US pulls out of UNHRC

I was fairly jaw-dropped when I did the 'windshield tour' of Fort Bragg with my then 1 star, shortly before 9-11. Never seen so many vanilla C-130's in one place.

The point made by the base commander that they could accommodate and airlift the entire Airborne Division within 24 hours was staggering. No, we don't have that kind of capability.

But arguably, we don't need it.

The fact that the British Army has been hollowed out by successive arrseholes in HMG is now well-established.

But any nation which disposes of four SSBN's is hardly ' disarmed'

But you do, because you now have to be able to deploy to Poland in Cold War Part Deuce. Then have some sort of contingency force for another potential flare up in parts unknown. Nukes are the last ditch effort, which only assures mutual destruction.
 
My present wife, not normally one for being well up on current affairs said to me this morning "If these people were not trying to get into the US illegally their children would not be taken from them would they"?
I cannot fault her logic.
 
My present wife, not normally one for being well up on current affairs said to me this morning "If these people were not trying to get into the US illegally their children would not be taken from them would they"?
I cannot fault her logic.
Please stop with the common sense line of logic. The world seems to think the United States is not allowed have borders where we can deny entry to folks we don’t want.

The illegals pay their money and take their chances, nobody feels sorry for them when they get caught.
 
not solely a child detention centre unlike the present crop such as the converted Walmart in Brownsville, Texas.
Just to keep this simple, do you think the converted Walmart in Brownsville opened this year and do you think it is the first facility in Brownsville for unaccompanied children?
 
No goalposts moved by anyone - you were clearly talking about something nobody else was, not just me. The shelters simply aren't detention facilities as no-one's detained.

... and the one I used as an example earlier was the family center at Berks County, Pennsylvania, not solely a child detention centre unlike the present crop such as the converted Walmart in Brownsville, Texas.

No, I got it from reading the links here including those posted by others, such as @LEGZ30 (sorry, Legz!), all of which say the same thing.

If you can name any child detention centre now open that was open previously then feel free to do so, with a link, otherwise it's becoming very clear just who's making things up here.

(edit: those links could all be wrong and it could all be 'fake news', of course)

Casa San Diego - Wikipedia

I have driven past this place for the last ten years or so, I dont know how old it is..but it predates the administration by several years.
 
Casa San Diego - Wikipedia

I have driven past this place for the last ten years or so, I dont know how old it is..but it predates the administration by several years.
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else reads the links they post, or if they just assume that no-one else reads them either.

From your link:

The facility of Casa San Diego is run by Southwest Key Programs and located in El Cajon, California ....
.... Minors held at the facility remain there for an average 45 days while they wait for the Department of Health and Human Services to place them into foster custody, with family members or to be deported to their home country.


If that doesn't make it clear exactly what the facility is, click on 'Southwest Key Programs' and you get:

Southwest Key Programs is a Texas-based nonprofit organization that operates unaccompanied minor shelters for immigrant youth, youth justice alternative programming and educational programming as well as providing community enrichment programming such as cultural arts programming, health, wellness and nutrition programming and social enterprises.

Do I really need to say that it's a 'shelter', run by a non-profit NGO for the HHS, for unaccompanied children, not a child detention centre run by the ORR, since that's what your link says and explains very clearly?
 
Last edited:
Just to keep this simple, do you think the converted Walmart in Brownsville opened this year and do you think it is the first facility in Brownsville for unaccompanied children?
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain this any more clearly or see much point in continuing to repeat it.

The controversy isn't about "unaccompanied children" (my bold, as you seem unable to see the "un"). You can't separate unaccompanied children from their parents as their parents aren't there to be separated from.

The controversy is about accompanied children being separated from their parents and then kept in detention centres.

No-one, least of all me, has any complaints about how the HHS takes care of unaccompanied children who have already separated themselves from their parents so it's of absolutely no interest or relevance here (at least to me, although @SOCALSapper seems equally concerned about it).
 
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain this any more clearly or see much point in continuing to repeat it.

The controversy isn't about "unaccompanied children" (my bold, as you seem unable to see the "un"). You can't separate unaccompanied children from their parents as their parents aren't there to be separated from.

