Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
I'm not a country, nor do I represent a country in condemning the immoral actions of any state, whether that be working citizens to death in North Korean labour camps or separating the children of asylum seekers from their parents or careers in the US.
Well, let's see where we agree - I am opposed to DPRK labor camps, and separating children from asylum seekers. The issue with asylum seekers though, in the US, is that (a) most of the people apprehended crossing the Rio Grande are not "asylum seekers" (they're economic migrants, and subject to deportation). As a practical matter, any state must determine the identity of the people involved and evaluate any claim of immigration status, asylum or otherwise. Most detentions and seprations are short - hours or days. The problem with the asylum seeker detentions is that the US courts have said it's unlawful to detain the kids with the parents. That meant that the US either has to release the kids to a relative/friend or to the care of HHS after a short period of time (or they have to release the adult asylum seeker with the kids into the community, which means most of them are never seen again). If we remove the hysteria, the solution is simple: amend the law to provide for family detention (humanely) of asylum seekers while the case is evaluated and heard - just like every other western industrialized country does - however, in the US that solution requires a legislative action to amend the law. The President has tried to use an executive order recently, but that's going to likely be challenged in court if it hasn't already.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
One state-sponsored immorality is not downgraded or offset by the immorality of another.
I never said it was. However, if I were to refrain from discussing the situation in the US (which I have discussed, and not uncritically), and only focused on the goings-on in the UK, for example, then I might well be considered rather hypocritical.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
Nor is a right to a point of view, and to express it, dependent on, qualified, or legitimised, by anyone else's judgements as to the perceived moral rectitude of the nation in which they reside.
Oh, well, everyone has the right to any point of view they want - or they should have that right. Some here have expressed otherwise, but I think so. And, their right to it and to express it is not dependent on anything at all. I agree with you there 100%.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
Nobody is criticising America for addressing its immigration issues - they're criticising Trump and his administration for their policy, for its operating principles and for its creul and callous implementation.
Sure, but I notice very little commentary about cruel and callous immigration policies imposed by other countries. In fact, when they're brought up, they tend to be ignored, or the discussion is diverted to suggest that it's the US issues that are under discussion, and not the other countries' issues, even on threads that relate to those other countries.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
I think it is unhelpful to assume that somehow Trump
is America, that
criticising Trump is criticising America,
I agree. Trump is not America. Criticizing Trump is not the same thing as criticizing America. And Trump is imperfect. However, the criticism of Trump can be over-the-top and hyperbolic at times, to the point where it really is noticeable that whatever Trump does it's unacceptable. Recall when the "kids in cages" issue first was publicized. Pictures from 2014 were published and blamed on Trump. As soon as it was pointed out that they were from 2014, the rhetoric turned from "unacceptable abuse" to "the Obama administration was trying as hard as it could to fix the problem" (words to that effect). There is a clear double standard. And discussion hardly ever acknowledges that the Democrats want to harp on the issue, overblow it, and then refrain from doing anything about it in Congress, so that they can keep harping on President Trump.
That strategy is rather misguided though, because even among people who really don't want to see kids separated from parents, the opinion of the majority of Americans is more nuanced than a crying Rachel Maddow feigning inability to speak on the issue -- Americans understand it sucks, but they recognize that the people being detained are not showing up at ports of entry and announcing their asylum claim. They are surreptitiously crossing the Rio Grand via coyote and trying to sneak in without inspection. It's only when they get caught that they announce an asylum claim, and people get that you can't just let thousands of families into the country on their own recognizance hoping that they will return in a few months to handle their asylum claim hearing. That much should be obvious. No country just lets thousands of familys show up and walk right in, hand them a note "come back in three months" and let them into the general population. It's not reasonable to do so. And it is not fair to do that for illegal aliens with kids, but lock up the ones without kids.
To not recognize a problem - a legitimate problem to solve - is, I think, unreasonable, and I think mainly it's because the louder voices in the discussion don't care about a solution - they care about getting Trump. It's like the Bill Maher theory - give me a good solid recession! That will get rid of Trump! Sorry it will hurt, but it's more important than letting Trump be reelected.
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:58 am
The question is not about what Australia does, or what the UK is doing. It's about American policy, and claiming that non-Americans forfeit their rights to assess, judge, and criticise because their own governments are less than perfect is a red-herring, and a way of shifting the focus and the burden of justification onto others.
Both are legitimate questions. I could just as easily say that we should be talking about what Australia and the UK do, and that it's not relevant what the US does. Why not? Why is what the US does the default discussion? Can't we discuss both?
And, why aren't the same people who exoriate Trump as a Nazi considering the leaders of the UK and Oz Nazis, too? Are the immigration policies of the UK and Oz not akin to Auschwitz and Birkenau, and just like Nazi Germany? If not, then I guess it would be much better for the US just to do what Oz does - put all the immigrants on an island in what amounts to a jail, including children, and sort it out from there. No?
But even if we don't mention any other countries in discussing immigration policies of country X, we can still discuss multiple countries' immigration policies separately, can't we? How long, though, do you think conversations about Ozzie immigration practices go on without mentioning what policies are used in other countries?
And comparing countries is useful in discussions, and it's not just about moral high ground. It's about perspective. Like, if someone from North Korea started saying that the application process to get into Australia is inhumane and overly restrictive. Wouldn't the first thing an Australian would do would be to point out that hardly anyone can get into North Korea and when they do they are minded 24-7 and it's illegal to travel outside hotels unaccompanied? I mean, North Korea's policies don't render Australia's policies perfect just because North Korea's policies are awful, but wouldn't that be at least tangentially relevant to the overal discussion?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
