+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Politics (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: General Politics Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=66)
RE: General Politics Discussion - robdrimmie - 07-03-2018
There was a CBC article about the times Canada separates children from parents during immigration process a couple of weeks ago: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-detention-children-united-states-1.4709632
Around the same time there was a Vox article that compares family separation under Trump and Obama: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border
By my reading the base claims that separating immigrant families has been happening for years is true, but the way the US Government did so between April and June of 2018 was very different than historical practices in either country.
RE: General Politics Discussion - SammyOES - 07-03-2018
Yeah, this matches my understanding as well. Which is very different than what Jeffster said. The same thing did NOT happen under Obama and is NOT happening in Canada. A policy of separating children and a policy of not separating children except in very specific circumstances are NOT the same.
I'll also note the way subtle untruths worm their way into people like Jeffster's arguments. He said: "Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up.". But the Vox article you linked to shows the actual truth:
![[Image: FY18_May_Graphic.jpg]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11576733/FY18_May_Graphic.jpg)
"Obama was faced with a genuine increase in children and families coming to the US; Trump just decided that typical numbers were unacceptable"
So, Jeffster, my question remains. I'd love to know what your sources are for your comments.
Edit: Also add this quote from Vox:
"It’s worth noting, by the way, that if this chart went back to 2000 or so, the past few years would all look pretty small in terms of border crossings. Unauthorized immigration into the US is still way down from historical levels."
RE: General Politics Discussion - jeffster - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:39 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Yeah, this matches my understanding as well. Which is very different than what Jeffster said. The same thing did NOT happen under Obama and is NOT happening in Canada. A policy of separating children and a policy of not separating children except in very specific circumstances are NOT the same.
I'll also note the way subtle untruths worm their way into people like Jeffster's arguments. He said: "Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up.". But the Vox article you linked to shows the actual truth:
"Obama was faced with a genuine increase in children and families coming to the US; Trump just decided that typical numbers were unacceptable"
So, Jeffster, my question remains. I'd love to know what your sources are for your comments.
Edit: Also add this quote from Vox:
"It’s worth noting, by the way, that if this chart went back to 2000 or so, the past few years would all look pretty small in terms of border crossings. Unauthorized immigration into the US is still way down from historical levels."
For your viewing pleasure (and I assume this is what you were referring to).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2017/05/02/whos-really-crossing-the-u-s-mexico-border/#62eaa50d30c2
My main point though was that detaining children into prison-like settings has happened in Canada, and with previous administrations in the USA. Is it worse now than before? For sure, but there was (and is) very little coverage of it prior to this, and personally, I find it disingenuous that only now are people talking about it. It really is like we didn't care about these kids before (and really, we didn't).
RE: General Politics Discussion - jeffster - 07-03-2018
(07-02-2018, 02:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That being said, you're right, the ratio of men to women is pretty sad within the elected representatives of the PC party as well. The cabinet does match that low standard.
True. Perhaps this is an issue the PC's need to look at. At the national level, Liberals female MP's won 48% of the total seats that the Liberals won, so mixing the cabinet 50-50 what have been relatively easy.
RE: General Politics Discussion - danbrotherston - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 05:03 PM)jeffster Wrote:(07-03-2018, 02:39 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Yeah, this matches my understanding as well. Which is very different than what Jeffster said. The same thing did NOT happen under Obama and is NOT happening in Canada. A policy of separating children and a policy of not separating children except in very specific circumstances are NOT the same.
I'll also note the way subtle untruths worm their way into people like Jeffster's arguments. He said: "Only difference is that their is a huge crises in central America, and more Latino's are flowing through Mexico and into the USA, and so the numbers are up.". But the Vox article you linked to shows the actual truth:
"Obama was faced with a genuine increase in children and families coming to the US; Trump just decided that typical numbers were unacceptable"
So, Jeffster, my question remains. I'd love to know what your sources are for your comments.
Edit: Also add this quote from Vox:
"It’s worth noting, by the way, that if this chart went back to 2000 or so, the past few years would all look pretty small in terms of border crossings. Unauthorized immigration into the US is still way down from historical levels."
