U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The fact remains Obama used the same camp

[Phantom Roxas]

The fact remains Obama used the same camp

"and it also makes careful distinctions about policies that Trump specifically implemented."

 

That is the key. No one is disputing that Obama used the same camp. What matters is whether you want to acknowledge what is unique to the Trump administration, or if you'd rather turn a blind eye.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://arcdigital.media/no-the-u-s-is-not-running-concentration-camps-at-the-border-3d0c6eeb0caf?sk=3d510fd6fcd25bf7960d1741e4e565bd&gi=a1575bab84c0

 

rebut

[Phantom Roxas]

And a weak rebut at that, since you offered no additional commentary. AOC was able to back up her argument with credible sources, all of whom agree with her calling them concentration camps, while Sarah Rumpf is clutching her pearls, because sure, our system is horrible, our immigration policies need work, but how dare you use the phrase "concentration camp"! It's being more offended by what AOC called these camps than by the camps themselves. Rumpf also falls back on the tired "You just call everyone you disagree with a Nazi!" meme. Again, AOC cites actual historians who directly explained why and how the proper definition of a concentration camp has been fulfilled. Seriously, Rumpf spends most of her article actually agreeing with AOC, but splitting hairs all because AOC said some naughty words.

 

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/6/20/18693058/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-immigration-border

https://psmag.com/ideas/yes-trumps-detention-centers-are-concentration-camps

 

Some more analysis and commentary, and by the way, children have actually died in these camps because of the inhumane conditions. These are concentration camps.

[Flame Dragon]

https://arcdigital.media/no-the-u-s-is-not-running-concentration-camps-at-the-border-3d0c6eeb0caf?sk=3d510fd6fcd25bf7960d1741e4e565bd&gi=a1575bab84c0

 

rebut

Please post something of substance next time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Please post something of substance next time.

 

 

Can you elaborate. I don't see how my post was that different to roxas's

 

This aged poorly.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/watch-trump-rally-shoot-migrants-panhandle-militia-detained.html

 

Trump laughed at a suggestion to shoot immigrants, and "declined to explicitly condemn the idea that somebody should shoot them." There's also a video of an armed "militia" rounding up women and children, with one member of the militia allegedly saying "Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them? We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber."

 

And a weak rebut at that, since you offered no additional commentary. AOC was able to back up her argument with credible sources, all of whom agree with her calling them concentration camps, while Sarah Rumpf is clutching her pearls, because sure, our system is horrible, our immigration policies need work, but how dare you use the phrase "concentration camp"! It's being more offended by what AOC called these camps than by the camps themselves. Rumpf also falls back on the tired "You just call everyone you disagree with a Nazi!" meme. Again, AOC cites actual historians who directly explained why and how the proper definition of a concentration camp has been fulfilled. Seriously, Rumpf spends most of her article actually agreeing with AOC, but splitting hairs all because AOC said some naughty words.

 

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/6/20/18693058/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-immigration-border

https://psmag.com/ideas/yes-trumps-detention-centers-are-concentration-camps

 

Some more analysis and commentary, and by the way, children have actually died in these camps because of the inhumane conditions. These are concentration camps.

 

 

It's not rubbish. Yes you might find some lefty historians to back your view. But on the other hand, everyone from the Polish Government to the Aushwitz Museum is pushing back on this crap

 

 

 

 

I didn't realize there were lines looking to get into admission into Aushwitz Roxas

 

 

What Hitler provided Holocaust victims with: Crematoria Gas Chambers Starvation Firing Squad

 

What the US is providing illegal immigrants: Medicine Hygiene products Toys for kids Beds Clean and fresh water Excellent and healthy food Medium rare steak

 

And finally, here's the NYC Mayor, you know, the hard right republican, saying your golden girl was wrong

 

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1141463845967290368

[Phantom Roxas]

"Yes you might find some lefty historians to back your view."

You really love that line of attack, don't you? I'm not considering whether the sources I'm citing are on the right or the left. As long as the historian is making a credible case in good faith, that's all I care about. Complaining about whether or not they're on the left is doing nothing to address the argument in question, and I at least put some effort into challenging Rumpf's article. I was careful to not make any judgments regarding whether she was on the left or the right. I focused on the substance of her article, whereas you refused to do the same.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48710432

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/20/the-trump-administration-is-arguing-that-kids-held-at-border-camps-dont-need-beds-and-soap.html
 
The Trump administration was found in violation of the Flores agreement specifically because they didn't provide appropriate food or any kind of beds. They're also currently claiming that the children don't actually need hygiene products.
 
