[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7376

File: 1603297801323.png (314.28 KB, 968x313, 968:313, Missing-Parents-NPR-Story.png) ImgOps Google

What should happen to infants, toddlers, and other kids who show up at the U.S. and Mexico border?

Is it ethically just as well as practical to punish them along with their parents if it turns out that their refugee statuses are invalid?

What if they show up unaccompanied, with that possibly changing matters?

What if they show up needing medical treatment or otherwise being in a state in which merely leaving them alone is questionable?

 No.7377

>>7376
They should be sent back with the parents, provided we can prove they're actually the parents and aren't traffickers.

 No.7379

>>7377
What if we can't prove that? Or what if they indeed are traffickers? In those circumstances, its rather morally iffy to just plop a twelve-year-old into the middle of a Mexico forest and say "Well, bye."

 No.7384

>>7379
True; I would say in those circumstances, we ought to have an arrangement with the Mexican government that places those children in their care while they seek out the parents, guardians, or failing all of that, whatever system they have for orphans.

 No.7385

>>7376
>What should happen to infants, toddlers, and other kids who show up at the U.S. and Mexico border?
If they show up unaccompanied?  They should be returned to their country of lawful residence and their parents should be investigated for neglect.  
If they show up together with their parents/guardians?  If they are legally present, they should be left unmolested.  If they and their parents/guardians are illegally present, they should all be deported together.

>Is it ethically just as well as practical to punish them
If a child is old enough to distinguish between right and wrong, then it is just for the law to punish them for knowingly committing an offense.  (Younger children may ethically be 'punished' in the sense of immediate negative reinforcement used for behavioral training of any mammal, but that doesn't seem relevant to the topic of this thread.)  But I should note that deportation isn't necessarily a 'punishment' in this sense.

>What if they show up needing medical treatment
Their immediate medical needs should be treated.

>>7377
>provided we can prove they're actually the parents
Like, with a DNA test?  I'd say that we should just accept a child's assertion of who their parents are.

 No.7387

It seems just a little psychotic to punish children like that for not having their paperwork in order? I honestly can't think of a single justification, except that people don't want to think about the consequences of their beliefs.

 No.7389

People brought into this country when they were too young to make that decision themselves, and who have lived in the US most of their lives should be allowed to become citizens.

 No.7390

>>7376
I feel like if a country can afford to help people fleeing distress, there shouldn't be barriers.  If the children have run away from their parents, if they have not escaped abuse, likely they should be reunited.

>ethically just as well as practical to punish them along with their parents if it turns out that their refugee statuses are invalid?

People grant states the supreme right to punish any age group in any way, and I suppose it's not my place to say any such punishment is impractical or immoral.  If I'm able to respectfully move out of this frame, I don't know, except that practical punishment must be adjusted to one's capacity to understand and change behavior -- eg. a prison sentence probably wouldn't mean much to a toddler.

 No.7393

>>7385
DNA would work, sure.

>I'd say that we should just accept a child's assertion of who their parents are.
I understand the thinking, but I think you're being naive.
Children aren't exactly that hard to convince to lie.

 No.7460

Something that happens a lot is that children are sent over alone, and even if they find the parents, the parents say that they don't want the kids sent to them.

Half of it is because the parents sincerely believe that their children will be better off alone in a foreign country, and the other half is that some parents are selling their children to traffickers for money.

Third world country problems are wack, yo.

 No.7462

>>7460
It happens. I'm not sure how much "a lot" is.

 No.7466

>>7462
Well, with these 545 kids specifically, the DHS was able to contact 485 of their parents, and of those parents, not a single one of them wanted their children reunited with them back in whatever country they're from.

They may want to be reunited in the US, but definitely not outside of it.

So "a lot" in this case actually occurs for 100% of the kids with parents that could be contacted.

Source (the press secretary of the DHS): https://twitter.com/SpoxDHS/status/1319002785262784513

 No.7472

Infants and toddlers?  Probably send them back to an orphanage in Mexico or something.  What would we possibly do with them here?

 No.7505

>>7472
Unless they are actually orphans, there's no reason to send them to an orphanage instead of trying to find their families.

Also "what would we do with them here" makes it sound like immigrants are only good for the labor they can provide. There's no reason they can't become productive members of American society.

 No.7566

>>7505
>There's no reason they can't become productive members of American society.

I'm fairly confident child labor is illegal.

 No.7626

>>7566
"Become" can denote something will happen sometime in the future and not necessarily immediately. Like when you say that "Children will become adults", you mean eventually.

