Forty Two wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:38 pm
Summary? What point was made and supported here?
Fair enough. I think people have asked the same from you. My two comments are in brackets
[thus -- L'E].
Oliver points out that Trump has repeatedly referred to the trekking migrants moving through Mexico from Honduras as an 'invasion.' A clip is played of Trump saying 'I don't want them (referring to what he describes as "young, strong men") in our country,' then emphasizing that 'women don't want them in our country, women want security.' Oliver ridicules this blatant hearkening back to old racist tropes about swarthy young men coming for 'our women.'
Oliver then refers to Trump sending US army troops to the border as well as claiming that he can eliminate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment by executive order. In light of this, Oliver decides to take a look at what Trump's administration has already done in its effort to stem the flow of immigrants from the south: the 'zero tolerance policy' which resulted in children being separated from their families.
He refers to government reports on the impact of this policy. 'While it seemed malicious and chaotic at the time, at every step, it was even worse than you might assume. So let's look at two major aspects of family separation: How it was done, and why.'
A clip of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is played in which he claims that 'with basic keystrokes' on his computer he can find where any child is in the system. Oliver points out that the information which would allow children to be reunited with their parents wasn't held by HHS, but by the Department of Homeland Security. He then refers to a report by the Office of the Inspector General which said that the DHS data was 'incomplete and inconsistent' and that each step of the process was 'vulnerable to human error, increasing the risk that a child could become lost in the system.' Oliver points out that while it was reported that about 2,600 children were separated from their parents, and that about 220 children have still not been reunited with their parents, we have no way of knowing whether those numbers are accurate: 'Just two weeks ago, the government found 14 more children and added them to its tally.'
Oliver then points out that when nonprofits tried to check on the children, the government often didn't have a good system to locate those that were listed as being present. A clip is played of a non-profit worker describing the experience of her organization, in which they were given a list of children and told they could speak to them. On the list were a 2 year old, several 1 year olds, and one child that was listed as being zero. She asked to see those children. The government workers then came back and said that they couldn't find the children. They said, 'Well we called out their name, and nobody responded, so we don't know where they are.'
Oliver: 'Even with the help of non-profits in locating and reuniting parents, hundreds of whom incidentally, were actually deported without their children, the government still had fuck-ups. Like when one mother who'd had her five month old breastfeeding baby taken away was later handed back the wrong baby.' With that, Oliver describes the 'how' of the family separation policy as 'incompetent and cruel.'
On to 'why.' A clip is played of DHS Director Nielsen saying in response to a question regarding whether it is the intention of the government for parents to be separated from their children, and whether the intention is to send a message, that she finds the question offensive 'Because why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?' Nielsen categorically denies that there is any intention to have a deterrent effect.
A clip of acting head of ICE Thomas Holman is played. He says that every law enforcement agency in the US separates parents from their children when they're arrested for a crime. 'There's a right way to do it (enter the US) and a wrong way to do it.'
Oliver points out that many of these people were applying for asylum, and that under international and US law it is legal to apply for asylum no matter how you enter the country. He then describes the Trump administration's efforts to thwart asylum seekers from coming through legal points of entry by repeatedly denying them entry, forcing them to wait for days or even weeks. Then he says that in fact, crossing the border outside of legal points of entry is a misdemeanor on the first offence; most people in that situation previously were sentenced to time served. Under the 'zero tolerance' policy, 'most of the parents who were separated from their kids were charged, plead guilty and served their sentence all fairly quickly.' Oliver points out that in the past the US generally didn't prosecute parents and let many of them go free awaiting their immigration hearing. So why did the US start keeping parents who'd already served their sentence locked up away from their children? Because Trump hated the old system, calling it 'catch and release.'
A clip of Trump is played, in which he says 'We catch a criminal, a real criminal, a rough, tough criminal. We take his name and then we release him. And we say, "Please show up to court in a couple of months." You know what the chances of getting them to court are? Like zero, OK?'
Oliver riffs on what a compulsive liar Trump is, then describes the statistics on families seeking asylum, who were the ones largely impacted by the family separation policy. In fact, 96% of asylum applicants had attended all their immigration court hearings after being released from detention. Under the Obama Family Case Management Program, 99.3% of participants attended their immigration court proceedings. Oliver points out that Trump discontinued the Family Case Management Program despite the fact that ICE had called it 'an overall success' and went with ripping families apart instead.
