Immigrant Children Cry Out in Audio Recorded at Detention Center

[Boiler 46,014]

Can not say I am that versed on how it works in US, certainly how it works in UK and Europe;

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Still no actual sources of data. 

 

I'm not surprised anymore. Don't bother quoting me if you aren't going to actually address the post you're quoting.

Now I can’t quote you?  Is that part of the TOS, or something you just made up?

Edited June 22, 2018 by IDWAF

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The guidelines for DACA state that you had to have continually resided in the USA since June 15th 2007. 

Not the point.  The point was that there was an influx of children, primarily due to the EO that Obama signed.  That somehow, BC seems oblivious to.  Some people step right up to the watering tank, but can’t seem to bring themselves to take the drink.

[bcking 3,157]

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Not the point.  The point was that there was an influx of children, primarily due to the EO that Obama signed.  That somehow, BC seems oblivious to.  Some people step right up to the watering tank, but can’t seem to bring themselves to take the drink.

An "influx of children" is non specific. I don't care about rhetoric and verbage. I had asked for your source on numbers since it sounded like you actually had some. You replied with some more language that didn't provide any helpful details.

 

"Record numbers", "influx of children" - not helpful

 

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Now I can’t quote you?  Is that part of the TOS, or something you just made up?

It is common sense that if you quote something, you should actually address what you are quoting.

 

I was asking for your source on your data. If you aren't going to actually respond to that, then don't quote me. Just make your post however you like. It didn't pertain to my post, so no need to quote. 

 

At the very least you could have said "no sorry I don't have a source for any of this", and then proceeded to say whatever else you wanted to say. Instead you just avoided the question.

Edited June 22, 2018 by bcking

[Unidentified 2,930]

Yeah a lot of people here doesn't know the difference between knowing (you've got the facts) and thinking/believing (don't know, don't have the facts) and they somehow believe that thinking somehow makes something a fact. Instead of actually doing the research, find the facts and gain knowledge. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

7 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Now I can’t quote you?  Is that part of the TOS, or something you just made up?

It's all about the data .rofl 

[Dashinka 24,765]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

An "influx of children" is non specific. I don't care about rhetoric and verbage. I had asked for your source on numbers since it sounded like you actually had some. You replied with some more language that didn't provide any helpful details.

 

"Record numbers", "influx of children" - not helpful

 

It is common sense that if you quote something, you should actually address what you are quoting.

 

I was asking for your source on your data. If you aren't going to actually respond to that, then don't quote me. Just make your post however you like. It didn't pertain to my post, so no need to quote. 

 

At the very least you could have said "no sorry I don't have a source for any of this", and then proceeded to say whatever else you wanted to say. Instead you just avoided the question.

I think I already provided numbers about the influx of children from 2015 (unaccompanied minors = UAC).  I realize we were discussing two different things, UACs vs children coming here without an immediate relative or potentially subject to trafficking and we came to the conclusion that this data just does not exist.  Some of the UACs could fit into that category if CBP made that determination when these people were picked up, but there is no way of knowing completely.  I did hear that HHS has something like 11K UACs currently in their system right now.

 

I am curious as to how our government is going to handle the UACs which is what I think is what @IDWAF is also pondering and which did seem to increase after Obama created DACA.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think I already provided numbers about the influx of children from 2015 (unaccompanied minors = UAC).  I realize we were discussing two different things, UACs vs children coming here without an immediate relative or potentially subject to trafficking and we came to the conclusion that this data just does not exist.  Some of the UACs could fit into that category if CBP made that determination when these people were picked up, but there is no way of knowing completely.  I did hear that HHS has something like 11K UACs currently in their system right now.

 

I am curious as to how our government is going to handle the UACs which is what I think is what @IDWAF is also pondering and which did seem to increase after Obama created DACA.

Yes you provided probably the only actual numbers this thread has included.

 

IDWAF said: "You mean historical data, like in 2014/15, when illegals were sending their kids over with anyone who would take them in record numbers?"

 

That really sounded like he had actual data regarding children coming across the border with "anyone who would take them" (Not UAC), which I thought he should share. You can't have "record numbers" without 1. A record of past numbers and 2. Actual numbers. It's literally in the phrase. On it's own, "record numbers" is also not very informative since that could mean 1 case, or it could mean 1 million cases depending on the record of past events.

Edited June 22, 2018 by bcking

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Interesting take on the cover of Time Magazine with the crying "separated child" story actually explained by both the CBP agent and the photographer that took the picture, agenda anyone?

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/border-agent-involved-with-dramatic-photo-of-crying-girl-breaks-silence/ar-AAz0g88?ocid=ientp

[bcking 3,157]

31 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Interesting take on the cover of Time Magazine with the crying "separated child" story actually explained by both the CBP agent and the photographer that took the picture, agenda anyone?

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/border-agent-involved-with-dramatic-photo-of-crying-girl-breaks-silence/ar-AAz0g88?ocid=ientp

Trump has past experience with false or misleading "Time Magazine" Covers

 

The photographer himself had an interesting take on it. Though of course he doesn't mind people using his photograph and being on the cover of Time Magazine. 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Trump has past experience with false or misleading "Time Magazine" Covers

 

The photographer himself had an interesting take on it. Though of course he doesn't mind people using his photograph and being on the cover of Time Magazine. 

this picture was the face of this crisis  ... it may as well have been staged, I could create the same scene at Walmart denying my 6 yo a candy bar

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

this picture was the face of this crisis  ... it may as well have been staged, I could create the same scene at Walmart denying my 6 yo a candy bar

Doesn't sound like the picture was "staged", it's more like the picture was used to represent a crisis that it actually wasn't part of. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the woman and the child weren't actual immigrants. It's just that they weren't separated. Likely someone saw the photo, saw the child and said "that would look great" and started using it to represent the crisis.

 

It's actually not that uncommon that photographs are used to represent something that they weren't originally intended to represent.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2006/08/dont_believe_what_you_see_in_the_papers.html

https://nppa.org/news/fake-or-altered-images

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-most-misleading-photos-ever-taken - I particularly like the one of "Adolf Hitler" as a baby. Poor woman (and child).

 

Here's a couple more recent examples from our current Administration:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/28/trump-border-wall-construction-photo-tweet

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/trump-sarah-sanders-clarifies-misleading-photo-syria-strike

Edited June 22, 2018 by bcking

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Doesn't sound like the picture was "staged", it's more like the picture was used to represent a crisis that it actually wasn't part of. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the woman and the child weren't actual immigrants. It's just that they weren't separated. Likely someone saw the photo, saw the child and said "that would look great" and started using it to represent the crisis.

 

It's actually not that uncommon that photographs are used to represent something that they weren't originally intended to represent.

I did not say it was staged, I said it may as well have been staged.

 

It was misleading because it shows a child crying alone and the picture is representing the child being forcibly removed from the parents at the border, why? better optics than what is actually happening?

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

I did not say it was staged, I said it may as well have been staged.

 

It was misleading because it shows a child crying alone and the picture is representing the child being forcibly removed from the parents at the border, why? better optics than what is actually happening?

 

 

Absolutely it is misleading. I already showed many examples of photographs being used in misleading ways. That isn't uncommon.

 

No one from the administration has denied that 2000 (approx.) children were recently separated from their parents (to my knowledge). So we know that is what is "actually happening" (or was, not sure if things have changed since the EO). They defended it, but they didn't deny it. Yes the photo doesn't actually capture that (so yes it is misleading), but that doesn't change what is actually happening.

 

in the end all photographs are for is "optics"...quite literally.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I am aware pictures are nothing but optics, I said a misleading picture provided better optics