I agree with taking this conversation in this direction. We really need to be honest about the options & how to do the best possible job by unaccompanied minors. We can all agree, I think, that no child should be deported. So what's the next step to ensure they are safe & fed?
I think that, between letting them be homeless or being placed in a government facility while awaiting a guardian, the latter is the more humane option. But are there other options? Beefing up the potential for foster care, for example? Or would that be more problematic?
Another thing I think we should discuss is, even if we agree placing them in gov't care is the best option (out of several bad ones), how can we provide for them in the safest way possible and reduce aspects of "detention" while maximizing aspects of "care?"
Options for this are:
Maximizing transparency & legal aid
Maximizing privacy, providing education & healthcare, & minimizing "detention"
Are there other successful non-detention models in the U.S. for caring for children w/out guardians?
The foster care system largely replaced the orphanage system. There are plenty of problems w/ the current foster care system, tho some kids do have good experiences. There are also boarding schools and group placements for children in the system.
Surely there must be *some* success stories for group homes w/ good staff & protocols that contribute to an environment that is developmentally appropriate & more removed from a "detention" model. Maybe this is what we should be researching & advocating for?
Cause honestly I see a lot of people making one side of an argument & it seems more like posturing than anything else. I don't think we should let kids be homeless. I think we should care for them. There are also abundant issues w/ the current system. So, what do we advocate for?
Maybe you really do think the government should do nothing. If that's the case, I think you need to make an explicit argument why you believe letting children fend for themselves in a foreign country is the most humane response.
Keep in mind that the average age of unaccompanied minors is 11 years old, which means there are many children even younger than that arriving in the U.S. alone. Also keep in mind many do not speak English or have any money. So what do you think the most humane response is?
I'm not advocating for a detention based model, in case I've made that clear. I'm saying we should look to successful children's shelters in the U.S. for ideas.
There is also the prob of current immigration law, which I think should be changed. So, if we really want to do what's best for these kids to help them thrive in the US, we need to talk about what's possible w/in extant law, as well as how to change extant law to be more humane
And, while I'm here, do YOU know of a good example of a successful children's shelter? One where children are cared for & have autonomy? One that connects them w/ education & help w/ employment & housing? If so, I'd love to hear about it!
I do think one way to think about this is to remove yourself from the context of the U.S. How do you think a country like France should respond to child refugees who arrive without parents/guardians?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
HIV/AIDS didn't just decimate the LGBTQ community in terms of mass death. The bigoted stigma attached to it-in addition to generalized bigotry-made it almost impossible to come out. I am an older millennial & I remember being taught that it was ok to share air w/ an HIV+ person
I don't think that cishet people reflect enough on just what that meant for all LGBTQ people. First, one was already considered as deviant or a sinner by the dominant culture. Abused by parents & employers. It was nearly impossible to be fully "out." And then came HIV/AIDS.
I remember as a kid in the 90's, there was a deep, bigoted entanglement between being gay & AIDS in US culture. There was little compassion &, if it occurred, it was in whispers. There was also a distinction btwn AIDS victims who "deserved" it (gay men) vs. others (hemophiliacs)
1. This table shows a trend in which more people in younger generations self-id as "lesbian" or "trans" than in previous generations 2. The categories of "trans" and "lesbian" are not mutually exclusive & should not be compared as such, either by @GallupNews or by other analysts
A seemingly minor quibble but one which I think is important: Greenwald's description of these data makes them sound longitudinal, when they are in fact cross-sectional. The sample is from diff generations w/in a single moment of time, which is diff from showing change over time
If you accurately describe the cross-sectional data, you would say you saw a btwn-generation diff in self-id, such that more people id'd as "Lesbian" or "trans" in younger generations. Again, tho, we need to know if @GallupNews inaccurately treated "trans" as sexual orientation
This is frustrating and it goes beyond whether or not Tanden gets the OMB vote. The "mean tweets" we hear about don't exist. The "bots" who defend Neera are real people who don't like harassment. This comes down to people not wanting a woman to stand up for herself
I love how this whole debacle involves some so-called leftists uniting w/ conservatives on the one hand and, on the other, pretending to not understand how social media works. Yeah, Neera has friends on here. So does everyone.
But, seriously, again: show me the "mean tweets." As far as I can tell they don't exist and what's happening right now is people advancing a conservative narrative in order to take down a liberal woman. It's gross.
Listen geniuses, do you want state & local governments to mandate businesses check vaccine cards or not? Cause until we have something approaching herd immunity our options are 1. universal mask wearing or 2. mandating masks based on whether you can prove you've been vaccinated.
There are, of course, the unanswered questions of just how much a vaccinated person could transmit the virus to others. But the incidence of such transmission--if it occurs--will decrease exponentially w/ the onset of herd immunity.
So public health has 3 options:
1.remove restrictions; allow uncontrolled spread
2.lift restrictions; monitor unvaccinated people & prevent them from participating in society whereas vaccinated ppl are allowed to
3.Ask people to continue to put a tiny piece of cloth on their face
What even *is* the "Bernie wing of the party"? Are we talking about an online group of people who thrive on mass harassment or are we talking about progressives more generally? If it's the former, sure they hate Tanden. If it's the latter, there's not an issue here.
I keep hearing about the "Bernie wing" having some massive beef with Tanden, and, yet, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Lee, & many others--including several progressive economists--cheered her nomination to OMB.
So is the "Bernie wing" actually just the progressive wing or is it just a collection of anonymous trolls, podcasters, & Bernie's problematic ex-Comms staff? The latter collection of folks sure do hate Tanden, but. . . .
One of my favorite things about this is that it still would have been a dick move for the Cruzes to fly to Boston (cold, but with electricity), but the headlines would not have been nearly as sticky as WTF CANCUN?! "They went to BOSTON" just doesn't have the same punch.
The Cruzes could have picked nearly any place in the U.S. and they may have gotten criticized for it but the story would have faded. Instead they had to pick Cancun of all places & thus officially entered "Once he tied his dog on top of his car" territory.
republicans do monstrous things all the time and fly under the radar but every once in a while there's the one story that sticks. Typically unrelated to policy, but more to obvious character traits where people will almost universally be appalled or at least afflicted w/ side eye