The controversy is about accompanied children being separated from their parents and then kept in detention centres.

No-one, least of all me, has any complaints about how the HHS takes care of unaccompanied children who have already separated themselves from their parents so it's of absolutely no interest or relevance here (at least to me, although @SOCALSapper seems equally concerned about it).
I will make it even simpler. Do you think the facility YOU referred to in Brownsville opened this year, as you previously stated?
 
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain this any more clearly or see much point in continuing to repeat it.

The controversy isn't about "unaccompanied children" (my bold, as you seem unable to see the "un"). You can't separate unaccompanied children from their parents as their parents aren't there to be separated from.

The controversy is about accompanied children being separated from their parents and then kept in detention centres.

No-one, least of all me, has any complaints about how the HHS takes care of unaccompanied children who have already separated themselves from their parents so it's of absolutely no interest or relevance here (at least to me, although @SOCALSapper seems equally concerned about it).
And to keep this bit separate; the facilities that under 18's who cross the border on their own, and the ones that cross with family and then get removed from them are the same facilities, so even your attempt at diversion is incorrect.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone else reads the links they post, or if they just assume that no-one else reads them either.

From your link:

The facility of Casa San Diego is run by Southwest Key Programs and located in El Cajon, California ....
.... Minors held at the facility remain there for an average 45 days while they wait for the Department of Health and Human Services to place them into foster custody, with family members or to be deported to their home country.


If that doesn't make it clear exactly what the facility is, click on 'Southwest Key Programs' and you get:

Southwest Key Programs is a Texas-based nonprofit organization that operates unaccompanied minor shelters for immigrant youth, youth justice alternative programming and educational programming as well as providing community enrichment programming such as cultural arts programming, health, wellness and nutrition programming and social enterprises.

Do I really need to say that it's a 'shelter', run by a non-profit NGO for the HHS, not a child detention centre run by the ORR, since that's what your link says and explains very clearly?
Its a detention center run by a private company as the law insists that anyone looking after these kids is licensed.

Its fences/security guards/cameras. You can call it a shelter - that doesnt change the fact htat the kids are detained there and have for years. If you read the link Currently, around 10 percent of children housed in Casa San Diego were separated from their parents on entry at the border.

You are trying to confuse the issue and failing. How many times have you been to the U.S/Mexico border?
 
I will make it even simpler. Do you think the facility YOU referred to in Brownsville opened this year, as you previously stated?
And to keep this bit separate; the facilities that under 18's who cross the border on their own, and the ones that cross with family and then get removed from them are the same facilities, so even your attempt at diversion is incorrect.
Its a detention center run by a private company as the law insists that anyone looking after these kids is licensed.

Its fences/security guards/cameras. You can call it a shelter - that doesnt change the fact htat the kids are detained there and have for years. If you read the link Currently, around 10 percent of children housed in Casa San Diego were separated from their parents on entry at the border.
The two of you really don't get it.

However much you try to muddy the waters, none of these facilities were used to detain accompanied children until a few months ago. None. N-O-N-E. Its a change of use and, crucially for those on the outrage bus, a major change in the age of the children detained.

I'm not even stating an opinion here, just establishing what even by your own links are simple facts. You don't like those facts? Tough.

... and @SOCALSapper, I'm not the one calling it a 'shelter' - they are, in your link which I quoted above which you still don't appear to have read ... and since you say they're "doing what the law insists", your calling it a "detention centre" is clearly and categorically incorrect since as they "remain there for an average 45 days" that means it can't be a 'detention centre' as the law insists minors can only be detained for a maximum of 20 days. You can't have it both ways, however much you may like to.
You are trying to confuse the issue and failing.
Well, that's your opinion. The issue, to me, is that contrary to what was claimed this hasn't been going on since 1997 but only for a few months. I'd suggest that you, Legz, et al are the ones trying to confuse that and failing rather dismally.
How many times have you been to the U.S/Mexico border?
Not sure why that should change the facts. FWIW, never to the border only to the area and that was thirty years ago, and the last time I was at any European border was nearly 20 years ago. I was at the Thai / Laos border a couple of days ago and go there occasionally if that helps. I haven't been to the Killing Fields that many times or for a few decades either, but that doesn't change the facts or my take on them, so what's your point?
 
