6-Year Old Girl Sexually Abused in Arizona (ICE) Detention Facility - Polidicks

meanwhile we got one slinging shit like a chimpanzee on crack throughout polidicks...

Why shouldn't they? It's not like they're going to get banned.

Legit question, how was ICE during the Obama years? Obviously Trump added attention to this area, but what policies have changed to make conditions A) Worse and, if conditions are about the same, B) Trump directly responsible for this, but Obama not? I know Trump has tried to combat sanctuary cities, but what else has happened? Increased ICE activity in general or what? I guess I just have a hard time believing these detention facilities popped up over the last 1.5 years, or at least became much, much more hellish than during the preceding period. I guess there's a larger point to be made about Republicans and immigration that makes them more responsible for this area of policy than the democrats, but suggesting Trump should be put in front of a firing squad and that these places are "concentration camps" kinda make me question why more attention wasn't placed on improving these facilities (if they existed) during the Obama years, or at least what efforts were made to improve them (but potentially blocked by the GOP or whatever). Not an area of policy I'm well-versed in, so I'm curious.

'Put your alternate reality aside and discuss things that actually happened'. If I had a hypocrisy detector, it would have violently exploded right now.

Under Obama, ICE activity and deportations increased, but it was by somewhat modest levels. Under Obama's ICE, accusations of sexual and physical abuse of minors in custody occurred. However, since Trump took office, ICE activity has increased multiple times over, and most importantly, non-criminal (other than immigrating illegally) illegal immigrant apprehensions have increased by at least an order of magnitude. And that's before we even bring up the Trump administration's twin policies of a) treating asylum seekers the same as illegal immigrants, and b) separating all illegal immigrant children (including asylum seekers) from their parents (including asylum seekers), the latter since retracted by Trump after claiming Congress had to do it.

Not to be pedantic, but do you have time to post some sources on those claims? The separating children from parent policy you don't need to, but according to Pew, arrests have risen under Trump, but they're still lower than during most of the Obama years: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/185359/03c63223-e611-4fbb-b3d8-4f4828d1297f/image.png ICE immigration arrests increased in 2017 | Pew Research Center Perhaps they have risen dramatically in 2018, but yeah. Arrests of non-criminal illegal immigrants are up, but not by an order of magnitude, it would seem: "Over the first full 14 months of the Trump administration, 69% of undocumented immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had a criminal record. Over the final two years of the Obama administration, that number was 86%. ICE agents have arrested an average of 4,143 undocumented immigrants without a criminal record each month under the Trump administration. In the final two years under Obama, the agents averaged 1,703 a month." ICE arresting more non Border apprehensions also seem to be in line with previous years: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/southwest-border-apprehensions-final.jpg https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/sw-border-apprehensions-by-fiscal-year.jpg https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/the-stats-on-border-apprehensions/ I'm not trying to be a contrarian here, and it's pretty obvious that Trump's immigration policy is a lot harsher than what was seen during the later years of the Obama administration - and I guess if you extrapolate the numbers, they could return to pre-Obama magnitudes at the end of Trump's presidency. With that said, I can't find numbers to back up your post; that doesn't mean they don't exist (this was just me spending maybe 15 minutes on Google, after all), but I'd like to see them.

"all of them" There is going to be an unironic response like that and the knowledge of it makes me really sad (and I don't even in live in the USA).

You've gotta be making this up, I can't even picture the worst of the worst types of humans genuinely defend child rape and even support it on this level

People will vote for pedophiles as long as they aren't democrats.

I'd say that I believe everyone has their limits but clearly the types of people who believe that idea really do not have any limits as long as it is on their team

they never will

You should probably keep in mind that under Trump, ICE is far less transparent than it was under Obama. One of the biggest issues with separating children from their parents, for example, was the fact they didn't keep ANY paperwork on them at all. So we can't even tell who those childrens' parents are or whether any children in ICE's care have disappeared.

arresting asylum seekers is illegal under the 1953 UN convention of refugees which we are a signatory.

What kind of paperwork didn't they keep (and source, please)? And are you suggesting that a government agency is straight-up not registering their numbers of arrests/apprehensions? What would be the purpose of that? Trump wants to crack down on immigration, so higher numbers would reflect success, right? I'm afraid I'm gonna need a source on that, too.

