I feel like we should be talking about this more.

That is from The Atlantic, and the linked reports referenced above are also pretty eye-opening:

Other reporting has painted an equally troubling picture. A while back, in the Trump thread, I posted this Vox article about the genesis of this crisis:

Whatever you think about immigration policy -- how restrictive it ought or ought not to be -- one thing I hope is still true is that we agree that concentration camps are a bad idea, and that refugees and immigrants are still people who deserve to be handled with some minimum of human dignity, and the described conditions are far from that minimum.

Being on the left, of course I've been primed since the 2016 election to be on the lookout for outrages and things to #resist, and I try to keep my potential biases in mind, and I recognize that some of these issues are older than the Trump administration, thought not all. My goal with this thread isn't really just to make this merely a partisan issue. But what should we be doing? How can we sit back and allow the things described above to happen? Whether or not you ascribe some of this to malicious racism or just an inept bureaucracy overwhelmed by the numbers of families and children seeking refuge (and I think it's some of both), surely it can't be acceptable to hold children in facilities like this?

Whats the alternative? Genuine question.

The simplest immediate alternative is to dedicate an appropriate amount of resources necessary to house detained immigrants/refugees in humane conditions, and to process asylum requests in a reasonable amount of time.

My view is that if a government official in charge of deciding how to handle detainees recognizes that there is no way to detain them humanely, then they ought simply to not detain them. I don't think that position should be subject to compromise. There's no doubt that this will still leave a crisis to handle, but my goal isn't necessarily to find some easy solution that fixes every problem, but to avoid committing egregious human rights violations.

From a longer term perspective, I'd argue that if we want to slow the rate of migration we should do more to try to help improve conditions in the countries people are fleeing. Given the dangers and difficulty people face trying to migrate, I think that's a good idea almost regardless of one's views on immigration. That said, from my perspective there is no compelling reason not to simply welcome most of these people as immigrants and to try to help them settle in the US. But I don't think restrictions on immigration are all unacceptable. I do think that if you want to restrict immigration you have to be willing to commit the resources necessary to resolve immigration enforcement without forcing children to live for weeks in these conditions.

The damage is already done. Partly because of inept US policy, part because the Trump Admin put in this travesty of a directive and concentration camps, and partly because either no one saw this coming, or they saw it coming and care less about the actual problem and more about the political scoreboard.

I think the only thing to do is reverse the policy/directive in place now, do something, anything about the camps, and devise a plan to deal with both the current mess, current actual immigration policy and the reforms it needs, and the apparently inevitable mass of people due to come to the border soon...

I think the long term solution is to rebuild these countries that lay in ruin so as to reduce the incentive to leave them. I don't know much about history or foreign policy, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if a place like Guatemala or Honduras is all ****ed up directly because of the US and would imagine it's a lock we ****ed them somehow, someway indirectly.

I don't know how legit or inept Trump's pressure on Mexico about the border is regarding telling them to get their **** together and close their borders too, but it seems like that's actually a good thing if a mass inflow to the US is inevitable. Mexico having an interest in keeping illegal immigrants out of the US would probably at the very least slow down or limit the size of the inevitable waves soon to come in increased proportion

Legalizing drugs probably deserves a mention too

Well, it seems the issue is that our detention policies were enacted to deal "effectively" with single men crossing the border for employment reasons; and at some point in the recent past immigration demographics shifted so that it is a large amount of families (women/children) moving for permanent resettlement; and our policies are not adequate to deal with this reality.

That being said, given the logistics involved, I doubt any policy other than completely open borders would meet your ethical standards. Which is fine. But it probably isn't going to happen, so you are probably going to be disappointed when the smoke clears no matter what.

Inside a Texas Building Where the Government Is Holding Immigrant Children

I don't think this is true. Or at least I don't find it hard to imagine a set of policies that would limit the freedom of asylum seekers in various ways, and even deport many/most of them, without keeping them in the conditions described in the articles I linked. I don't think it's necessary to cast this as a choice between the status quo and open borders. I think it is necessary to say that some of what is happening now should be unacceptable to everyone.

I imagine this would help a ton with the problems in northern Mexico but how much it would do anything with El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras idk.

Ironically, if trump is elected in 2020 I think the humanitarian conditions at the border will improve more, because the media will keep the spotlight on for political reasons, and this will spur major reforms.

If the dem candidate wins, I can see there being some marginal improvement and then the media moving on and things on the humanitarian front not moving as far.

Please post the number of people who weekly (or monthly) present themselves to the boarder for asylum or immigration currently.

Please describe in detail what would be the required housing/detention conditions for these people. Please describe whether these facilities exist currently or if they will need to be built (and if so, how long will it take to build, and where).

Please describe in detail how much you think it will cost given the # of people posted above.

If detention is not an option, explain in detail your plan for housing and supporting (e.g. feeding) these people. Have you signed up personally to sponsor an asylum seeker? Should other Americans do so? What should happen to asylum seekers if the break other laws (other than illegally crossing the border)?

Please explain why asylum seekers shouldn't seek asylum in Mexico. Is Mexico not a suitable destination, and if so please describe exactly why.

Given the current US immigration waiting lists, how should new immigrants presenting themselves to the boarder today be treated compared to people who are already on the lists, some who have been on the waiting list for many years?

Should immigrants from Mexico have priority over immigrants from India just because they are physically closer to the USA?

How many federal immigration judges are there currently? How many should we have on an immediate basis?

Man I dont know any of these figures. Better keep the concentration camps then.

Tell me the cost and I might write a check.

I'm guessing far far far less than the cost of trumps tax giveaway to billionaires. In fact probably the same or slightly more money than is being spent now. Just spend it on housing and like blankets instead of cages and zyklon B.

Love the Chris Farley style sarcasm.

What are we going to do, “estimate costs” and “provide funding”?

Doesn’t work, too many people believe the regular media is entirely fake (instead of just ****ty) while still being so incredibly gullible that they’ll believe any story random Youtubers concoct from their basements.

We should probably not throw innocent people into camps and deny them basic sanitation, imho.

This is every litigator's nightmare: Stating a position that is absurd beyond belief because you have to.

any people

The fact they are innocent is not the inportant issue here. Nor should we allow any idea that it's ok to treat them this way if you think they aren't innocent.

These guys appear to have bit so hard on the "it's an Obama policy" thing that they don't realize that we could just... let them out. What's the issue there? Just not detain them at all, seeking asylum isn't a crime, just let them out, give them a court date to come back to.

You can't have voted for Daddy because he was gonna get tough on the border if as soon as you see what getting tough looks like you immediately fall apart. This is what you voted for. This is what you wanted. This is who you are.

safe third country agreements really get me jazzed up too

Very much this. That is all the reasoning you need.

The solution might be complicated and the political reality might be stupid, but you don't start there. We start with a basic principle of ethics and rights.

Now some might argue that we can't afford ethics and rights. Well, then you can't afford a functional society, only a pale imitation of one.

If only the Lapidators of the world got this indignant over bombing brown people rather than showing them some basic decency.

No she absolutely supports it

Ok... Let's start with two questions:

What are the current immigration waiting lists for people from Mexico and India?

Should immigrants from Mexico have an edge over immigrants from India simply because they can walk across the border?

Why does any of that matter? The people are here, they need help, and what we do with them will define us as a people and as a nation.