 No.8132

>>7505
Working-class people can already barely make end's meet as is, with many jobs being either shipped overseas or automated. Basic supply and demand means more people working those working-class jobs, which most people immigrating seem to be, then supply increases, and wages get pushed down even further, potentially enough to start a homeless epidemic. This would be a horrible thing, a catastrophe.

That's not immigrants' fault, but it is one of the potential results of allowing such high levels of immigration.

 No.8133

>>8132
Then raise miniumum wage. Force companies to actually pay their employers a fair amount for the work they do. Tax the rich. We shouldn't make people wishing for a better life suffer to uphold a status quo that isn't working for the majority of Americans.

Also, you're looking at this from a wrong-headed stance. Once an immigrant moves here, they are no longer an immigrant. They are an American. And if the system isn't working for all Americans, we change the system. We don't try to make less Americans.

 No.8134

>>8133
>Then raise miniumum wage.
What if that results in greater unemployment?

>>8133
>Force companies to actually pay their employers a fair amount for the work they do.
What if the fair price for their labor is below minimum wage?

>>8133
> Tax the rich.
The rich are already taxed.

>>8133
> Once an immigrant moves here, they are no longer an immigrant. They are an American.
Depends what you mean by "immigrant" and "American".  An illegal immigrant is not an American by any standard.  A green-card holder is a 'US person' under ITAR but not a US citizen.

>>8133
>And if the system isn't working for all Americans, we change the system.
I disagree.  I'd find it acceptable if the system is working for a vast majority of Americans.

 No.8135

>>8134
>What if that results in greater unemployment?

And what if monkeys fly out of my butt?

>What if the fair price for their labor is below minimum wage?

It's not. People who work full time should be paid enough to make a living. Otherwise they are being exploited and it's not "fair".

>The rich are already taxed.
Not... really? They have tons of loopholes to get out of paying their taxes. Someone like Donald Trump, who proports to be a billionaire, was only paying $750 in taxes before becoming President. That is not being taxed at the same rate working class people are.

> I'd find it acceptable if the system is working for a vast majority of Americans.

That's splitting hairs, but even with that semantic dodge, it isn't working for the majority of Americans. It's working for a handfull of super wealthy ghouls.

 No.8136

>'More immigrants destroy the economy because they depress wages and overall mess up the labor market, not to mention that they also suck up government benefits.'

I know that this view is popular, but from an objective factual perspective it is dead, flat wrong. It's as wrong as denying the coronavirus or global climate change. Numerous academic studies have proved this.

To be specific, look at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations

And there's also some common sense involved. More immigrants mean more workers. And also more consumers. And also more investors. And also more entrepreneurs. And so on.

It's not that much different than having the native-born population have more kids than expected. Generally speaking, population growth is good for the economy specifically and good for society in general, at least where the U.S. is concerned. This is well-documented.

 No.8140

>>8135
>It's not. People who work full time should be paid enough to make a living. Otherwise they are being exploited and it's not "fair".
If the minimum wage gets raised so that the value (to the employer) of an employee's labor is less than the minimum wage, then the fair price of the employee's labor (to that employer) falls below the minimum wage.  And in such cases, the employee would most likely be laid off (thereby increasing unemployment), because the employee's costs outweigh his benefits to the employer.  With rising levels of automation, there is a danger that a non-negligible fraction of the current workforce will become unemployable.  How to deal with this will likely be one of the greatest challenges of this century.  IIRC, there is some psychological evidence that most humans suffer in mental health in they fail to contribute to their society/tribe.

>>8135
> Someone like Donald Trump, who proports to be a billionaire, was only paying $750 in taxes before becoming President.
That was because (after including loss-carried-forward), Trump actually had a net loss.  Or he was committing tax evasion, in which case he should be prosecuted for it after Jan 20.
And that $750 is only a single type of tax, the federal income tax.  There are other taxes (e.g., real estate tax, sales tax) that Trump paid.

>>8136
>It's as wrong as denying the coronavirus or global climate change.
I disagree.  The existence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the phenomenon of global climate change is known from direct observation mediated by scientific instruments, and the basic science underlying predictions of future climate change is (at least qualitatively) well understood.  The epistemic status of economic theories is much less certain and their applicability may change over time as social and economic factors in the world change.

 No.8141

>>8140
But you're really not going to find reliable academic evidence in support of the notion that immigration is horrid and destroys the economy. The data simply isn't there. Almost all of the research clearly and explicitly points in the opposite direction.

 No.8145

>>8141
OK, but it's still not on the same level as saying that COVID-19 is a hoax.  It's more like people still supporting rent control even though a vast majority of economists agree that rent control doesn't work.

 No.8149

>>8133
What's to stop inflation from negating that minimum wage increase? People will just charge more for things. There's still a supply and demand problem.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]