The two of you really don't get it.

However much you try to muddy the waters, none of these facilities were used to detain accompanied children until a few months ago. None. N-O-N-E. Its a change of use and, crucially for those on the outrage bus, a major change in the age of the children detained.

I'm not even stating an opinion here, just establishing what even by your own links are simple facts. You don't like those facts? Tough.

... and @SOCALSapper, I'm not the one calling it a 'shelter' - they are, in your link which I quoted above which you still don't appear to have read ... and since you say they're "doing what the law insists", your calling it a "detention centre" is clearly and categorically incorrect since as they "remain there for an average 45 days" that means it can't be a 'detention centre' as the law insists minors can only be detained for a maximum of 20 days. You can't have it both ways, however much you may like to.
Well, that's your opinion. The issue, to me, is that contrary to what was claimed this hasn't been going on since 1997 but only for a few months. I'd suggest that you, Legz, et al are the ones trying to confuse that and failing rather dismally. Not sure why that should change the facts. FWIW, never to the border only to the area and that was thirty years ago, and the last time I was at any European border was nearly 20 years ago. I was at the Thai / Laos border a couple of days ago and go there occasionally if that helps. I haven't been to the Killing Fields that many times or for a few decades either, but that doesn't change the facts or my take on them, so what's your point?
I live here within two hours of the border - You live on the other side of the world and have no first hand experience. You rely on vague terms you googled. One Buddy is a Border patrol agent and another is in an AZ militia.

Accompanied children, under certain circumstances have been separated for several years. It may have been less during parts of Obamas term, as he let them go essentially.

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review
 
The two of you really don't get it.

However much you try to muddy the waters, none of these facilities were used to detain accompanied children until a few months ago. None. N-O-N-E. Its a change of use and, crucially for those on the outrage bus, a major change in the age of the children detained.

I'm not even stating an opinion here, just establishing what even by your own links are simple facts. You don't like those facts? Tough.

... and @SOCALSapper, I'm not the one calling it a 'shelter' - they are, in your link which I quoted above which you still don't appear to have read ... and since you say they're "doing what the law insists", your calling it a "detention centre" is clearly and categorically incorrect since as they "remain there for an average 45 days" that means it can't be a 'detention centre' as the law insists minors can only be detained for a maximum of 20 days. You can't have it both ways, however much you may like to.
Well, that's your opinion. The issue, to me, is that contrary to what was claimed this hasn't been going on since 1997 but only for a few months. I'd suggest that you, Legz, et al are the ones trying to confuse that and failing rather dismally. Not sure why that should change the facts. FWIW, never to the border only to the area and that was thirty years ago, and the last time I was at any European border was nearly 20 years ago. I was at the Thai / Laos border a couple of days ago and go there occasionally if that helps. I haven't been to the Killing Fields that many times or for a few decades either, but that doesn't change the facts or my take on them, so what's your point?
You are clearly not going to answer the question that has been put to you three times, probably because you have now googled it and realised that you were talking mince earlier when you claimed these places have only been opened this year.

The facility in the former Walmart in Brownsville was announced in January 2017 and opened in March 2017. It is the fourth such facility in Brownsville alone.

Closed Wal-Mart in Brownsville to Reopen as Shelter for Unaccompanied Minors

The rest of the waffle about accompanied vs unaccompanied is just waffle. Yes, there have been significantly more children separated from their families since the change in policy but there have been separations going on for years.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defau..._unaccompanied_alien_childrens_services_0.pdf

Most of the rest of what you wrote is also wrong but I am done dancing in circles with you for tonight, life is too short.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
I live here within two hours of the border - You live on the other side of the world and have no first hand experience. You rely on vague terms you googled. One Buddy is a Border patrol agent and another is in an AZ militia.

Accompanied children, under certain circumstances have been separated for several years. It may have been less during parts of Obamas term, as he let them go essentially.