You realize she never directly compared this to Auschwitz, right? Germany is not the only example of concentration camps, and in particular her argument was that concentration camps are distinctly separate from death camps like Auschwitz. Elaborating on my earlier point about how quick people love to jump to saying "You just love to call everyone you disagree with a Nazi!", AOC didn't even do that. She was specifically trying to not directly cite Nazis. Bill de Blasio and Chuck Todd disagreeing with AOC really isn't some blistering critique. Chuck Todd faced a lot of criticism for his criticism against AOC, and de Blasio is wildly despised by NYC residents, so trying to prop up either of them as though "Look, even the left is calling out AOC!" really doesn't mean anything. All you have is that Democrats are disagreeing with AOC, but you cannot look at the substance of their arguments. Chuck Todd in particular didn't seem to have much criticism for the camps until AOC called them out. De Blasio makes the same mistake as Todd, focusing exclusively on the Nazis, which AOC never did.

 

You have a weird fixation on whether someone falls on the right or left in this debate, and it makes your argument remarkably weak. While the following tweets I will cite do the same, I will refrain from indulging your habit on which party an individual belongs to, and instead focus on the argument itself.

 

https://twitter.com/scottlong1980/status/1142050319465140224

https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1141845161435172865

 

Dominik Tarczynski is an Holocaust revisionist, which makes it difficult to believe that his offer was made in good faith. He criticizes AOC comparing them to "concentration camps" because he believes she's trying to score political points, which completely ignores that she is making legitimate criticisms of the camps. He doesn't even make Rumpf's concession that our immigration process is poor. At most, he only says that political tensions are high.

 

Your argument extends only as far as who is talking, and not once looks at what they are saying. Whether or not someone disagreed with AOC means nothing to this discussion without also assessing the arguments made against AOC. You have failed to do so, refusing to address any of the arguments that I provided, or even elaborating on any of your own sources. My sources are meant to highlight how refusing to call these centers "concentration camps" makes us more ready to normalize further atrocities, and address how the current inhumane conditions pave the way for them. Your claims about those conditions are also quickly debunked by a basic Google search, so please put more effort into this discussion.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-trump-from-using-2-5b-in-military-funds-for-border-wall

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/border-funding-migrant-crisis-nancy-pelosi-house-senate-bills/index.html

 

A federal judge has ruled against Trump improperly bypassing Congress, and has blocked him from using $2.5B in military funds for the construction of the border wall. Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court, but Meanwhile, the House has passed a bill to spend $4.6B in border aid. While I have my issues with Pelosi's flip in the latter case, I take comfort in the bill supplying no funds whatsoever towards constructing the border wall. Unless I'm missing something, pending the appeal, it seems that the wall continues to be losing the legal battle, and has no major sources of funding. Good riddance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-trump-from-using-2-5b-in-military-funds-for-border-wall

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/border-funding-migrant-crisis-nancy-pelosi-house-senate-bills/index.html

 

A federal judge has ruled against Trump improperly bypassing Congress, and has blocked him from using $2.5B in military funds for the construction of the border wall. Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court, but Meanwhile, the House has passed a bill to spend $4.6B in border aid. While I have my issues with Pelosi's flip in the latter case, I take comfort in the bill supplying no funds whatsoever towards constructing the border wall. Unless I'm missing something, pending the appeal, it seems that the wall continues to be losing the legal battle, and has no major sources of funding. Good riddance.

The DC circuit overruled him once, and will do it again. 

Plus Trump said he will ignore the rulings so go fish

[Phantom Roxas]

Trump said he would appeal the ruling, not ignore it. That's more than a little different, so try to manage your expectations. Even if he wanted to just ignore it, he simply cannot do so, because trying to go cheat his way around Congress is what brought him this defeat in the first place.
 
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/737236244/federal-judge-rules-against-border-wall-construction-with-military-funds

"The administration's core contention has been that Congress never denied funding for the wall, which runs into the fact that we had the longest government shutdown in American history precisely over whether or not the wall would be funded," Narayan said. "The court held that it is required not to ignore that reality and that Congress did deny funds for the wall."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This exact same judge tried this once and was slapped down by a higher court in May. Temper your expectations

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/politics/trump-house-wall-lawsuit.html
 
Judge Gilliam's ruling last month was never challenged by any higher court. Rather, a judge in a different court, not a higher one, ruled in a case that was not related to the case that Gilliam presided over. I don't know how to explain this to you, but the DC Circuit is not a higher court than the California Circuit.
 
"The ruling will not have any immediate practical consequences because other groups have already secured an order blocking Mr. Trump from proceeding. But if other courts accept Judge McFadden’s reasoning, the House’s litigation options will narrow as it battles the president on several fronts.

