Only in America

[laklak]

Word.

[Forty Two]

It's not a matter of "pushback" (I wouldn't expect to get any now, anyway) - but why don't you rant on and on about it, and create threads about all the Nazi things going on in Australia? It's your country. Instead, it's a neverending stream of Trump threads. Look at Animavore? Doesn't he live in France? Aren't they Nazis, too? Or, are their policies not particularly Nazi?

France just put forth a proposed new law a few months ago to criminalize illegal border crossings. The new bill would put jail time and a large fine for illegal border crossing. What would happen to the children of illegal border crossers upon conviction? Would they be jailed with their parents, or "separated?" https://www.dw.com/en/france-presents-n ... a-42678578 part of the law would jail people for up to 5 years for fake IDs.

Look at the article. It mentions negative opinions of the law -- the "migrant rights" people said it's "too repressive." Tears? Nazi? Auschwitz? Birkenau? Human tragedy? No. It's presented rationally and carefully - lay out what the law does, and what is proposed.

It's hard to find data on how many children are detained in Europe, and practices differ widely, and often the actual practice is different than what the law says should happen. http://website-pace.net/web/apce/children-in-detention There apparently is a need for Europe to end the practice of detention of children. But, the data as to what is happening is scant http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... Europe.pdf

A big question I have is, if a group of people come to a European country and they cross illegally (not appear properly at a port of entry, but actually sneak across the border) what happens to the adults and children? Do they get detained? If not, do they get released into the European country? If not, are they immediately deported? If they have an asylum claim, how quickly is that determined and what happens to the kids in the meantime? Are they "detained" during that time? If not, what happens to them during that time?

[Rum]

In the Uk they are housed in secure centres. Families are not separated. They are ‘processed’ I.e. checked out to see if they have any sort of legal claim to be here, including for asylum purposes and if not they are deported back to their country of origin.

A few kids come in unacompanied and there are a couple of specialist units for them. Not sure quite what happens to them if there is no obvious person to return them to.

[Svartalf]

There is no need for 92 year olds to be armed in the rest of Western workd.

well, her son was trying to send her to a death house, it was legitimate defense.

[pErvinalia]

The question is not about what Australia does, or what the UK is doing. It's about American policy, and claiming that non-Americans forfeit their rights to assess, judge, and criticise because their own governments are less than perfect is a red-herring, and a way of shifting the focus and the burden of justification onto others.

Both are legitimate questions. I could just as easily say that we should be talking about what Australia and the UK do, and that it's not relevant what the US does. Why not? Why is what the US does the default discussion? Can't we discuss both?

This is a thread about America.

You are free to start a thread about Australia's inhumane immigration policies. You'll find the aussies here joining you in condemning it. What you won't see, though, is us doing the "what about..." dance that you do constantly.

But even if we don't mention any other countries in discussing immigration policies of country X, we can still discuss multiple countries' immigration policies separately, can't we? How long, though, do you think conversations about Ozzie immigration practices go on without mentioning what policies are used in other countries?

You really don't get how unlike you the rest of us are. We don't get personally offended if someone criticises our country. That's because we all think patriotism is irrational. I think your constant offence on behalf of your country is just further proof that you are a conservative.

And comparing countries is useful in discussions, and it's not just about moral high ground. It's about perspective. Like, if someone from North Korea started saying that the application process to get into Australia is inhumane and overly restrictive. Wouldn't the first thing an Australian would do would be to point out that hardly anyone can get into North Korea and when they do they are minded 24-7 and it's illegal to travel outside hotels unaccompanied?

Umm no. Seriously. It's utterly irrelevant to whether the application to get into Australia is inhumane and overly restrictive. The only time you'd expect anyone to do a tu quoque by proxy like that is if that person didn't think that Australia's immigration policy was inhumane. But we all think it's inhumane. Do you think that Trump's approach is inhumane or not?

I mean, North Korea's policies don't render Australia's policies perfect just because North Korea's policies are awful, but wouldn't that be at least tangentially relevant to the overal discussion?

It could be relevant, as long as it isn't used as a means of a red herring. You use it as a means of red herring in these discussions.

[pErvinalia]

Look at the difference in rhetoric. Was Australia fascist?

Trump is accused of being fascist like for the totality of his governance, not just the immigration policy. You know this. Stop being disingenuous.

But, fair enough - there were a few mentions of the Oz situation a long time ago. Why isn't there an ongoing discussion here, about the inhumanity and human rights abuse still going on?

Because no on supports it or the politicians who enact it. UNLIKE YOU WITH TRUMP.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a matter of "pushback" (I wouldn't expect to get any now, anyway) - but why don't you rant on and on about it, and create threads about all the Nazi things going on in Australia? It's your country. Instead, it's a neverending stream of Trump threads. Look at Animavore? Doesn't he live in France? Aren't they Nazis, too? Or, are their policies not particularly Nazi?

