US withdraws from UN Human Rights Council as Haley decries 'cesspool of political bias'

[Dashinka 24,764]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Absolutely. But we should also err on the side of caution when it comes to separating real families.

 

I'm not advocating letting those kids and their parents roam free. You can investigate while they are together. If you have evidence that they are being trafficked then remove them. We shouldn't remove them first just "assuming" that it's safer for them.

 

This discussion is better suited to the other thread though so we should stop here.

Isn't there a hard choice that has to be made?  I for one think separating some families temporarily far outweigh even one child being trafficked or worst.  I don't really think there is a middle ground that can be based on statistics. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't there a hard choice that has to be made?  I for one think separating some families temporarily far outweigh even one child being trafficked or worst.  I don't really think there is a middle ground that can be based on statistics. 

I disagree.

 

Every decision has benefits and disadvantages. Here the benefit would be separating children who are being trafficked. The disadvantage is separating children from their real family.

 

If the rate of trafficking was one percent, you would need to separate 100 real children just to successfully separate one trafficked child. In that scenario, I'd consider alternatives. As I said, you could keep them all together, do an investigation FIRST and if deemed high risk at that point then separate. You may be able to get the number down to 20 to 1 or less through a screening process first, instead of assuming all children are trafficked until proven otherwise.

 

If the rarity of the event doesn't matter, then why wouldn't you support very strict gun laws. Why don't we assume everyone buying a gun is a cold blooded killer? To use your words - I would think not selling to one cold blooded killer would far outweigh not selling to responsible mature gun owners. What's that you say? Cold blooded killers are an extreme minority of those legally buying guns. But surely statistics can't help us make that tough decision?

[Dashinka 24,764]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

I disagree.

 

Every decision has benefits and disadvantages. Here the benefit would be separating children who are being trafficked. The disadvantage is separating children from their real family.

 

If the rate of trafficking was one percent, you would need to separate 100 real children just to successfully separate one trafficked child. In that scenario, I'd consider alternatives. As I said, you could keep them all together, do an investigation FIRST and if deemed high risk at that point then separate. You may be able to get the number down to 20 to 1 or less through a screening process first, instead of assuming all children are trafficked until proven otherwise.

 

If the rarity of the event doesn't matter, then why wouldn't you support very strict gun laws. Why don't we assume everyone buying a gun is a cold blooded killer? To use your words - I would think not selling to one cold blooded killer would far outweigh not selling to responsible mature gun owners. What's that you say? Cold blooded killers are an extreme minority of those legally buying guns. But surely statistics can't help us make that tough decision?

As I said, I feel doing everything to prevent even one child from having to go through that far outweighs the inconvenience of a temporary separation.  Many of us know what it is like to be separated from loved ones, and many children face this every day as well.  I know the crying child optics tug on many heart strings, but we cannot allow a trafficker to slip through just because we have a need to be overly compassionate. 

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

As I said, I feel doing everything to prevent even one child from having to go through that far outweighs the inconvenience of a temporary separation.  Many of us know what it is like to be separated from loved ones, and many children face this every day as well.  I know the crying child optics tug on many heart strings, but we cannot allow a trafficker to slip through just because we have a need to be overly compassionate. 

No one is talking about slipping through. I'd advocate for keeping families together and under observation until you have a reasonable suspicion for trafficking (or other serious crimes). No reason to assume everyone child is being trafficked just because they are being taken to the border.

 

I feel we should do everything to prevent even one mass murderer from buying a gun, and that far outweigh any inconveniences on responsible gun owners by enacting tough gun legislation. oh wait suddenly you don't want to legislate based on rare events? I wonder why? 

 

Perhaps it's easy to make a suggestion like the one you're proposing because it will never impact you.

Edited June 20, 2018 by bcking

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

No one is talking about slipping through. I'd advocate for keeping families together and under observation until you have a reasonable suspicion for trafficking (or other serious crimes). No reason to assume everyone child is being trafficked just because they are being taken to the border.

 

I feel we should do everything to prevent even one mass murderer from buying a gun, and that far outweigh any inconveniences on responsible gun owners by enacting tough gun legislation. oh wait suddenly you don't want to legislate based on rare events? I wonder why? 

 

Perhaps it's easy to make a suggestion like the one you're proposing because it will never impact you.

So we should keep the kids together with potential child molesters? 

[bcking 3,157]

52 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Or molested while being in custody.

By the trafficker or the people holding them?

 

While we're at it, why don't we try to prevent any of the children from being eaten while in custody. Sure it's probably rare, but best to be on the safe side and assume all the children will be consumed by their "trafficking parents" while in custody.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Unidentified said:

So we should keep the kids together with potential child molesters? 