For your viewing pleasure (and I assume this is what you were referring to).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2017/05/02/whos-really-crossing-the-u-s-mexico-border/#62eaa50d30c2
My main point though was that detaining children into prison-like settings has happened in Canada, and with previous administrations in the USA. Is it worse now than before? For sure, but there was (and is) very little coverage of it prior to this, and personally, I find it disingenuous that only now are people talking about it. It really is like we didn't care about these kids before (and really, we didn't).
You're intentionally misrepresenting the situations that occurred before.
And very few people today argue that things like residential schools (which are broadly similar to what's being done today), are morally or ethically acceptable.
Suggesting we don't care because in a different situation the same action might be taken simply isn't true. I mean, I also don't suggest sending children to prison with their guilty of a crime parent or guardian, but I'm not going to use that to try and make justify or at least make a political statement about the intentional horror that Trump is inflicting today.
RE: General Politics Discussion - SammyOES2 - 07-03-2018
Jeffster, could you provide a quote from that article that says what you said? Because it seems to me to say the opposite of what you claimed. The immigration numbers are down and not up like you said.
And, I’m not really sure how you can claim that separating children in specific exceptional circumstances (like when a parent has drugs or weapons on them) is the same as doing it as a matter of policy in all cases. Do you see the difference?
It’s not disingenuous to say that it’s a bad thing to happen whenever but sometimes you’re only left with bad options. What is disingenuous is claiming numbers are up and then linking an article that says numbers are down.
RE: General Politics Discussion - SammyOES2 - 07-03-2018
Like if the government started taking children away from parents of a different political party it would be pretty stupid to argue that it’s not a big deal because we already take kids away from abusive parents.
RE: General Politics Discussion - embe - 07-03-2018
A topic about politics and holy smokes wouldn't you know it! There's a bit of disagreement, some data subject to interpretation, and a whole lot of emotion. On par
RE: General Politics Discussion - jeffster - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 08:07 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Jeffster, could you provide a quote from that article that says what you said? Because it seems to me to say the opposite of what you claimed. The immigration numbers are down and not up like you said.
And, I’m not really sure how you can claim that separating children in specific exceptional circumstances (like when a parent has drugs or weapons on them) is the same as doing it as a matter of policy in all cases. Do you see the difference?
It’s not disingenuous to say that it’s a bad thing to happen whenever but sometimes you’re only left with bad options. What is disingenuous is claiming numbers are up and then linking an article that says numbers are down.
We're talking about kids being put into 'internment' camps, which has been going on for a long time. I'm not sure why we keep going back to immigration. Kids are being separated from their parents. They are put into these camps, locked up like animals. This has been going on for a long time. It's only making 'news' now. Yes, one explanation is that the numbers (OF CHILDREN BEING INCARCERATED), not necessarily due to higher immigration numbers, but policy-making (or at least, the enforcing of such).
When it comes to children, there shouldn't be a difference for whatever their parents did. Whether they crossed illegally into the country, their dad is an ax murderer, or mom smuggled 100KG of cocaine into the country. These are children. Had these kids been naturalized children, would they go to jail? Does any kid in Canada or the US go to some sort of jail because of his or her parents? No, they don't. A parent's stupid decision should not have an effect on the child in such a way. Policy or no policy, the severity of the crime, shouldn't make a difference. What Trump is doing is wrong. But what Obama did was wrong too, same with Trudeau, same with Harper, and however for this goes back.
As for the article linking, it was in reference to something else; as for disingenuous, it's in reference to children being locked up.
But, yeah, if it makes us sleep better at night knowing that it is acceptable to incarcerate children for their parents *alleged serious* crimes rather than simply crossing the border illegally to make themselves a better life, then fine. You feel this is fine, good for you. I don't.
RE: General Politics Discussion - Pheidippides - 07-03-2018
Of the 124 ridings in Ontario, 49 will be represented by women (39.5% the highest of any provincial legislature in the country).
4 of 7 Liberal MPPs are women (57.1%)
20 of 40 NDP MPPs are women (50.0%)
25 of 76 PC MPPs are women (32.9%)
The Ontario population is essentially 51%/49% women/men until you hit the older age groups.
