Kids at the border

This is the 13th Amendment of the Constitution

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
It was passed in 1789, ending slavery, but setting up a system where one group of people, the ones who already owned everything and were in every level of government could force another group of people to work simply by declaring anyone in the other group had done something criminal. It assumes that all parties will act justly and have the same idea of what crime is. What happened is, the group that had been enslaving the others just kept doing what they always did, because they thought slavery was fine anyway, they thought they knew better than those former slave and their descendants and they needed to "take care of them".

This system has continued to evolve to avoid whatever legal action, moral outrage, culture changes and anything else has happened. It why Derek Chauvin is currently trial instead of in a mental institution.

And here’s the one for you @thatoneguy; this system depends on you being unaware of it and considering things like forcing people to work. Who exactly is going to be in charge of this forced worked system? Is Jeff Bezos’ kid going to go to that? Was your post a day late and you’re just joking?

(As far as I know slave labor is illegal, but prison labor is not).

Minimum wage, as it stands, is basically legalized slave labour, despite the 13th Amendment. It barely pays for a set of seasonal clothing, a little food (mostly junk due to prices) and doesn’t pay for medical or housing. People use to be paid minimum wage and were able to pay for clothing, rent, and food. Medical might have been another issue, but they could pay for some of their basic needs and still have a bit left over to see a movie or something, but now days, minimum is nothing but legalized slavery, just like days of slavery, where on was lucky to have one set of winter clothing and one set of summer clothing, a pair of shoes that lasted a year (kids often when barefooted in the summer and almost naked), a vet for a doctor, and a one room shack for shelter. Food was scraps the owner didn’t want or whatever he decided to give them, if anything. Minimum wage now days isn’t much better. Parents have to get clothing from a secondhand store to keep their kids in clothing, as for rental assistance, medicaid for their kids (parents get nothing), and food stamps to survive and that doesn’t always afford a family nutritious foods. Sounds like slavery to me.

@thatoneguy you just proposed a worse system than minimum and @lausten just told you the same thing I did, without elaborating as much as I just did.

Maybe. If it were up to me all Americans between the ages of say 18 to 50 would have to work. Anyone who refuses would end up in something like a labor camp.
If unemployment is illegal, then companies shouldn't be able to fire workers.

Wouldn’t that make for a wonderfully efficient workforce. … Then the GOPers will legalize corporal punishment at the workplace.

 

Speaking of prisons and labor camps, I found an interesting article (dated 2017, but still gives some insight):

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/

 

Rather than “Forced to work from 18-50”, I could see some kind of “Service Obligation” for 18-24 yo. Whether it be military or other services to the country or society. Something that helps prepare them better than sitting in an auditorium listening to a lecture for 4 years.

But that would take a whole societal mindset change rather than a few laws passed in congress. (and of course there would have to be a multitude of exceptions)

 

If unemployment is illegal, then companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers.
Workers could still be fired, they just couldn't stay unemployed.
Wouldn’t that make for a wonderfully efficient workforce. … Then the GOPers will legalize corporal punishment at the workplace.

 

Speaking of prisons and labor camps, I found an interesting article (dated 2017, but still gives some insight):

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/


I don’t care how little inmates are paid. They’re being punished and they have no bills to pay.

 

Rather than “Forced to work from 18-50”, I could see some kind of “Service Obligation” for 18-24 yo. Whether it be military or other services to the country or society. Something that helps prepare them better than sitting in an auditorium listening to a lecture for 4 years.


Why stop at 24?

But that would take a whole societal mindset change rather than a few laws passed in congress. (and of course there would have to be a multitude of exceptions)
Maybe. I think it would be much easier to accomplish than getting out of the middle east, for example.
 
It was passed in 1789, ending slavery, but setting up a system where one group of people, the ones who already owned everything and were in every level of government could force another group of people to work simply by declaring anyone in the other group had done something criminal. It assumes that all parties will act justly and have the same idea of what crime is. What happened is, the group that had been enslaving the others just kept doing what they always did, because they thought slavery was fine anyway, they thought they knew better than those former slave and their descendants and they needed to “take care of them”.

This system has continued to evolve to avoid whatever legal action, moral outrage, culture changes and anything else has happened. It why Derek Chauvin is currently trial instead of in a mental institution.


I guess endless hairsplitting is the only way to true justice.

And here’s the one for you @thatoneguy; this system depends on you being unaware of it and considering things like forcing people to work. Who exactly is going to be in charge of this forced worked system? Is Jeff Bezos’ kid going to go to that? Was your post a day late and you’re just joking?
Like I said earlier, I would be in charge. Ultimately it's necessary because there are too many young weaklings with your mentality in this country and too many limp-dick boomer liberals in control who are willing to accommodate you.
Workers could still be fired, they just couldn’t stay unemployed.
So then companies would be obligated to hire anyone that applies?