Oh you poor snowflake! Jesus Christ, can't you see how irrational it is getting offended on behalf of a nation state?? The US is very worthy of criticism, not least because of it's predominance of world politics and policy. It also doesn't help that the US government of both stripes are mass hypocrites with their "exporting democracy" and "freedom" rhetorical crap.

[Brian Peacock]

The question is not about what Australia does, or what the UK is doing. It's about American policy, and claiming that non-Americans forfeit their rights to assess, judge, and criticise because their own governments are less than perfect is a red-herring, and a way of shifting the focus and the burden of justification onto others.

Both are legitimate questions. I could just as easily say that we should be talking about what Australia and the UK do, and that it's not relevant what the US does. Why not? Why is what the US does the default discussion? Can't we discuss both?

It seems to me that you're now playing the role of a kind of victim: somebody who is being hard done to; prevented from saying IMPORTANT THINGS by people who just don't want to hear them. However, i feel it also has to be acknowledged (by you, as it has already been by others) that insisting we should be free to talk about fruit cake in a discussion focused on car mechanics is, as mentioned, unhelpful - no matter how interesting those subjects may be. Feel free to start a thread on immigration in genersl and we might all chip in - but if the focus of your contributions to such a thread were to defend the current US policy then you might as well do that here, and in that you could, I think, achieve more by dropping the Yeahbutisms and simply forwarding the best arguments you can muster in favour of the current administration's policies, and their implementation theteof.

...

(C)omparing countries is useful in discussions, and it's not just about moral high ground. It's about perspective.

Hmm.

...

Somehow, the entire system has to be fixed. And, I don't think many countries have moral standing to point fingers.

Again, the virtues and operating principles of the current US administration's policies do not rest, stand, or fall, on the basis of who you consider morally entitled to judge them. If your intention is to defend those policies then forward your reasons, rather doling out bland sermons on how others are in no position to judge.

[laklak]

Florida Man pulled over for drunk driving, claims he wasn't driving, his dog was. Problem is, there was no dog in the car. He asked for a ride home.

https://www.local10.com/news/florida/fl ... ar-not-him

[Hermit]

Florida Man pulled over for drunk driving, claims he wasn't driving, his dog was. Problem is, there was no dog in the car. He asked for a ride home.

https://www.local10.com/news/florida/fl ... ar-not-him

Maybe the drunk is dyslexic.

[Hermit]

If you discover that you've just comprehensively shot yourself in the foot, like so:

I notice very little commentary about cruel and callous immigration policies imposed by other countries. In fact, when they're brought up, they tend to be ignored, or the discussion is diverted to suggest that it's the US issues that are under discussion, and not the other countries' issues, even on threads that relate to those other countries.

, all of which has been shown to be utterly wrong, you can be relied on to move the goal posts, like so:

It's not a matter of "pushback" (I wouldn't expect to get any now, anyway) - but why don't you rant on and on about it, and create threads about all the Nazi things going on in Australia?

If Rumpole of the Bailey were real, alive and aware who is appropriating a likeness of him as his avatar and how he is arguing, he'd sick Hilda on you until you are a whimpering, bloodied blob of organic matter. I know you fancy yourself as a dab hand of a barrister, and on quite a few occasions in the past you made a reasonably good impression of one, but much of the skill you had has atrophied at a rapid rate since you abandoned your Coito ergo sum account and started posting as Forty Two. This is why I have taken to referring to you as Faulty Too lately.

[pErvinalia]

I recently watched a true crime doco on Netflix called The Staircase, and they covered a lot of the court case (murder trial). I was horrified to see that real lawyers actually perform the way bad TV lawyers do. All confected drama and sad attempts at gotcha moments. Basically reason was out the window, and empty rhetoric was in (not a total surprise given that most juries are probably thick as shit). A lot like our resident lawyer, whose posts sorely lack in reason but are full of rhetorical flourishes to try and paint a narrative in his quest to be - Never WrongTM.

[Tero]

Absolutely. It's all about the jury and the lawyer. Patent cases almost never go to court as the jury does not understand shit about patents, so they decide based on which lawyer has the nicer tie and shirt.

[Rum]

I'm sorry about this. You guys get enough stick...but this...

Clearing out old stuff prior to moving I came across some vintage model plane petrol motors from the 1960s that were my dad's. Put them up for sale and a buyer from New Jersey got in touch. After exchanging a few messages he asked if he could see then on Skype or KIK. A bit odd but why not.

We arranged to connect and he asked me what the time difference between New Jersey and the UK is. Five hours I replied.

'Forward or behind?' he asked.

You guys need to fix your edjukation!

Actually I should add that I asked him if he was kidding. 'I don't travel much' was his response.

[JimC]

Actually, I find time zones (the "forward or backward" thing) very confusing...