There's no need to source this because it's mentioned in quite a lot of the articles centered around separating children from their parents. It's been effectively sourced repeatedly as it is. You're too focused on being a skeptic and sources here. This is Trump we're talking about. He doesn't give a shit about the rule of law and has repeatedly violated international laws as it is. He has a history of doing shitty things and we know that ICE didn't keep paperwork on the children under his watch. On top of that we know that ICE has been so opaque under his rule that even Congressmen, people who pretty well have a right to oversee their facilities, have been denied access to their facilities and basically been told to just trust their numbers. It'd be incredibly naive to take their words at face value. As for a source: It's kinda difficult to source something when they're being as stubborn as possible about being transparent. You just have to use your brain here to connect the dots because none of that information is public. I've been seeing you do this a lot recently actually and it really gives a bad impression of you honestly. You come across as the whole "enlightened centrist" sort of person and it really undermines your actual concerns because it comes across as totally insincere. You're not stupid so we shouldn't be needing to connect the dots for you like this. It's this sort of attitude that allows Trump to get away with as much as he does as it is and it needs to stop.

When it happens to one of their own.

Well, give me one, then. I've read a bunch of articles and honestly I haven't seen it mentioned that people weren't being registered (or whatever you mean by "paperwork"). The numbers I posted are from (what I can tell) well-respected, non-partisan sources, and they don't mention ICE suddenly changing the way they count arrests or apprehensions. There's a difference between an agency becoming less transparent and them completely faking numbers. Trump isn't in charge of counting these numbers, and you still haven't given a reason why'd they even have an interest in faking them. Furthermore, they reflect a definite increase in arrests, especially on non-criminal illegal immigrants. Elix mentioned some pretty concrete increases ("an order of magnitude"), and I'm simply asking where he got those from, because I can't find them (though there seem to have been increases). What a completely unfounded accusation. Go back in my post history if you feel the need to remind yourself of my political convictions (Hint: I'm in favour of taxes north of 50% for some income segments, free education, free healthcare, childcare, gun control etc.). I'm simply asking for a couple of sources here (so I did in one other thread (so much for "a lot"), and no one's bothered responding with even a link to an opinion piece (though I had a good discussion with Resonant, no ill will here). Both times I've been asked to "think about it/connect the dots" - in an age of "fake news", is it really me who is being unreasonable here? I'm no fan of the Fuck-Trumpet in the White House, but I'm not a fan of "We don't need no sources" either. Sorry, but I'm not gonna take the word of some random forum user on "a government agency is totally faking their numbers", I'm gonna need something slightly more concrete.

The hundreds of abuse claims in the ACLU report, cited in the OP's article, are all from Obama's tenure. It's also not like this information just popped up recently. There were plenty of reports that were totally ignored during his tenure. These centers have been shit shows from the very beginning, but for some reason, people only seemed to start caring when Trump was the one in charge.

The issue is that just about any article on the subject, excluding the earliest ones before it came to light, at the very least mention this in passing. So it's clear you didn't bother doing any research into it on your own to begin with. Which leads into this: The issue is that you're refusing to see what's happening under the guise of "wanting sources" and in conjunction with stuff like the above as well as the fact that there's been like DOZENS of articles on this subject posted on Facepunch across the past several months, most of which mention the paperwork thing, it just totally comes across as arguing in bad faith. You're either being completely dishonest in your arguing, or you're totally ignorant on a subject you could have very easily been informed on and are still weighing in with your opinion despite not being informed. And you have done this sort of thing on several occasions recently. It really shouldn't be our responsibility to provide you evidence of shit that has been backed up frequently enough in the past to essentially become common knowledge by now. At that point it's up to you. There's also a difference between faking numbers and only releasing some numbers. If shit isn't getting documented then it's more difficult to report on that stuff. Except ICE's actions are a direct result of Trump's commands? I'm really not sure how you're so unable to see this because it's really not even that unclear.

People started caring when the amount of abuse increased significantly and began to impact, specifically, children. I wonder what for some reason could be.

It's almost like when people don't know about something in the first place it's difficult to care about it, huh? I can't speak for others but I'd have had an issue with it during Obama's presidency if I'd known about it. And I think most other people here would have as well. Though of course you're glossing over the fact it's still worse under Trump anyways. Not that any of this is actually a surprise coming from you.