Rulings from trial judges do not set binding precedents, however, and Judge McFadden’s ruling did not concern subpoenas issued by the House seeking information from the administration. He said a different legal analysis applied to disputes arising from such subpoenas."
 
"The cases in California were brought by private groups that did not face the standing issue in the case decided Monday."

At best, McFadden didn't even "slap down" Gilliam's rulings, he was just saying that the dispute should have only been brought to the court as a last resort, and he did not consider the circumstance a last resort. One judge ruling one way in a case, and another judge ruling differently in a separate case, in no way constitutes a "slap down." If I'm missing something, then please provide evidence to back up your claim. To correct your mistake, what we have is a previous order from Judge Gilliam that is currently standing and was never overruled, so there is absolutely no precedent that suggests he would be overruled in this case.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/29/concentration-camps-border-detention/

 

So let's recap:

- Andrea Pitzer, who has studied the global history of concentration camps, agrees that Trump is running concentration camps.

- Dr. Dolly Lucio Sevier compared the conditions to torture facilities.

 

But most damning are some direct quotes from Elora Mukherjee, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School:

 

"An overwhelming number of children who I interviewed had not had an opportunity for a stable shower or bath since crossing the border [days or weeks earlier]. They were wearing the same clothing that they had crossed the border in. Their clothing was covered in bodily fluids, including urine and breast milk for the teenage moms who are breastfeeding.

 

Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry because they’re being given insufficient food. The food at Clint is rationed on trays. Everyone gets an identical tray regardless of if you’re a 1-year-old, or you’re a 17-year-old, or a breastfeeding teenage mother who has higher caloric needs. The same food is served every single day, and none of the children receive any fruit and vegetables or any milk."

 

"When I interview children in detention, I try to sit near them so that we can have a better conversation about very traumatic, sensitive, difficult topics. Usually that leaves the children crying. At Clint, I found that hard to do because there was a stench emanating from some of the children. It was filthy and disgusting and there was, as of last week, a flu epidemic at Clint and a lice infestation. And children do not have the ability to wash their hands with soap at Clint."

 

"It’s worth noting that over the last year, seven children have died in federal immigration custody. When you look at the data for nearly the previous decade, there was not a single death. There was not a single reported death of a child in federal immigration custody."

 

 

Do I need to provide any more evidence that the conditions in these camps under the Trump administration are horrendous and deserve to be condemned?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Actual people who lived in the Camps say this is not comparable

 

These are all partisan liberals

 

D.C. circuit is higher than a US district Judge

[Phantom Roxas]

Actual people who lived in the Camps say this is not comparable

https://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article223718330.html

 

And other people who also lived at the camps say this is comparable. So what's your point? Some Holocaust survivors say this is not comparable, and others say it is. Unless you can offer something more, all this amounts to is that Holocaust survivors disagree on whether or not the descriptions of these camps are accurate. Acknowledging that the disagreement exists gets neither of us anywhere.

 

These are all partisan liberals

What difference does that make? I already told you, you care way too much about whether someone is liberal. You offer nothing that relates to their argument. Stating which side of the political spectrum they fall on contributes nothing meaningful to this discussion, because you are failing to address the evidence that the conditions of these camps qualify as torture.

 

D.C. circuit is higher than a US district Judge

While the D.C. Circuit is technically considered second to the Supreme Court, in actual practice, any judge from the D.C. Circuit is a US District Judge. This is why it's important that, as I had already told you, McFadden's ruling has no bearing on Gilliam's ruling, which is still standing. They are judges of equal authority who ruled in two different cases.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/dhs-watchdog-details-dangerous-conditions-migrants-border-centers
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-democrats-firings-border-patrol-facebook-forum-20190702-m2gy42scdjfzzoigwy6pe64kpi-story.html
 
The acting Inspector General details the horrific conditions, and confirms that "hundreds of children being detained way longer than the 72 hours allowed under federal law." As established before, the Trump Administration is currently in violation of the Flores Agreement. Let's try to avoid going into whether she's liberal or not, and instead actually look at the conditions she outlined.

 

EDIT:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451456-federal-judge-blocks-barr-order-on-indefinite-detention-for-asylum

 

A federal judge just blocked William Barr's order to hold asylum-seekers in detention indefinitely, which Judge Pechman ruled was unconstitutional.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Also 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nicaragua-security-isis-idUSKCN1TQ345

 

is there an emergency?

