[star-castle]

>we should readily engage in political discussion

You must mean political lecturing, because 'discussion' implies more than one side, which means hearing from more than one side, which means not censoring or aggressively punishing voices apart from one side, which means "giving a platform to hate". Where 'hate' is one them magical words that is taken literally and figuratively at the same time, whichever is tactically convenient.

[dagmx]

Discussion involves multiple views not multiple sides.

Not every discussion needs to be adversarial or black and white. Discussions can be constructive with all members on the same side talking about ideas .

Most development discussions that happen daily are just that, constructive with people throwing ideas around.

For example if we are discussing the best design pattern in a c++ API , and someone comes in and says "let's rewrite in basic" , when they're shut down, that is not shutting down a discussion, because that is not a constructive view point.

Similarly in politics, not everyone's opinion or view is valid or adds to the discussion. Being dismissed with reason is not the same as being disregarded and barred from discussion. It's simply saying, come back with something that adds to it rather than subtracts.

If you constantly find yourself left out of a discussion maybe consider your approach or your view points. Not every view needs to be considered by others, and either the way it's presented or the view itself may not be worth considering.

As it stands, my opinion is that separating children from their families seeking asylum is morally reprehensible. I'm willing to discuss immigration reform, but I think anyone arguing for the detainment of children is not adding anything of value to the discussion or humanity and is worthy of being disregarded with reason. Just like I would for someone who told me to rewrite a c++ codebase in basic.

[sheepmullet]

> but I think anyone arguing for the detainment of children is not adding anything of value to the discussion or humanity and is worthy of being disregarded with reason.

I think it is a sensible policy.

Can you articulate why you think it is any worse than child services putting a kid into foster care when the parents go to jail for any other crime?

Illegally immigrating to the US is a serious crime but you can't jail the kids for the crimes of the parents.

The best option is to detain the kids until a relative can get them.

We have been detaining kids trying to illegally cross the border for over a decade now - if you have a better solution then voice it.

[cr1895]

>Illegally immigrating to the US is a serious crime

In the first instance it is a misdemeanor offence.

[makomk]

Well, in principle it's worse because normally child services avoid doing that if at all possible; they try and place the kid with relatives or other people who've cared for them in the past, whereas these kids are pretty much all institutionalised in big warehouses.

I don't think that's actually what people object to though. Remember the big (bogus) claim on social media that ICE had lost 1475 children who'd been seized from their parents? That was about unaccompanied kids who'd been united with family members. The entire thrust of that complaint is that it was some kind of Nazi-esque atrocity that ICE weren't totally controlling and tracking those kids.

Fundamentally, I think the objection is to two things: Trump being president, and the border being controlled. The only politically acceptable position right now is for every person to cross the Mexican border with a kid to be let through, and even that might not be enough because Trump.

[detaro]

> Can you articulate why you think it is any worse than child services putting a kid into foster care when the parents go to jail for any other crime?

I'd hope normal foster care in the US looks slightly better, and is better communicated (assuming the reports about ICE not telling parents what they are doing with their children are accurate). E.g. normally I'd expect incarcerated parents to still know about the whereabouts of their children, being allowed to communicate with them, ... unless there's strong reasons to forbid this.

While I think it's at least an interesting question if it is strictly necessary to separate families, I'd guess that if the process appeared less horrific there'd be a lot less of an outcry.

From what I've read, it also appears that the vast majority cases are first-time entries, which only is a misdemeanor in the US? While it makes some sense to "keep" people somewhere in this case (can't just let them go with a fine like you'd do for a traffic offense), it seems less than clear to me that this has to be to the same "standards" as people being jailed for serious crimes, and regular access to the children can't be possible. (And to be clear, I'd generally argue for such policies, not just in the case of immigrants)

[sheepmullet]

> it seems less than clear to me that this has to be to the same "standards" as people being jailed for serious crimes

It seems clear to me they should be - it's a clear deterrent against a serious problem.

> I'd guess that if the process appeared less horrific

I agree - the optics don't look good. But part of me thinks they shouldn't look good and this will quickly lead to fewer people trying to illegally enter the country.

[jedmeyers]

When you are against something, then obviously you hate it, therefore any argument you present is a hate speech, thus should not be allowed /s