This is more specific than the general conditions but how about the literal torture that thousands of people face in these camps:

https://www.icij.org/investigations/...y-confinement/

For people in solitary in these camps getting to be in a cage can be the highlight of their day, as it means they get to see natural light.

so why then did you make that argument? were you just asking questions? totes curious about hypotheticals imagining what you think immigrants were capable of getting housing on their own?

Is there any other way these people could be held in buildings of this size? Seems like the sheer numbers are necessitating these measures and no I wouldn't call it a cage. Literally if they wanted they could climb out but obviously using that definition which I note is associated with animals and not humans is meant to be self-containing (that is it doesn't require anything else to contain the animal unlike here where obviously guards would patrol to ensure that no-one doesn't jump the fence).

hey guys, it's cool. let's pack it up and go home. they could climb out if they wanted in front of those armed guards.. can't be that bad.

ok you convinced me. thats a really nice place to stay and they all truly deserve it. nice argument, you win.

Such as doctors, say a pediatrician? Or a Border Patrol agent? I’ve read numerous reports though I don’t have any on hand to distribute ATM. The situation goes back for a while, so it’s no secret or hard to find mystery. Oh yeah, There are also reports that the regime actively works to disrupt observers. You’ll have to decide if they qualify as independent yourself though. I’d could only guess what may qualify as independent in your view.

I honestly stopped reading after this. Poverty has not changed much over 50 years. You can not reasonably say: "they just would not let us do it"., when you've had both liberal congresses and POTUS's. Add to the fact lifeline, which was signed into law by Reagan. Further, say what you will about Nixon and the drug war, he appears to be the first POTUS to ever sign meaningful legislation that directed federal funds to drug treatment. You can pretend it's all the right's fault, and they get a lot of blame from me, but your argument is empirically false.

Again. They are spend $750 per person per day. So yeah there are other ways. They could for example be put up in the 4 seasons with a full mini bar comp and it'd be far cheaper.

I did not make that argument. I essentially said they were ****ed either way, and that we can't take care of them, so we should deport them. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that.

Ahh yeah, they're ****ed either way so we should just send them back to the situation that they left because it was worse than moving to the US. You seem to be implying that deporting them is doing them a favour, which is clearly ridiculous.

Don't try to pass off your denial of human rights as compassion.

No, I'm not saying it's doing them a favor. I'm always surprised by the constant stream of uncharitable characterizations, and accusations of having ulterior motives. We can't help them, as we can't even help our own citizens who are in poverty. Do you really think attributing an incorrect and sinister motive to your political opposition is doing you any favors?

Let's not pretend you arent like me. You are not going to risk your families financial security to house a random homeless person. The country simply cant afford to take care of them. While you may disagree, and there is debate there, but I firmly feel increasing the amount of poor people in our country, in conjunction with a left that is becoming more socialist by the minute, we are jeopardizing our countries financial security.

I'm not unempathetic to the immigrants plight, every single one of us takes care of family number one first, and would not jeopardize our families financial security for some random person.

So up to there you agree your previous post was full of epic fail. Well that's progress anyways.

But just to be clear, if we look at the standard social programs list of stuff like food stamps, school lunches, welfare, medicaid, social security, and medicare, which of them do the current right wing support?

Also poverty HAS changed a lot over the last 50 years. The problem is that as long as it exists at all the right wing considers all social programs designed to combat it a failure.

Living in the US is not a human right.

And how many extra people will that attract to do the same? And what will be the bill at the end of the day?

You clearly should have read the rest of my post then. Because you're about as wrong as possible.

Generally speaking, I skim through a long post and pick out what I find to be the clearly egregious parts, much like everyone else.

What? Are you making this up as you go?

since you're concerned with human rights, freedom from unlawful imprisonment is a human right, so im glad we agree that the asylum seekers should be released IMMEDIATELY into the united states to await their legal court date.

You've presented disingenuous arguments and are grossly ill informed about what I've actually posted, I would not agree with you on anything.

You also wouldn’t agree with the UN.

just pointing out your arguments back to you bud. sorry that you don't like them when you have to defend them.

I love how you created a straw man, was told you created a straw man, then moved the goal post...and now are spiking the football, and is still falsely characterizing me.

I wasn't deliberately attributing a sinister motive, I just don't see any reason for bringing that stuff up in the first place if it wasn't to justify deporting them. Seriously, why did you bring it up in the first place if that isn't the reason?

Your fear of "socialism" is somewhat comical though. The political climate in the US is so far to the right of the rest of the developed world that policies that are deemed centre-right elsewhere are considered far-left in the US. Take UHC for example, in most places a solution that guaranteed health insurance for all but was administered by private companies with minimal influence from the government would be considered centre-right, but in the US that's considered somewhere between left and far-left. Centre-left in the rest of the world would be having the universal coverage run by the government and a truly far-left solution would involve banning any sort of private healthcare insurance and having the government own all business involved in the provision of health care. I don't think I've ever heard anyone on the US "far-left" advocate for anything even close to that.

The "socialism" boogeyman is driven by a right-wing narrative that immediately calls any form of government aid a socialist policy. The rest of the world has many, many policies that are frequently called "socialist" by the US right wing and I don't see them all running into dire financial circumstances.

Yet another manipulated understanding. I would not agree with the person on anything.

What reason did I give? To point out they were ****ed either way. Why are you asking me the same question? It's like you are given an answer, ignore it and go right back to forcing me to defend a straw man you created in your own head.