The Political Satire/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 13,689 comments
  • 750,067 views
Still, I asked you something and you've deflected. What's the point of having armed guards if not to make that threat very clear? What happens in the event that one of these people decides they really don't want to be held anymore and attempts to escape? Can you guarantee one or more of these armed guards doesn't shoot and kill this individual? If so, how?


That they're being held under threat of execution by armed guard without indictment or criminal trial. They're ostensibly being held because they've committed the act of unlawful entry (which is necessary to apply for affirmative asylum when lawful entry is deemed not possible, and by law they can't be discriminated against because of their means of entry when applying for affirmative asylum) but there have been no criminal proceedings. Unless you can demonstrate that there have.


I mean...you have a 50/50 shot at guessing and I dare say you really don't need a coin.
Alright, to answer your question: Yes, there is a clear threat if people do want to escape. People are in fear because they know that if they try to escape they'll be shot? Fair enough. The point of having the guards is to ensure that illegal entry into the country doesn't occur. But what is the solution for all these people at the border? What do you propose should be done to house these people in a safe environment?

That isn't the function of all concentration camps. They're simply temporary (or semi-temporary) prisons in which large numbers of people are kept pre-judice by the state. If you pretend that the Nazi camps are the only concentration camps of the last 150 years then your claim still doesn't work.
Oh, so why do we associate the term "concentration camps" with Nazi death camps? Most people, when they hear the term, think of Auschwitz which was technically a death camp. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
 
images


This is what Area 51 is hiding from us
 
Based on the fact EDIT: my observation that it's largely Americans who don't see that the border camps are concentration camps by definition: do you think Americans-in-general are aware of any historical concentration camps aside from the Nazi death camps?
Aside from the Nazis, the Soviets and other Communist regimes killed lots of people. But these weren't called concentration camps.

I think most Americans think Nazi when asked about concentration camps.
 
Alright, to answer your question: Yes, there is a clear threat if people do want to escape. People are in fear because they know that if they try to escape they'll be shot? Fair enough.
And that's the crux of the matter for me. More on that below.

The point of having the guards is to ensure that illegal entry into the country doesn't occur.
Nope.

These are guards at dedicated facilities containing those who have already gained entry into the country. Other guards actually monitor and/or patrol the borders.

The purported function of these facilities is as a way station to determine where those held are to be transferred, be it to the next phase of the asylum or deportation process. But given this administration's recent moves to change the asylum process, as well as its efforts in the recent past, it sure seems like these facilities are merely aiding a stall tactic, using people as pawns. And this administration and the side of the legislative branch that supports it have demonstrated they're not above holding people hostage in an effort to get their way; it seems to me there's a relevant political cartoon...

ows_154785679119072.jpg


But what is the solution for all these people at the border? What do you propose should be done to house these people in a safe environment?
Why house them? What's wrong with giving them an opportunity to acquire legal counsel? And if you're of the belief that those released will fail to appear for respective hearings, why is monitoring not an option?
 
These are guards at dedicated facilities containing those who have already gained entry into the country. Other guards actually monitor and/or patrol the borders.

The purported function of these facilities is as a way station to determine where those held are to be transferred, be it to the next phase of the asylum or deportation process. But given this administration's recent moves to change the asylum process, as well as its efforts in the recent past, it sure seems like these facilities are merely aiding a stall tactic, using people as pawns. And this administration and the side of the legislative branch that supports it have demonstrated they're not above holding people hostage in an effort to get their way; it seems to me there's a relevant political cartoon...

ows_154785679119072.jpg



Why house them? What's wrong with giving them an opportunity to acquire legal counsel? And if you're of the belief that those released will fail to appear for respective hearings, why is monitoring not an option?
So they're being held WITHIN the country instead of at the border. Right. These people are claiming asylum and aren't getting through due to this "stalling". Have I got that right? And no, I'm not of the belief that these asylum seekers will fail to appear for their respective hearings. Nor do I think that monitoring is not an option for them. I know that Trump's hard line approach is making things worse for the genuine asylum seekers; he seems to think that all of them are "illegal aliens" who bring in "drugs and crime". Look I'm sure they are some who do but most are legitimate, right?
 
Aside from the Nazis, the Soviets and other Communist regimes killed lots of people. But these weren't called concentration camps.

They were called concentration camps, that's what they were. So were the ones run by America and Britain. They'd been called that since the British started using them in Africa many many years before. In more recent history concentration camps (think of the Bosnian conflict) have been called that. They're densely populated internment camps.

I think most Americans think Nazi when asked about concentration camps.

I can see the point that @Danoff is making, we're supposed to link the concentration camps at the American border with the death camps run by the Nazis, but that creates a problem: it's obviously deniable that they're Nazi-style concentration camps as the US government clearly has no interest in executing the prisoners. But that distracts from the fact the concentration camps are a heavy-handed, inappropriate way to treat these non-combatants. By correctly denying the Nazi connection it seems that the issue of the camps is then closed, and it shouldn't be.
 
Aside from the Nazis, the Soviets and other Communist regimes killed lots of people. But these weren't called concentration camps.

I think most Americans think Nazi when asked about concentration camps.

Concentration camps appeared long before the Nazis.

Americas detention centres dont even come close to the Nazi ones. Yes the conditions are horrible and awful but they are not death camps and neither is trump the next hitler.

Who first used concentration camps is still up for debate numerous examples have been pitched in.

-American reserves of Native Americans.

-Use of concentration camps by the Spanish to quell Cuban independance fighters

-British use of Concentration camps in the Boer war

German concentration camp of Shark Island in Namibia is also used as the first example of a death camp.

In reality the American migrant detention centres will never compare at all to the ones in the past especially Auschwitz.

Nazis were so serious about exterminating in an industrial scale that they put enormous amounts of resources into their concentration/death camps.
 
"Something something political correctness something something."

--broflake

In all seriousness, there's a neat story behind that image.


In a recently much circulated image of a 1950’s-era color poster, Superman can be seen speaking to school children about the importance of respecting diversity. Only a tiny number of these posters are thought to still exist and little information remains about how the poster came to be. But what we do know is that it was not the original source of that powerful image and statement. In 1949, DC (National Comics) produced this same image and text originally for a 12 x 18” brown paper school book cover that was distributed to schools by the Institute for American Democracy, an offshoot of the Anti-Defamation League. While the author of Superman’s reminder of the American creed is unknown, the art is believed to be by noted Superman artist Wayne Boring.

1949 was also the year that DC began publishing, in conjunction with the National Social Welfare Assembly, a long running series of public service messages using its characters in the pages of its comic books.

Earlier this year, our intrepid art team here at the DC office digitally restored the poster, offering a much larger and clearer image of this classic piece of art that embodies a core value that we as Americans hold so dear.

Superman_American_599fc05023f332.03698933.jpg
 
Last edited:
Boris is literally what would happen if you programmed trump to like tea and crumpets.

Although yes tradition dictates that there doesn't need to be an election, I would say we need one. Some 100k Tory party members were all that decided this one and with May it wasn't even that. The MP's decided and everyone dropped out. I mean granted she did then hold an election, but only because she mistakenly thought the cards were in her favour. She wasn't required to call one till next year.
 
Back