Again do you have any idea of the risk of that? If it's 1 in 1,000 we shouldn't assume 1,000 "parents" are all molesters.

 

We can't just pull random rare risks out of a hat and use that to justify a policy that applies to an entire population. That's irrational.

[Dashinka 24,764]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

No one is talking about slipping through. I'd advocate for keeping families together and under observation until you have a reasonable suspicion for trafficking (or other serious crimes). No reason to assume everyone child is being trafficked just because they are being taken to the border.

 

I feel we should do everything to prevent even one mass murderer from buying a gun, and that far outweigh any inconveniences on responsible gun owners by enacting tough gun legislation. oh wait suddenly you don't want to legislate based on rare events? I wonder why? 

 

Perhaps it's easy to make a suggestion like the one you're proposing because it will never impact you.

This thread is not the proper place to discuss this since we already have one (I know, you did not bring it up).  Just an FYI, mass murderers do not always use guns.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

This thread is not the proper place to discuss this since we already have one (I know, you did not bring it up).  Just an FYI, mass murderers do not always use guns.

I already suggested we take it to the other thread.

 

You're' right. We should ban all automobiles because some people use them as weapons. Surely the inconvenience for people not having automobiles is outweighed by preventing one mass murderer using a vehicle. Extremely rational

[Ironclad43 131]

No lie detected. The UN as a whole needs to go.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Sounds like another product of Trump's inability to negotiate. 

[Boiler 46,013]

Now this a act we can all whatever our views get behind.

[jg121783 3,921]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Perhaps we withdrew precisely due to the hypocritical nature of the council itself.  Hopefully we reduced the UN funding accordingly.

A human rights council that allows Saudi Arabia to be part of it isn't too serious about human rights.

 

3 hours ago, bcking said:

I disagree.

 

Every decision has benefits and disadvantages. Here the benefit would be separating children who are being trafficked. The disadvantage is separating children from their real family.

 

If the rate of trafficking was one percent, you would need to separate 100 real children just to successfully separate one trafficked child. In that scenario, I'd consider alternatives. As I said, you could keep them all together, do an investigation FIRST and if deemed high risk at that point then separate. You may be able to get the number down to 20 to 1 or less through a screening process first, instead of assuming all children are trafficked until proven otherwise.

 

If the rarity of the event doesn't matter, then why wouldn't you support very strict gun laws. Why don't we assume everyone buying a gun is a cold blooded killer? To use your words - I would think not selling to one cold blooded killer would far outweigh not selling to responsible mature gun owners. What's that you say? Cold blooded killers are an extreme minority of those legally buying guns. But surely statistics can't help us make that tough decision?

So your proposing assigning an agent to observe each one if the thousands of children with adults who come here every day to see if they get along? Then what? Find a seperate individual holding facility for each of these families or put them all in one large facility mixing all the children with all of the adults? All this for the few days it takes in most of these cases to determine immigration status then the family is reunited anyways to be deported together.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

A human rights council that allows Saudi Arabia to be part of it isn't too serious about human rights.

 

So your proposing assigning an agent to observe each one if the thousands of children with adults who come here every day to see if they get along? Then what? Find a seperate individual holding facility for each of these families or put them all in one large facility mixing all the children with all of the adults? All this for the few days it takes in most of these cases to determine immigration status then the family is reunited anyways to be deported together.

Not sure what you mean about the "see if they get along" bit. Where did I suggest letting them all go with an agent observing them?

 

A. I'm saying detain them, but do so together. Is it difficult and complicated? For sure, but I think we should make every effort to act as decent human beings even if the parents did break the law by entering illegaly. 

B. How long does it actually last? Not how long SHOULD it last, but what is the reality? I've not seen any concrete information on this. Does it really last "a few days" for most? We can make assumptions, but I'd like actual confirmed information from the source on that

 

[jg121783 3,921]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm saying detain them, but do so together. Is it difficult and complicated? For sure, but I think we should make every effort to act as decent human beings even if the parents did break the law by entering illegaly. 

What I was asking you is how do we detain them together? Seperate holding facilities for each family? How do we pay for that along with the extra man power that would require? Or do we put them in with the general population to be victimized by the gang members and other criminals who are detained? How do we immediately identify who belongs to what family (these things take a little time)? The "keep the families together" crowd wont address these practical questions. Is it a good thing to separate families in any situation? I am confident all of us agree the answer is no. However the current way of doing things is the best option we have with the resourses we have to deal with a massive influx of people on a daily basis. If anyone has a better way to deal with the problem please share.

Edited June 20, 2018 by jg121783