How can you make it illegal to be unemployed if there are no guaranteed employment opportunities?

Ultimately it’s necessary because there are too many young weaklings with your mentality in this country and too many limp-dick boomer liberals in control who are willing to accommodate you.
Or maybe it's necessary because there are too many "Me First, Eff'em if they can't keep up" types of mentality out there that is willing to kill anything that gets in their way.

including the environment, healthcare, human rights, dignity, freedom, democracy …

 

Video of child refugees in Texas.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1377789099357175808

That’ll be enough of that oneguy

Ultimately it’s necessary because there are too many young weaklings with your mentality --oneguy
I don't think you appreciate how much harder life would be if someone like you was in charge. I doubt you would survive. The rest of us would fight the revolution. Oh wait, we did that 250 years ago.
Video of child refugees in Texas. -- citizen
The big difference from China is the length of stay, not mention we are "re-educating" them. The pictures you see are always of the overcrowding, and the numbers are almost always of the total interned. What most miss is the number who are held beyond 72 hours. That number is much smaller. It's a problem, don't get me wrong. Both parties are culpable. So are we.

500 kids in a 32 person cage

@johncitizen1

I looked for the numbers on how many are held beyond 72 hours, but couldn’t find them. I don’t feel like spending more than a few minutes on this if you are not interested.

What would you suggest? Should we build less jail-like housing along the border, anticipating 10’s of thousands of children? And when they don’t come, do we just leave them empty? That would be a great photo-op. Either way, it doesn’t tell the part of the story were ICE detention has decreased from 50K to 16K in 2 years.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/01/982815269/beyond-the-border-fewer-immigrants-being-locked-up-but-ice-still-pays-for-empty-

Also, it ignores heroes like this, people who do something instead of pointing fingers,

Sister Norma Pimentel, executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, said the Border Patrol has sent around 50 to 80 families to her shelter daily since Jan. 27, rising to 150 families on Wednesday. Most remain only briefly at the shelters before connecting with relatives or friends elsewhere in the United States, she said.

It took all of 5 secs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-56405009

How many children are being detained?
As of 21 March, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents were holding more than 15,500 unaccompanied children in custody, according to US media.

Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has said these camps, which are often compared to jails or warehouses, are “no place for a child”.

At least 5,000 children have been kept for over 72 hours, the legal limit after which they are meant to be transferred to the custody of health officials in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Mr Mayorkas blames pandemic restrictions and abnormally cold weather in Texas for the delay.

We have the same sort of situation in France. French law forbids the civil service to send back in their country isolated minor. Parents organize the sending of them. the result is that the system is unable to cope with them. Minors sleep in street and are in danger, or are used by gangs. Girls coming is organized by pimps.

Roughly 41 000 minors are hosted for an annual cost of 5 Milliards of euros ( 5 000 000 000 : a little more in $) . they were 10 000 in 2015.

 

 

How many children are being detained? -- Citizen
These are not the numbers I was looking for. I was looking for how many are detained, not just beyond 72 hours, but 144 hours, a month, and the very few that are held longer than that.

You also avoided my other questions. As I said, if you want to focus on one statistic and indict the entire system and the entire country based on that, go ahead. That’s just getting angry to get angry.

“I looked for the numbers on how many are held beyond 72 hours, but couldn’t find them.”

“I looked for the numbers on how many are held beyond 72 hours, but couldn’t find them.” – Yes, I said that

– Then I said this: These are not the numbers I was looking for. I was looking for how many are detained, not just beyond 72 hours, but 144 hours, a month, and the very few that are held longer than that.

When I’m having a dialog with someone and my desires are to learn and to understand the other person, I allow them a chance to clarify themselves. If they get real sensitive when their technically correct response did not respond to what I was thinking, then I wonder if they care about what I think. And I wonder if I should go see what they’re serving over there, across the room, away from them.

 

You could have said thanks for the information. What about 144 hours and so on. But you didnt. You chose to be antagonistic and put it back on me inferring that i made the mistake which i clearly did not.

 

 

“These are not the numbers I was looking for” is a play on Star Wars from 1977, “These are not the droids you are looking for”. It’s also descriptive of what I was doing and clarified my earlier post. I didn’t “infer” anything until you came back with a post that was nothing other than a quote of me. I know what I typed, and if I forget, I can look back. This is an informal setting, so I don’t obligate myself to say “my understanding of your statement is” or “for the purposes of clarification” every time. You didn’t “make the mistake”, it’s perfectly normal for conversation to not be perfectly with every line.