As of the 2016 census Ontario, 30% of respondents identified as visible minorities.
7 of 20 appoint cabinet members are women (35.0%) which is higher than the proportion of female PC MPPs elected (32.9%), but lower than the proportion of female MPPs elected overall (39.5%).
I'd have no problem with the make-up of the cabinet if the MPPs and legislature actually made an honest attempt to understand issues from multiple perspectives and try and represent all of the people in their ridings, but I don't believe that will be the case and sometimes you can't even identify something as a "problem" unless you can experience an issue firsthand from a particular perspective. Lack of perspectives creates blindspots in policy and legislation that are only amplified by base ideology; not a good combination.
I said on another thread today that, privilege is invisible to those who have it. Some problems cannot truly be understood, let alone solved, unless you have that awareness and perspective brought to your attention. There is a lack of perspective in the cabinet. That is only ok if it is acknowledged and worked at hard to overcome; I don't see either happening.
This is a political machine that sweats the details about its image, down to limiting media availability of its leader and members. So to think that the make-up of the cabinet was simply an over-sight or some sort of coincidence is hard to believe. It was designed to send a message to its core supporters.
(07-02-2018, 02:16 PM)jeffster Wrote: Guess do we need to believe in equal outcome for this to happen, rather than equal opportunity?
No, we need to believe in equitable opportunity, not equal.
(07-02-2018, 02:16 PM)jeffster Wrote: so 40% out of the 20 spots are women/visible minorities(sic).
Why are you lumping these distinct and overlapping populations together? Would having 30% of cabinet visible minority and no women somehow make it ok?
(07-02-2018, 02:16 PM)jeffster Wrote: I, however, prefer equal opportunity, give the job to the most qualified.
I mean, who, if starting a business, and needs 50 workers, and has 200 applicants, 175 from men and 25 from women, would higher 25 women and 25 men? No, they'd hire the most quailed, if their business is important to them. Same thing here, not enough female MPP's one.
The problem is that not everyone is starting from the same starting line. It is an unfair race from the start. How many potential candidates didn't even get a chance to get on the ballot for their respective parties because of existing biases that perpetuate and ensure older-straight-white-male dominance?
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The idea that "nothing would be made of it" if it was Obama is absurd.
Obama couldn’t sneeze without Republicans claiming he was oppressing somebody. Meanwhile the current flagrantly corrupt occupant of the Oval Office gets a free pass.
RE: General Politics Discussion - embe - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 09:37 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The problem is that not everyone is starting from the same starting line. It is an unfair race from the start. How many potential candidates didn't even get a chance to get on the ballot for their respective parties because of existing biases that perpetuate and ensure older-straight-white-male dominance?
If the previous cartoon example is still posted, the toddler doesn't look too safe on two stacked crates while Dad cheers on the game. Responsible parents should not put their kids in dangerous situations whether it's illegal, dangerous, or both.
Your last sentence I'll ignore completely.
RE: General Politics Discussion - KevinL - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 10:06 PM)embe Wrote: If the previous cartoon example is still posted, the toddler doesn't look too safe on two stacked crates while Dad cheers on the game. Responsible parents should not put their kids in dangerous situations whether it's illegal, dangerous, or both.
Which is why many versions of the cartoon give a third image: where the opaque fence is replaced with wire, removing the systemic barrier entirely.
RE: General Politics Discussion - SammyOES2 - 07-03-2018
Jeffster, I’ve been around long enough to know it’s not worth discussing issues with people that speak lies and refuse to recognize the facts as laid out.
You want us to believe that you care about these children but you seem to have no desire to retract your lies and acknowledge the actual facts. You preach false equivalence of two situations that aren’t at all the same - and in doing so legitimize the clearly worse situation. Spare me your crocodile tears over the children because it’s blatantly obvious what you actually care about.
RE: General Politics Discussion - SammyOES2 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 09:12 PM)embe Wrote: A topic about politics and holy smokes wouldn't you know it! There's a bit of disagreement, some data subject to interpretation, and a whole lot of emotion. On par
Lol, what’s the data subject to interpretation? It’s clear that Jeffster was wrong with his original claim. The article he posted as his source confirmed he was wrong.