Republican senator accuses immigration policy expert of hyperbole in condemning Trump's anti-immigration agenda. Expert stands firm, pointing to administration's own words and policies aiming to expel millions of US citizens.
I read a few pages but if you expected a random person to read an 18 page PDF, that’s on you. I didn’t feel a needed to read more to agree that what was being presented was a genocide even if it didn’t involve killing.
And while some kids have been separated from their parents as part of these deportations, I’ve not heard of a policy to do so. Many have been situations where one party is legal but the other isn’t. Same for sending them to random nations. While this happens, it’s not like it’s everyone. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it.
Attacking people isn’t going to get you the results you want. These deportations are already horrendous. I only disagree about calling it a genocide.
EDIT: Something you’ve made me question is if anything the US does to it’s immigrants could ever be qualified as a genocide. Kinda by definition immigrant means they came from elsewhere. Does genocide not require destruction of all or most of the entire culture, not just the portion in the US?
With the natives and Uyghurs, they either all or vast majority of them, reside within the country trying to erase the culture or group. AFAIK, that’s not the case for these immigrants. But we’ve got immigrants from all over the world and I don’t know the stats for all of them. It seems unlikely though.
EDIT EDIT: I re-read the legal definition of genocide and it does say “in part” so maybe it could qualify. But now I wonder how much “in part” it must be to qualify. Can’t just be any amount or the definition loses its meaning.
I’m glad you read it in part, any is better than nothing. I think a good example in reply to “they either all or vast majority of them, reside within the country trying to erase the culture or group. AFAIK, that’s not the case for these immigrants,” not all Jews were in Germany, disabled people as well, but those were still genocides.
From the text before the pdf:
The statute has four special intent requirements: intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such.
So it’s targeted violence on people based on those properties. That would also mean the inverse, that is “the intent to destroy, in whole or part, all that do not fall under a specific nationality, ethnic, racial or religious group.” It’s a bunch of separate genocides grouped under one label.
not all Jews were in Germany, disabled people as well, but those were still genocides.
That’s true. And it’s not like we don’t have a lot of immigrants.
Not sure we clear the intent to destroy bar though. It goes back to what I said before. I don’t see the destroy part being systematic, though it does happen. They just don’t care what happens. That could change though.
I read a few pages but if you expected a random person to read an 18 page PDF, that’s on you. I didn’t feel a needed to read more to agree that what was being presented was a genocide even if it didn’t involve killing.
And while some kids have been separated from their parents as part of these deportations, I’ve not heard of a policy to do so. Many have been situations where one party is legal but the other isn’t. Same for sending them to random nations. While this happens, it’s not like it’s everyone. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it.
Attacking people isn’t going to get you the results you want. These deportations are already horrendous. I only disagree about calling it a genocide.
EDIT: Something you’ve made me question is if anything the US does to it’s immigrants could ever be qualified as a genocide. Kinda by definition immigrant means they came from elsewhere. Does genocide not require destruction of all or most of the entire culture, not just the portion in the US?
With the natives and Uyghurs, they either all or vast majority of them, reside within the country trying to erase the culture or group. AFAIK, that’s not the case for these immigrants. But we’ve got immigrants from all over the world and I don’t know the stats for all of them. It seems unlikely though.
EDIT EDIT: I re-read the legal definition of genocide and it does say “in part” so maybe it could qualify. But now I wonder how much “in part” it must be to qualify. Can’t just be any amount or the definition loses its meaning.
I’m glad you read it in part, any is better than nothing. I think a good example in reply to “they either all or vast majority of them, reside within the country trying to erase the culture or group. AFAIK, that’s not the case for these immigrants,” not all Jews were in Germany, disabled people as well, but those were still genocides.
From the text before the pdf:
So it’s targeted violence on people based on those properties. That would also mean the inverse, that is “the intent to destroy, in whole or part, all that do not fall under a specific nationality, ethnic, racial or religious group.” It’s a bunch of separate genocides grouped under one label.
That’s true. And it’s not like we don’t have a lot of immigrants.
Not sure we clear the intent to destroy bar though. It goes back to what I said before. I don’t see the destroy part being systematic, though it does happen. They just don’t care what happens. That could change though.