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review
Some people don't believe in conspiracies, but its curious the whole border story blew up, shortly after Trump was able to garner some positive publicity outside of the US, following the Korean thing.... Despite, the story been in existence for years. ODD That.

Similarly, the migrant flows if they were based on events, then, there should be peaks and troughs. But, in the past 10-15 years, there has been a steady increase. ODD That.
 
You are clearly not going to answer the question that has been put to you three times, probably because you have now googled it and realised that you were talking mince earlier when you claimed these places have only been opened this year.

The facility in the former Walmart in Brownsville was announced in January 2017 and opened in March 2017. It is the fourth such facility in Brownsville alone.

Closed Wal-Mart in Brownsville to Reopen as Shelter for Unaccompanied Minors

The rest of the waffle about accompanied vs unaccompanied is just waffle. Yes, there have been significantly more children separated from their families since the change in policy but there have been separations going on for years.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defau..._unaccompanied_alien_childrens_services_0.pdf

Most of the rest of what you wrote is also wrong but I am done dancing in circles with you for tonight, life is too short.
I've answered it for you three times - you just don't happen to like the answer, which for the third (possibly fourth or fifth) time is that this year is the first time it's been used to detain children separated from their parents because their parents crossed the border illegally.

That you have to pretend it's otherwise is rather sad, but no more than your pretence that separating children from their parents has ever happened before as routine or as deliberate policy. It hasn't, and pretending it has and only the degree has changed is not only an outright lie but pathetically weak - if you think it's acceptable at least have the guts to say so.
I live here within two hours of the border - You live on the other side of the world and have no first hand experience. You rely on vague terms you googled. One Buddy is a Border patrol agent and another is in an AZ militia.

Accompanied children, under certain circumstances have been separated for several years. It may have been less during parts of Obamas term, as he let them go essentially.

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review
As above - blurring the truth and coming out with "it may have been less" to try to excuse it is simply gutless.

I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)
 
Last edited:
Some people don't believe in conspiracies, but its curious the whole border story blew up, shortly after Trump was able to garner some positive publicity outside of the US, following the Korean thing.... Despite, the story been in existence for years. ODD That.
Except it hasn't been in existence for years ... just since the policy started in April.
Similarly, the migrant flows if they were based on events, then, there should be peaks and troughs. But, in the past 10-15 years, there has been a steady increase. ODD That.
Except the increase hasn't been "steady" at all and there have been peaks and troughs that even a child could relate directly to events.
 
[QUOTE="John G, post: 8635027, member: 88044"
I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)[/QUOTE]

You do realize their parents are also wrong for willingly trying to enter a country (mine) illegally. You also realize that parents have a responsibility to not use their children as pawns when they are committing said crime.... If the world is so concerned about this situation then Mexico should be held just as accountable for this dilemma. it is their country that allows these people to be trafficked to the United States. Oh wait sorry they want to dump their social and finical problems on the United States while reaping the reward from their own citizens who use the US as their cash cow.

Perhaps we can get a UN force on the Mexican side of the border to patrol and help stop this humanitarian crisis..... Granted I would not cross into Texas wearing a blue helmet, as it might attract some unwanted attention...
 
I've answered it for you three times - you just don't happen to like the answer, which for the third (possibly fourth or fifth) time is that this year is the first time it's been used to detain children separated from their parents because their parents crossed the border illegally.

That you have to pretend it's otherwise is rather sad, but no more than your pretence that separating children from their parents has ever happened before as routine or as deliberate policy. It hasn't, and pretending it has and only the degree has changed is not only an outright lie but pathetically weak - if you think it's acceptable at least have the guts to say so. As above - blurring the truth and coming out with "it may have been less" to try to excuse it is simply gutless.

I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)
Punishing little children? They are there days, until a relative can be found or they go into a temporary foster system. The parents broke the law - they are arrested. If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest. Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico.

Its not hard. Kids aren't punished. Follow the laws.
 
My present wife, not normally one for being well up on current affairs said to me this morning "If these people were not trying to get into the US illegally their children would not be taken from them would they"?
I cannot fault her logic.
I bet @Bravo_Bravo & @Baboon186 could fault it if it meant they could crowbar in a reference to how bad Trump is.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top