So why? If they'd already paid the price for their crime, and there were other, better ways to ensure that they showed up for court, why did the Trump administration really do this? Oliver argues that 'This is the logical result of a general hard right turn toward demonizing immigrants for political advantage in a way that some might call racist, and others would be wrong about.' He describes conservative immigration arguments: Undocumented immigrants crossing the border is a crime. Since all criminals are dangerous, any undocumented immigrants crossing the border are dangerous criminals. This despite the fact that immigrants
[both legal and illegal -- L'E] are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the US. That has not stopped Republicans from running toxic anti-immigrant, anti-'caravan' political ads. Clips of the scare ads targetting undocumented immigrants are played. 'Mexican drug lords, MS-13 gang members, sex traffickers, people from the Middle East!' Oliver claims that those ads are evidence of an attitude: 'It's not that they don't want immigrants to come here because they're criminals; they're calling them criminals because they don't want them to come here.'
A clip is played of a Trump supporter who says that she's only against illegal immigration. When it's pointed out that seeking asylum is legal, she says that she hopes Trump changes that.
Oliver says that 'We are now so accustomed to seeing immigrants as a threat that politicians routinely talk about them in the language of war.' Trump referred to the migrant 'caravan' as an 'invasion' and sent troops to the border. Oliver says, 'That kind of militaristic talk can make people think that it's necessary to make the impossible choices made during a war, which is how things like family separation happen.'
A clip of Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies is played. An interviewer points out that a lot of Americans think that the family separation policy is appalling. She replies "I think it's appalling that we have to do it.' When she's asked about possible negative effects of the traumatic experience on the children, she says 'I think it's possible that some of these kids will have some lasting effects.'
Oliver points out that lasting damage to children is a huge consequence. That while Vaughn acknowledges that what we're doing is appalling
[she didn't actually acknowledge that in the clip -- L'E], she claims that we have to do it. Oliver says that the truth is we don't have to do it, because even though the language of war is being used, there is not a war. 'The only reason people keep talking like there is one is to give themselves permission to make the choices they want to be forced to make.'
Oliver says that family separation cannot be one of those choices, because the reality of it is 'fucking heartbreaking.' A clip of a family who were separated is played. A six year old cries as his mother attempts to comfort him. He tells her that she doesn't love him; he wants to go back to jail, and she's not his mom any more. The mother says that because the separation was so long, her son was traumatized and changed a lot. Oliver says, 'We did that, not because we had to, but because we chose to.'
Oliver points out that Trump has publicly flirted with starting the family separation policy again, and Holman supported that idea during a recent interview on 'Fox and Friends.' Clip of acting head of ICE Thomas Holman: 'Well let me talk about zero-tolerance policy. That was the right thing to do. Regardless how sad and unfortunate--no one wants to see families separated, but when they separated those people that were prosecuted coming into the country illegally, the numbers went down 22% in just two weeks. If they would have stuck with that for 30-60 days there wouldn't be a caravan today.'
Oliver: 'Yeah, maybe, Tom. And you know what? If we surrounded the border with randomly firing flame throwers and snakes that we trained to stand up when anyone approached, that could potentially drive the caravan away too, but we don't do things like that because it's not supposed to be who we fucking are! ... family separation was perhaps the most emblematic moment of [Trump's] presidency so far. It was cruel, sloppy, needless, racist, and ultimately, exactly what we should have expected. And I would argue the biggest threat to our status as the 'greatest nation on Earth' is not a caravan a thousand miles south of us, it's whoever thinks that doing this is an acceptable fucking response.' -- Video ends.
I don't care whether you respond to this, and I'm not particularly interested in answering whatever you post about it. This is Oliver's video, not mine, though I agree with almost everything he said. You laud Trump's policies practically universally, and claim them as 'accomplishments' that he should get more credit for. The thing is, I think that pretty much all of his actual policies (as opposed to his claiming credit for the current economic situation in the US, for instance) are repugnant and/or harmful to varying degrees, and that the negative responses they get are well deserved.
