to "Give me your poor, your huddled masses, ..."
We can and I hope we will play a useful role in this crisis. Our historical record is mixed but not totally hopeless. The same is true of other countries, the same is true of other people. But as with all god-like pronouncements we need to blend ideals with practicality. Whatever it says on the Statue we have never opened our borders to everyone who wishes to come. We will not be doing so now. There is no chance that we will. This is another thing that I cannot prove but am very sure of. If we accept that, then we can move on to discussing what sort of things would have broad public support and that we could actually do. That would be good.


If we idealize, then we all fall short. My parents are burning in hell because they didn't get to church often enough. But my father had had a stroke, could no longer speak, read, or write, and he was at home working on his recovery. I was helping. Perhaps that was enough.
I realize this is a bit, more than a bit, personal. But I strongly believe we should try to do good, we should try to watch out for ourselves, we should try for a decent blend of the two. And I get really tired of people suggesting that I am some sort of cockroach for thinking this way. .I am one of a great many who think this way. Politicians who wish to be elected might think this over.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2018-June-25, 16:28, said:

Let me repeat, your government has just established three detention centers for toddlers, starting at ages below one year. There have been reports that the staff at these centers are not allowed to even give the detained toddlers a hug.

And to show just how hypocritical we are, at the detention centers for older kids they're required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, they have to pledge allegiance to the country that they're not actually being allowed to enter!

George Orwell and Joseph Heller could hardly have written something so perverse.

[ggwhiz]

kenberg, on 2018-June-26, 06:36, said:

I am one of a great many who think this way.

I vacillated wildly between believing in god or not growing up and eventually decided that if there was one it was more like Q on Star Trek. With a sense of humour and bringing us satisfying things like Karma.

In later life I decided that I no longer care and will just do my best to add to the ambiance. I did tell my granddaughter that after I'm gone if she finds a coin (bigger than a penny cause we don't use those anymore) and something good happens it might be me saying Hey! just in case. I have no clues at all but want a front row seat when Karma meets the Donald if it plays out that way.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-June-26, 06:36, said:

I realize this is a bit, more than a bit, personal. But I strongly believe we should try to do good, we should try to watch out for ourselves, we should try for a decent blend of the two. And I get really tired of people suggesting that I am some sort of cockroach for thinking this way. .I am one of a great many who think this way. Politicians who wish to be elected might think this over.

I have no strong disagreement - perhaps only a matter of a small degree of emphasis. Perhaps not even that.

At the same time, I wonder who you are looking at to talk to about this? Dennison? He thinks in terms of a zero sum game. His base supporters? The 90% of Republicans who polls show still support him? They follow his lead and keep score by wins and losses only. How do you talk sensibly with them?

How can you be reasoned with the unreasonable? Dennison is taking direct aim at our ideas of democracy and an interconnected world, and he is doing so with a relentless assault that is being cheered by his followers. Have you watched his campaign rallies and heard the crowds?

Look no further than Turkey last Sunday, and the victory over democracy that was given to Erdogan by popular vote, to see the direction in which we are being steered. I don't think speaking reason with Erdogan's religious, nationalistic base will accomplish anything. I see no way to accomplish anything about immigration until the post-war western alliance is regained with strong support of the governed.
Immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers is not a U.S. problem - it is a world problem.

How can we think this administration would attempt to address the core problem and give aid and support to bolster the Central American countries from which so many refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing? This administration has made it clear that their position is that countries must solve their own problems unassisted. Instead of aiding, the idea is to wall them out.

We have survived (barely) less-powerful demagogues (Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy). I am concerned this one is not survivable and to do anything to normalize interactions with him and his followers is to accept their premises and play their game.

To me, resistance is the only option.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2018-June-26, 06:36, said:

I strongly believe we should try to do good, we should try to watch out for ourselves, we should try for a decent blend of the two. And I get really tired of people suggesting that I am some sort of cockroach for thinking this way. .I am one of a great many who think this way. Politicians who wish to be elected might think this over.

IMO, anyone who suggests you are some sort of cockroach for thinking this way is deficient in ways that matter for the survival of civilization and perhaps even the human species. Surely everyone who posts here appreciates Kafka's idea that we are not *solely* defined by our inner figurative cockroaches. We are more than that. Even Trump is more than that.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-26, 09:08, said:

How can we think this administration would attempt to address the core problem and give aid and support to bolster the Central American countries from which so many refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing? This administration has made it clear that their position is that countries must solve their own problems unassisted. Instead of aiding, the idea is to wall them out.


To me, resistance is the only option.

I have pulled out only two of your paragraphs, but I want to address them. I will pose a hypothetical.
The NYT posted above suggests
"Helping these nations stabilize themselves is key to reducing the flow of asylum seekers"
Suppose this was developed from a suggestion to a plan, open for discussion.

Could it be, as I think it could, that some people with concerns about immigration would say "Sounds like it might be worth a try"?
These some people might be a mix of Rs and Ds. The basis would be on two points:
1. The situation for many people is horrible, something must be done
2. Having 30 million or so people who now live in Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala move to the USA might be a solution, but maybe we could do better.

I am not suggesting Donald Trump would like this idea. Or even that he would be willing to give it some thought. The man does tweets, slurs and confrontations, thinking is not his style. I am suggesting that it might be a start on a viable solution that would have broad support. I am not saying it would be easy. I am not saying that it is the only thing we must do. While we are waiting for this miracle, we need to address the problems of the here and now. I am not claiming I have the answers. But I am suggesting that we get beyond expressions of horror and defiance to see if we might actually be able to do some things that would help.

We are reaching the point where we do not look for good ideas. We don't listen. We fight. Total war is sometimes necessary but it is always very destructive.