As I said, there were reports about it during Obama's tenure. This information isn't new. For example, here's a report from 2014: https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/04/2014-10-IC-IACHR_Karnes_Report.pdf

Reports about it != widespread public awareness. You kinda couldn't have missed my point more and I'm not certain how considering I even pointed out that I'd have had an issue with it during Obama's presidency too if I'd been aware of it.

So why didn't the media pick up on it?

And then proceeded to claim people (implying generally, not media) only started caring when Trump was in office. Surely you can see the issue here? You'd have had a better point if you'd left out that last bit our modified it to specify the media as well. With the way people around here view you it'd have gone over a lot better because it sounds far less partisan and accusatory of anyone who was simply unaware of the issue at the time.

I mean, that's simply false. I was referring to the same "people" I had specifically pointed to in the sentence literally proceeding it.

(Looks like you edited as I was replying, lol.) No, I haven't personally classified them as concentration camps myself anyways but from what I've seen, people are largely using that in regards to separating children from their parents the way the Trump administration has. ICE under Obama did this to a more limited degree and that was still shitty but I think it being so much less widespread of an issue would exclude them from really counting as concentration camps.

I literally said in my first post that this is not an area of policy I'm well-versed in - I've sorta kept up with it, but not truly (I don't even live in the US - should I expect you to have complete knowledge of immigration in Denmark or what?). Could you please just post one of the articles that mention it, so I don't have to go search for it myself. I did a search when you first mentioned it, but didn't find anything, and honestly I don't think it's my job to spend time finding sources that support your statements when you could so easily do it yourself. There's no "guise" here - I've been asking for sources for pretty specific claims. Elix made a bunch of claims that I couldn't verify with what I found, so I asked what his sources were on that. Even if ICE is so opaque that the data cited by Pew and Factcheck can't be trusted, it seemed safe to assume that elix had some other source that could support ICE activity increasing "multiple times" and specifically arrests of non-criminal illegal immigrants by "at least an order of magnitude". It's also possible that elix definition of "ICE activity" is not at all reflected in the data I've found - after all he said "ICE activity" increased during the Obama years, while the opposite is reflected in what I posted (though I didn't include deportations). I honestly think I'm being pretty civil here: And I'm sure elix' lack of response is just him having a life somewhere else. Which is completely fine. Now you come to pick up the tab and we get spun into a completely different discussion. You said they didn't keep "any paperwork on them", I asked what kind of paperwork, and for some reason instead of just asking that simple question, we need to have a long discussion about how I should already know, and I'm probably arguing in bad faith and yadda yadda. You also claimed that ICE is less transparent now (sounds reasonable enough, though pretty vague) and therefore numbers are not to be trusted. The latter is a pretty grandiose claim, but again I'm just supposed to accept it, even though multiple reputable sites (Pew, Factcheck and Politifact (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/19/have-deportations-increased-under-donald-trump-her/)) use the exact same numbers without one word on their validity: I'm gonna ask why you won't document any of these claims. Supposedly it's just because I'm the dumbest moron this side of the planet, but please, just post a couple of the sources you've obviously got on the back burner, so I can get on with my life here.

they started caring when little kids got separated from their parent when the big orange directly ordered it

I'm not sure how you would fail to find them. Google https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-cant-guarantee-immigrants-will-get-their-kids-back https://qz.com/1341546/family-separation-711-children-over-age-5-have-not-been-reunited-with-their-parents/ And those are just some of the first results that come up after basically no effort in searching. Then why weigh in on it like you are without first having taken the time to educate yourself on the subject? You don't come across terribly well at all when you jump into a topic uneducated like that then insist others educate you. If immigration in Denmark was suddenly a hot enough topic to have dozens of articles posted on it then chances are I'd actually read the articles so I had an idea on what's happening. And if I didn't then I'd, y'know, refrain from making claims on the topic. You seem to be missing the implications of "less transparent" here. It means that the numbers we do have may not be accurate because we don't have all the information. It's like a lie though omission. It may not technically be a lie but it sure as hell ain't the truth. I don't bother documenting any of the claims because I have no interest in doing your reserach for you. It's not like I keep a collated database of all relevant articles and it's far from unreasonable to expect someone to have looked into shit before weighing in on a subject. Still missing the point. I specifically mentioned the skepticism you show constantly. You could look up and see the sky is blue but you won't believe that until you're given evidence of it. That's kinda my point here. It comes across as very dishonest at best. And then in a thread like that you combine it with your asking for sources on claims that are literally common knowledge at this point and it doesn't come across as arguing in good faith in the least.