[Phantom Roxas]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-immigration-border-crisis/index.html

 

Maybe if you provided context instead of arguing in bad faith yet again, you might have a point. The poll is inherently divided about what exactly is the crisis at the border. More Democrats agree that there is a crisis because they believe that the Trump administration’s unethical and illegal treatment of immigrants is the crisis.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-immigration-border-crisis/index.html

 

Maybe if you provided context instead of arguing in bad faith yet again, you might have a point. The poll is inherently divided about what exactly is the crisis at the border. More Democrats agree that there is a crisis because they believe that the Trump administration’s unethical and illegal treatment of immigrants is the crisis.

Are you implying the crisis due to the migrants view has not gone up from 45 to 50?

[Phantom Roxas]

Are you implying the crisis due to the migrants view has not gone up from 45 to 50?

 

Considering how nothing in the article says that it has gone up from 45 to 50, I don't need to imply that. That's just understood from reading the poll. I'm saying that the crisis is the Trump administration's treatment of migrants, which is one of the opinions expressed in the article.

 

It is also disingenuous to claim that the increase is "due to the migrants." Did you read the article? If not, allow me to quote some selections from the article.

 

"Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the situation at the southern border with Mexico is a crisis (74%), up from less than half who felt that way in January (45%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS."

 

The increase was not from 45 to 50, but from 45 to 74. However, they do not say that this particular change is "due to the migrants"; the change merely reflects that more people consider this a crisis at all. Whether or not it's "due to the migrants" is the subject of the following excerpt:

 

"There is disagreement across party lines about the cause of the crisis at the border. A majority of Democrats consider it a crisis because of the treatment migrants are receiving as they attempt to cross the border (54%), while most Republicans say they think it's a crisis because of the number of migrants attempting to enter the country (63%). Among independents, slightly more say it's a crisis due to the number of migrants attempting to cross (35%) than because of the treatment migrants are receiving (28%)."

 

Before your next post, I hope you will read the article that accompanies the CNN poll that you posted. The "due to the migrants" view merely averaged 34% of the total population, according to page 21 of the study.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/us/politics/border-wall-funds-ruling.html
 
So, putting aside that the D.C. Circuit never actually looked at Judge Gilliam's case because Judge McFadden is a district court judge, not an appeals court judge, and he ruled in a separate case anyway, an actual appeals court looked at Judge Gilliam's order. They upheld his ruling, which means that Trump is still blocked from moving $2.5B without congressional approval.

I'm still waiting for evidence that "The DC circuit overruled him once, and will do it again."

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/05/739033701/judge-to-review-claims-of-census-citizenship-questions-discriminatory-origins

 

Meanwhile, since the Supreme Court upheld a ruling to prevent Trump from adding his citizenship question to the census, Maryland District Judge George Hazel is moving forward into allegations of discrimination rising from the census question.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://twitter.com/aflores/status/1149859062013546496
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1150136061504319488

So immigrants are being stuffed into cages because they're being held for over 40 days, with no beds or showers.
 

What the US is providing illegal immigrants: Medicine Hygiene products Toys for kids Beds Clean and fresh water Excellent and healthy food Medium rare steak

Still waiting for evidence of this.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-23/ice-raids-immigration-arrests

 

ICE targeted over 2,000 immigrants in their planned raids, but have only been able to arrest 35, thanks to immigrants taking special precautions to avoid being rounded up. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/no-cooperation-with-ice-montgomerys-new-ban-is-strongest-in-dc-region/2019/07/22/46b85870-ac7d-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html?utm_term=.7c1fe2a5b451

 

Montgomery County - Maryland's most populous jurisdiction - has also banned government agencies from cooperating in anti-immigration efforts. As this upholds the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, Montgomery is in the right here.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://komonews.com/news/local/judge-rules-for-oregon-in-sanctuary-city-case-with-trump

 

While a different case from before, a judge ruled in favor of Oregon by stating that the Trump administration cannot impose conditions for grants to compel states to cooperate with immigration officials. The judge also specifically sites that the Trump administration's order violates the 10th Amendment, which conservatives conveniently ignore when they falsely claim that sanctuary cities either ignore or violate federal law. In fact, sanctuary cities do not go against federal law. Rather, it's these attempts to withhold money that goes against the Constitution.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://thehill.com/latino/457573-appeals-court-rules-trump-administration-must-provide-personal-hygiene-products-in

A federal appeals court upheld an order that Trump administration must " provide basic personal hygiene items to children in detention at facilities in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas." The Trump administration had challenged the order previously, because this administration would not have been providing those without this order.
 

What the US is providing illegal immigrants: Medicine Hygiene products Toys for kids Beds Clean and fresh water Excellent and healthy food Medium rare steak

Strange, it's almost like this was always complete bullshit.